The Exorcism of Emily Rose (2005)

I want to warn you that exorcism cases are some of my absolute favorite things to study and read. I will try to use more well-known cases for my comparisons here. 

This film was an interesting turn of exorcism events. Generally, we see these types of possession stories from start to the end of the possession - never the future and never sooner. Here, we primarily follow a court case with an exorcism and demonic possession secondary in the plotline. This film was inspired loosely by Anneliese Michel's case. The priests granted permission to exorcise were Ernst Alt and Arnold Renz. Unlike in the movie, both priests and Michel's parents were charged and put on trial. In a strange turn of events, the prosecution asked that the parents are found guilty of negligent homicide, but not sentenced and that both priests' sentences were lowered to manslaughter, but they were only to be fined. In the event you are not familiar with the case, I also want to make it known in the event this did NOT happen in the United States, and over 60 rituals were performed on Michel in less than a year.

I was whole-heartedly upset that Father Moore was found guilty in this film. I felt the defense presented an exorcism case in a court of law rather well. As a former Catholic, this whole film was an exciting twist on the taboo world of Catholic exorcism. Emily and her demonic possession was merely a secondary element to the story. The main story was about a priest on trial for doing his work. I also want to stress how difficult it truly is for an exorcism to be approved. The Catholic Church does not take the cases presented under exorcism lightly. They are not the type to approve many cases - even ones with very significant signs of demonic possession. It's one of the most bizarre things about Catholicism. There's a massive belief in evil in the religion and a comprehensive understanding of demonic power, yet they are very wary of allowing exorcisms to occur. I also would like to note that not every Catholic priest is a trained exorcist (they must attend schooling for this sacramental). It is also a known fact that in each case presented, the supposed possessed must undergo rigorous medical tests to rule out other health issues. In Rose's case, the same with Michel's, both were falsely diagnosed with mental illness. Might I also mention how rude this film was to psychosis? I probably shouldn't touch it. Moving on. 

Exorcisms approved are bound by anonymity and secrecy. One issue I noticed is in Catholicism, it is believed if an exorcism is not correctly closed, those who were part of it will remain affected by the demonic force(s). While we see Father Moore struggling with voices, apparitions, and the sinister witching hour, we don't get much more. Nor is it noted Emily's father or boyfriend experienced anything unusual after the exorcism was abandoned in the barn. The only one we saw take a hit (pun intended) in the film was the psychiatrist.

Most approved exorcism cases that are studied are not a one and done type. Often, it takes multiple exorcisms. And sadly, many times, the human possessed dies from the ritual or other circumstances such as malnourishment and personal inflicted death (I don't want to say suicide here for the sole purpose that they are possessed). Robbie Mannheim is an excellent example of multiple exorcisms. He had over thirty performed on him at the young age of thirteen/fourteen. He was eventually cleansed and is one of the most famous cases. He had no recollection of the possession. If you have seen The Exorcist, his case is what that film and novel (which you will read soon if you are in my term course) are loosely based on. 

It is common in demonic possession that the possessed speaks in a different voice and in tongues (or a language they would have never known), instances of inhuman strength, and the body bending or breaking in ways it could not be done if a person was left to its own devices. For Rose, we see all of these leading "symptoms." It is another point that often, especially in popular culture, religious people are the ones who fall victim to demons. Michael Taylor is another example of a faith believing man who claimed possession. His case resulted in priests claiming the exorcised over forty demonic spirits out of him but felt there were more. Later, Taylor murdered his wife and their dog. He was acquitted in court. In 2005, he resurfaced in the media for touching a girl and displayed similar symptoms to the ones he had before killing his wife.

For Emily, she has the opportunity to give up but did not. A plus for this movie is giving one abandoned exorcism. But, I have to thumb down to the lack of a more predominant exorcism process once a case has been approved. I have never read anything where if a person possessed denies an exorcism, it is not allowed or will not work. If anyone has any information or a case for that, please let me know. I would love to know if that is a factual element in this film.

My last remark is the ridiculous amount of rain in this film. The thunderstorm trope was quite literally used to death.

I feel it is just too hard to capture a case of demonic possession entirely in one film. This film did great with the twist it had of the court and case being the central portions and the exorcism being the support. I still prefer exorcism stories and cases over film adaptations for this reason. Maybe if they make a decent film series or TV show on one exorcism case, I may enjoy that. I genuinely feel demonic possession is too complicated to smash into two-three hours alone. Outside of all the presented exorcism requirements, the film worked because of the court case being the focus.