The Exegesis of Emily Rose
Dear Geoffrey,
I enjoyed The Exorcism of Emily Rose but not nearly as much as you did. The film certainly gave more work to the actors than most contemporary films with a supernatural element. It was enjoyable, though conventional and predictable. As you said, it didn't try to outdo The Exorcist but there are many strong similarities.
In both films the possessed person is not the figure of moral contestation, an observer is. In The Exorcist, the disillusioned priest Damian Karras (Jason Miller) is the character whose faith is weak and who is redeemed through combat with the demon.
In Emily Rose, it is Erin Bruner (Laura Linney) who moves from agnosticism to (possible) belief in the course of defending Father Moore (Tom Wilkinson). Both films stage a debate between science and faith. The doctors and scientists in both films are somewhat smug and discredited by events within the film.
In The Exorcist, suspense is generated by the uncertainty of whether Regan and those around her will survive the possession. In Emily Rose the possessed girl is already dead, so the suspense is more philosophical: will the spiritual or scientific explanation for the woman's death prevail?
Emily Rose adds a new element to the debate by including testimony from a researcher (Shohreh Aghdashloo) who argues for a scientific basis for possession. She offers a middle ground between faith and science. But she seems too privileged to be a proper witness. She also seems as smug as the doctor who preceded her. Plus, the actress is obviously dubbed and her performance is weak. The film simply drops her and her line of argument, although Bruner mentions her theories in her summation.
As for the predictable aspects, when Bruner says "I'm not a believer" early in the film I know it was her faith which would be tested, that she is the Karras figure. Also, the film sets up an obvious contrast between career-driven, amoral lawyering (which resulted in the acquittal of a man who later commits a double homicide) and principle-based lawyering more focused on her client.
When Bruner's boss (Colm Feore) essentially offers her a partnership in exchange for not allowing Father Moore to testify it's obvious Bruner will have to righteously rebel against her boss and "do the right thing" by letting the priest tell his story. No Hollywood film seems complete these days without some rebellion against authority figures.
Long before Bruner says it, it is clear that Emily Rose is aiming for the basic supernatural horror film theme: acceptance of the spirit world as a reality equal to the physical plane. Fair enough.
Hollywood films being a visual entertainment form, they pose abstract arguments in visual terms. This makes spiritual themes a tricky matter. Many supernatural films reduce this tricky matter to the problem of visual trickery: God (or the devil) is real if the special effects seem real. Hence, Hollywood's abiding interest in depicting miracles; God's CGI. Emily Rose, no less than The Exorcist, makes use of visual effects to convince us of an essentially spiritual question.
Although the comparison is unfair, Carl Dreyer's The Trial of Joan of Arc addresses the problem of faith more convincingly. Like Emily Rose, Joan is structured around a trial. Officials try to shake the accused of her belief of divine inspiration, much like the prosecutor (Campbell Scott) in Emily Rose tries to refute Father Moore's story of demonic possession. Joan's glowering prosecutors--raving in low-angle shots designed to make them seem more menacing--are much more over-the-top than the prosecutor in Emily Rose.
But since Joan is completely free of supernatural imagery (the film is austere in the extreme), the film does not affirm the truth or falsehood of Joan's claims by means of spectacle. We have to take them, well, on faith. Joan's refusal to renounce her divine purpose is as pure an act of faith as it is possible to dramatize. We are moved by authenticity and integrity of character rather than the power of visual spectacle.
Emilt Rose's deployment of the faith-vs-science theme has interesting resonances with contemporary history. The ongoing Creationism vs Evolution debate is an obvious one. As Skeptic Magazine publisher Michael Shermer wrote:
"You can believe in God and evolution as long as you keep the two in separate, logic-tight compartments. Belief in God depends on religious faith. Belief in evolution depends on empirical evidence."
("Why God's in a class by himself," Los Angeles Times, August 7, 2005, M5)
Emily Rose dramatizes a conflict between faith and empirical evidence. More interestingly, it depicts how Bruner tries to breach these two "logic-tight compartments" and use faith to counter empirical evidence.
But here is where deeper, more disturbing resonances can be found. The assertion that scientific facts can be ignored if a larger faith-related principle is involved sounds like the Bush Administration in action. As many critics have observed, Bush's administration is, to use the President's term, "faith-based" rather than reality-based.
