The Exorcism of Emily Rose

LAURA LINNEY as Erin Bruner and TOM WILKINSON as Father Richard Moore in THE EXORCISM OF EMILY ROSE. Photo Credit: Diyah Pera ©2005 Screen Gems, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Was Emily Rose possessed or afflicted by a medical disorder that required clinical treatment and therapy? If that question sounds perfunctory, it is—intentionally. The way in which the subject of Emily Rose’s death is approached is with equal parts mysticism and fact. I’m pointing this out because generally, in real life, I tend to err on the side of facts. However, as a moviegoer, I’m willing to suspend my disbelief and instead judge the film on whether or not the characters who present the case before the audience (a jury in and of itself) can convince us—and they do, from both sides.

Tom Wilkinson plays Father Richard Moore, a priest charged with the negligent homicide of Emily Rose (Jennifer Carpenter) for allegedly failing to see to her adequate care. He, however, is less interested in his own acquittal than in an opportunity to impart upon the public, “What really happened to Emily and why.” Erin Bruner (Laura Linney) is Father Moore’s attorney. She’s interested simply in winning the case against the prosecution, led by Ethan Thomas (Campbell Scott).

Moore refuses to plea bargain with the prosecutors, which leaves Bruner the task of trying to argue against some heavy facts. Near the outset of the trial, at the Crescent County Courthouse, Emily’s neurologist explains he felt that her episodic seizures and fits of convulsion were symptomatic of epilepsy. Her first episode occurred after returning home from a dance where she had just met a boy, Jason (Joshua Close). What Emily experiences is shown in one of many flashbacks. The effects used during her violent episodes are rather interesting, as they don’t involve any hokey CG or other bland visual effects. Instead, these sequences are built mostly upon reliable physical effects and the contortionist skill of the actor, Jennifer Carpenter.

After the first incident, she’s sent to the hospital for observation by Dr. Briggs (Henry Czerny). He testifies in court that her cause of death was the cessation of her bodily functions. He uses the term “psychotic-epileptic disorder.” I immediately thought, “That’s not in the DSM (the Diagnostic & Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders).” In a less intelligent movie, Bruner might have failed to notice, as well… But the prosecutor, Thomas, is ready for this and hurls myriad expert diagnoses into the debate.

Jason explains that Emily was taken home after another episode. Jason’s a decent kid. He doesn’t give the impression of someone who is completely certain of what to believe. but he cares about Emily. Some interesting facts concerning Emily’s family history surface and present a medical challenge for Bruner. After spending a night figuring out how to argue her way out of the prosecutor’s adept cornering of her defense, she decides to change gears.

What if the issue of belief is, in fact, central to the defense? All that’s needed, as Bruner points out, is a reasonable doubt. The prosecuting attorney responds, “Why not find a witch doctor to sift through some monkey bones while we’re at it?”

Well, in a manner of speaking, she does. But you have to appreciate the way in which the defense’s spiritual expert, Dr. Adani (Shohreh Aghdashloo), seems to be someone who is educated on the conventional wisdom yet also firmly believes her own supernatural explanations as she’s submitting them before the jury. Again, we’re not debating the teaching of creationism in the science classroom, or any other attempts to substitute belief for fact. This expert opens the door to a different line of defense for Father Moore—that he was acting in accord with his beliefs. Whether that defense works or not, you’ll have to find out for yourself.

Before you begin to think that the film descends into a traditional which-lawyer-is-the-bigger-crank show trial, let me just say, speaking as a person who leans toward the empirical sciences more than mythological or spiritual constructs, that I find this movie considerably engaging here. It’s not easy to pry apart and compartmentalize the good and the bad. Both sides present some compelling arguments against the other. Minus some of the usual litany of objections from the prosecution, which are, of course, rebuffed with a litany of the requisite “I’ll allow it”s from the judge, both sides give as good as they get.

I thought perhaps they could do more with the explanation of the prescription drug, Gambutrol, which Emily’s neurologist prescribed to quell her symptoms. However, I acknowledge this is a minor concern as most audiences might be derailed from the central narrative if presented with too much detail about the pharmacology of a drug that represents only one piece of this puzzle. There’s not enough time to go into it, but the director doesn’t need to. This is a film with implications that are in and of themselves creepy enough. That is not to say the film isn’t overtly scary, but scares aren’t really the point here.

The whole affair casts doubt in any reasonable individual who’s willing to explore both sides of this argument. Normally, my friends would tell you they’d anticipate I would hate this film. However, as a critic, I have to put myself in the frame of Bruner, who herself experiences some weird events at the witching hour; in the mindset of poor Emily, whose combination of isolated, rural, religious upbringing, and her youth, make it more difficult to accept demonic possession as the only possible explanation; in the mindset of the jury, that has to, all things being equal, weigh the impact of belief on Father Moore’s choices. I find the decisions and reasons entirely consistent with each respective character’s psychology and set of experiences that are related to us in the context of the story. Whether or not the true story really is identical to the one on film is not so much my concern.

The actual exorcism itself doesn’t occupy so much screen time—as well it shouldn’t. We’ve all seen our share of these, most notably William Friedkin’s “The Exorcist.” I thought this film was genuinely more unsettling than the borderline slapstick and tawdry effects of Friedkin’s film. Here the question is kept in play, somewhere in the middle—without certainty—to keep you actively engaged in contemplating both possibilities rather than resigning yourself to one side or the other for the duration.

Bruner’s closing remarks include these simple, yet elegantly put words, “Ethan Thomas calls himself a man of faith. I am a woman of doubt.”

Skepticism is not the enemy of faith. Wanting to know is not the same as claiming to know, which is why I believe that some of the faithful are less open than they often claim, and some of the skeptical are more open to the spiritual possibilities, but are willing to scrutinize them. When it comes down to it, would you rather remain uncertain, or be certainly wrong?

You can’t be wrong if you don’t claim to be right.

The Exorcism of Emily Rose • Running Time: 1 hour 54 minutes • Dolby® Digital surround sound in select theatres • MPAA Rating: PG-13 for thematic material, including intense/frightening sequences and disturbing images. • Distributed by Screen Gems