In fact, according to journalist Ron Suskind, at least one Bush administration official believes it too. An unnamed official claims that while journalists are in the "reality-based community," and "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality" Bush/Cheney is not. "...That's not the way the world works anymore...We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality."
(quoted in The State We're In; Bush/Cheney and the Specter of Theocracy by Mark Crispin Miller,Amazon Shorts, 1)
Bruner argues that a possibility should be given the same weight as a fact. Medical opinion argues that Emily Rose had a complex medical condition. But it's possible that she was demonically possessed, argues Bruner, so decide as if they possibility outweighed medical opinion. "Reality-based" decision-making is too limiting for Bruner, just as it is for Bush/Cheney.
Bruner also says that Emily and Father Moore's "sincere belief" in possession motivated them--as if sincerity absolves one of the need to be right (I call this the Argument From Personal Authenticity). Similarly, President Bush repeatedly asserts the sincerity of his earlier belief that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction--as if his sincerity absolves him of having been wrong, with costly results.
Similarly, the film leads us to believe that in her summation Bruner is acting in good faith and not just evoking the possibility of supernatural power to win her case and get her promotion. Likewise, Bush/Cheney is constantly telling us that it is acting in good faith and is not pushing an unstated political or other agenda beneficial to itself and its constituencies. Bruner is more convincing.
Bruner complains that "facts don't allow for possibilities" (which is probably the Bush/Cheney mantra). But that's what facts are for: to close off some possibilities and create others; establish a modicum of certainty, and provide a basis for effective action.
You may find new facts to disprove older facts, but negating factuality itself is not the same thing. Bruner cleverly reconfigures the established legal concept of "reasonable doubt" with fantasy speculation. This is the crucial intellectual confusion Bruner employs,
This philosophical bait-and-switch is a recurring theme of Bush/Cheney. North Korea does not have nuclear-tipped ICBMs but they might some day so lets spend billions on anti-missile missiles based in Alaska. These missiles fail their tests. But they might work, so let's deploy them anyway.
The vast majority of climatologists believe global warming is affected by industrialism. But they might be wrong so lets not sign the Kyoto Accords.
There is no proof that that Saddam Hussein was behind 9-11. But it's a possibility, so let's talk about him as if he was and act on that.
There is also no proof that Hussein has weapons of mass destruction. But it's a possibility, so lets go to war anyway.
There is no medical evidence that Terry Schiavo has any consciousness. But a miracle may happen some day so let's intervene in a legal family decision that's already been made.
We don't know if a German of Lebanese descent is connected to terrorism. But it's possible so let's kidnap and torture him anyway.
There is no scientific basis for Intelligent Design but let's treat it as if it is equal to science anyway.
So what if a majority of FDA officials deem a morning-after pill to be safe. It might not be, so let higher-level appointees reverse the decision of the staff scientists.
The President's Constitutional role of Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces does not explicitly allow the Executive to conduct warrentless wiretaps of Americans. But it might, so let's act as if it does (Bush's defense, again, is to claim a good-faith effort to protect national security).
Thomas says in his summation, "In here, facts are what must matter." I agree with him, and worry that Bruner--and the film--are legitimizing "archaic superstition" in the courtroom. "Facts are what must matter" is the mantra of every group challenging Bush/Cheney.
Emily Rose works to makes us question the validity of scientific/medical facts. Bush/Cheney, like all powerful propagandists, want to do the same: create an environment in which facts don't matter anymore, where emotional persuasion buttressed by religiosity can trump argument.
The film seems aware of the dilemma it has created and cleverly splits the difference so that both sides of the faith-science argument can claim vindication: Father Moore is found guilty but receives no further punishment.
The closing epigraphs also affirm both faith and science. Emily's gravesite becomes a shrine and Bruner turns over her case files to an "expert in medical research and anthropology." In true Hollywood fashion, Emily Rose tries to reconcile opposed values and leave no audience outside the film's embrace.
I enjoyed The Exorcism of Emily Rose but not nearly as much as you did. The film certainly gave more work to the actors than most contemporary films with a supernatural element. It was enjoyable, though conventional and predictable. As you said, it didn't try to outdo The Exorcist but there are many strong similarities.
In both films the possessed person is not the figure of moral contestation, an observer is. In The Exorcist, the disillusioned priest Damian Karras (Jason Miller) is the character whose faith is weak and who is redeemed through combat with the demon.
In Emily Rose, it is Erin Bruner (Laura Linney) who moves from agnosticism to (possible) belief in the course of defending Father Moore (Tom Wilkinson). Both films stage a debate between science and faith. The doctors and scientists in both films are somewhat smug and discredited by events within the film.
In The Exorcist, suspense is generated by the uncertainty of whether Regan and those around her will survive the possession. In Emily Rose the possessed girl is already dead, so the suspense is more philosophical: will the spiritual or scientific explanation for the woman's death prevail?
Emily Rose adds a new element to the debate by including testimony from a researcher (Shohreh Aghdashloo) who argues for a scientific basis for possession. She offers a middle ground between faith and science. But she seems too privileged to be a proper witness. She also seems as smug as the doctor who preceded her. Plus, the actress is obviously dubbed and her performance is weak. The film simply drops her and her line of argument, although Bruner mentions her theories in her summation.
As for the predictable aspects, when Bruner says "I'm not a believer" early in the film I know it was her faith which would be tested, that she is the Karras figure. Also, the film sets up an obvious contrast between career-driven, amoral lawyering (which resulted in the acquittal of a man who later commits a double homicide) and principle-based lawyering more focused on her client.
When Bruner's boss (Colm Feore) essentially offers her a partnership in exchange for not allowing Father Moore to testify it's obvious Bruner will have to righteously rebel against her boss and "do the right thing" by letting the priest tell his story. No Hollywood film seems complete these days without some rebellion against authority figures.
Long before Bruner says it, it is clear that Emily Rose is aiming for the basic supernatural horror film theme: acceptance of the spirit world as a reality equal to the physical plane. Fair enough.
Hollywood films being a visual entertainment form, they pose abstract arguments in visual terms. This makes spiritual themes a tricky matter. Many supernatural films reduce this tricky matter to the problem of visual trickery: God (or the devil) is real if the special effects seem real. Hence, Hollywood's abiding interest in depicting miracles; God's CGI. Emily Rose, no less than The Exorcist, makes use of visual effects to convince us of an essentially spiritual question.
Although the comparison is unfair, Carl Dreyer's The Trial of Joan of Arc addresses the problem of faith more convincingly. Like Emily Rose, Joan is structured around a trial. Officials try to shake the accused of her belief of divine inspiration, much like the prosecutor (Campbell Scott) in Emily Rose tries to refute Father Moore's story of demonic possession. Joan's glowering prosecutors--raving in low-angle shots designed to make them seem more menacing--are much more over-the-top than the prosecutor in Emily Rose.
But since Joan is completely free of supernatural imagery (the film is austere in the extreme), the film does not affirm the truth or falsehood of Joan's claims by means of spectacle. We have to take them, well, on faith. Joan's refusal to renounce her divine purpose is as pure an act of faith as it is possible to dramatize. We are moved by authenticity and integrity of character rather than the power of visual spectacle.
Emilt Rose's deployment of the faith-vs-science theme has interesting resonances with contemporary history. The ongoing Creationism vs Evolution debate is an obvious one. As Skeptic Magazine publisher Michael Shermer wrote:
"You can believe in God and evolution as long as you keep the two in separate, logic-tight compartments. Belief in God depends on religious faith. Belief in evolution depends on empirical evidence."
("Why God's in a class by himself," Los Angeles Times, August 7, 2005, M5)
Emily Rose dramatizes a conflict between faith and empirical evidence. More interestingly, it depicts how Bruner tries to breach these two "logic-tight compartments" and use faith to counter empirical evidence.
But here is where deeper, more disturbing resonances can be found. The assertion that scientific facts can be ignored if a larger faith-related principle is involved sounds like the Bush Administration in action. As many critics have observed, Bush's administration is, to use the President's term, "faith-based" rather than reality-based.
In fact, according to journalist Ron Suskind, at least one Bush administration official believes it too. An unnamed official claims that while journalists are in the "reality-based community," and "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality" Bush/Cheney is not. "...That's not the way the world works anymore...We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality."
(quoted in The State We're In; Bush/Cheney and the Specter of Theocracy by Mark Crispin Miller,Amazon Shorts, 1)
Bruner argues that a possibility should be given the same weight as a fact. Medical opinion argues that Emily Rose had a complex medical condition. But it's possible that she was demonically possessed, argues Bruner, so decide as if they possibility outweighed medical opinion. "Reality-based" decision-making is too limiting for Bruner, just as it is for Bush/Cheney.
Bruner also says that Emily and Father Moore's "sincere belief" in possession motivated them--as if sincerity absolves one of the need to be right (I call this the Argument From Personal Authenticity). Similarly, President Bush repeatedly asserts the sincerity of his earlier belief that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction--as if his sincerity absolves him of having been wrong, with costly results.
Similarly, the film leads us to believe that in her summation Bruner is acting in good faith and not just evoking the possibility of supernatural power to win her case and get her promotion. Likewise, Bush/Cheney is constantly telling us that it is acting in good faith and is not pushing an unstated political or other agenda beneficial to itself and its constituencies. Bruner is more convincing.
Bruner complains that "facts don't allow for possibilities" (which is probably the Bush/Cheney mantra). But that's what facts are for: to close off some possibilities and create others; establish a modicum of certainty, and provide a basis for effective action.
You may find new facts to disprove older facts, but negating factuality itself is not the same thing. Bruner cleverly reconfigures the established legal concept of "reasonable doubt" with fantasy speculation. This is the crucial intellectual confusion Bruner employs,
This philosophical bait-and-switch is a recurring theme of Bush/Cheney. North Korea does not have nuclear-tipped ICBMs but they might some day so lets spend billions on anti-missile missiles based in Alaska. These missiles fail their tests. But they might work, so let's deploy them anyway.
The vast majority of climatologists believe global warming is affected by industrialism. But they might be wrong so lets not sign the Kyoto Accords.
There is no proof that that Saddam Hussein was behind 9-11. But it's a possibility, so let's talk about him as if he was and act on that.
There is also no proof that Hussein has weapons of mass destruction. But it's a possibility, so lets go to war anyway.
There is no medical evidence that Terry Schiavo has any consciousness. But a miracle may happen some day so let's intervene in a legal family decision that's already been made.
We don't know if a German of Lebanese descent is connected to terrorism. But it's possible so let's kidnap and torture him anyway.
There is no scientific basis for Intelligent Design but let's treat it as if it is equal to science anyway.
So what if a majority of FDA officials deem a morning-after pill to be safe. It might not be, so let higher-level appointees reverse the decision of the staff scientists.
The President's Constitutional role of Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces does not explicitly allow the Executive to conduct warrentless wiretaps of Americans. But it might, so let's act as if it does (Bush's defense, again, is to claim a good-faith effort to protect national security).
Thomas says in his summation, "In here, facts are what must matter." I agree with him, and worry that Bruner--and the film--are legitimizing "archaic superstition" in the courtroom. "Facts are what must matter" is the mantra of every group challenging Bush/Cheney.
Emily Rose works to makes us question the validity of scientific/medical facts. Bush/Cheney, like all powerful propagandists, want to do the same: create an environment in which facts don't matter anymore, where emotional persuasion buttressed by religiosity can trump argument.
The film seems aware of the dilemma it has created and cleverly splits the difference so that both sides of the faith-science argument can claim vindication: Father Moore is found guilty but receives no further punishment.
The closing epigraphs also affirm both faith and science. Emily's gravesite becomes a shrine and Bruner turns over her case files to an "expert in medical research and anthropology." In true Hollywood fashion, Emily Rose tries to reconcile opposed values and leave no audience outside the film's embrace.
posted by John P. Garry at 3:15 AM
1 Comments:
I like your listing of the myriad ways the Bush regime chooses to ignore the facts in creating policy. But I would argue that this is a sign of their lack of faith in anything other than the real politik of their own propaganda, that they really do not represent the "faith" side of this debate. And I actively disagree with Shermer's comment that belief in God and evolution must be kept in seperate boxes. Deists, for instance, believe that God left the mechanism of the world to run on its own, thus for them evolution, like gravity and assorted other physical laws and mechanisms, is evidence of the divine. And "Emily Rose" is trying to make the flip side of the same idea, in this case that personal experience of the mystical world is indeed a kind of evidence.
Post a Comment
<< Home