Last night I attended one of the nationwide Fathom screenings of THE EXORCIST (1973), featuring the new documentary TO HELL AND BACK, which charts the making of the classic horror film. Never having attended a Fathom event before (it’s a bit like watching television in a theatre, with digital image projected in select theatres around the country), I am pleased to report that the picture quality was very impressive: with  colors that were sharp and clear, the film looked as good as it ever has. It is also reassuring to note that not too much digital restoration has been performed: the photography retains the slightly grainy 1970s look that lends a documentary atmosphere to the proceedings. Assuming that the upcoming Blu-ray disc and iTunes download (which become available on Tuesday, October 5) are transferred from the same source, this bodes very well: THE EXORCIST has been preserved, not cosmetically embalmed.

I was also pleasantly surprised by the documentary TO HELL AND BACK. Not that I expected it to be bad, but after decades of reading about THE EXORCIST, I expected there was little new to learn – especially after the wonderful behind-the-scenes features on the 25th anniversary DVD. However, TO HELL AND BACK has a devilishly good ace up its sleeve: besides interviews with producer William Peter Blatty, director William Friedkin, actress Linda Blair, and cinematographer Owen Roizman, the documentary includes never-before-seen screen tests and behind-the-scenes footage shot by Roizman on the set, depicting how many of the effects were done (the projectile vomiting – a brief startling shock in the film itself – goes on for what seems like minutes during rehearsals). Again, the presence of this short but insightful featurette bodes well for the home video release; though I already own two versions on DVD (the 1973 original and the 2000 “Version You’ve Never Seen”), I am seriously considering triple-dipping on this one.

All that, however, is secondary to the experience of revisiting THE EXORCIST on the big screen, along with an appreciative audience. In a way, the screening was something of a personal achievement for me: it was the first time I was able to sit through the film without becoming seriously disturbed. (For the record, I almost achieved this in 2000, but then the new footage – i.e., the Spider Walk – showed up, and my nerve faltered once again.)

I suspect that modern audiences will wonder what all the screaming was about; is this really the film that allegedly made people pass out and/or throw-up? But as William Friedkin told me, people who go just to get off on the effects, don’t. THE EXORCIST works because it takes a serious approach, asking you to buy into the possibility of possession – and, by extension – the existence of God and the Devil – on a deep, dramatic level.

Now that that shocks have worn off after all the years, it is pleasantly ironic (for those of us who were there when the film made its debut) to note how subtle THE EXORCIST is, in many ways. There are long stretches when little happens, except for the recurring sound of rustling in the attic. Big chunks of screen time are occupied with the personal lives of the characters, such as Father Damien Karras’s trip to see his mother in New York. Much of the horror derives not from demonic possession but from the medical science used in a vain attempt to locate the etiology of Regan’s illness.

I also remain impressed with the way the William Friedkin managed to avoid going archetypal while depicting THE EXORCIST’s battle between Good and Evil. There is a fine review of Moby Dick – written by D. H. Lawrence, I think –  that praises Melville for keeping the novel grounded in the semblance of a believable story about a hunt for a whale, even as the book piles on metaphors and symbolism that could have rendered the whole tale as an abstract allegroy. Friedkin achieves something similar here: THE EXORCIST, we can see clearly now, is a film about people, who feel lost and helpless, who are trying to do their best, whether or not they are certain that God is watching over them. The film has a very scaled-down credible tone, quite different from the adult fairy tale stylings of, for instance, HORROR OF DRACULA.

This leads me to my final point. From time to time, some critic will complain that THE EXORCIST’s view of evil is too small scale to mean anything (Stephen Thrower in his book Beyond Terror: The Flims of Lucio Fulci, comes to mind). Why, they ask rhetorically, does the Devil waste time tormenting a little girl in a room? The very fact that the question is asked shows that these viewers have missed the point.

Leave aside for a moment that the revised 2000 version (which is the one screened last night, which will be available on Blu-ray along with the original cut) offered an explanation in a restored big of dialogue between Father Merrin and Father Karras. Focus instead on the entire vision of the world as it is presented in THE EXORCIST.

Father Karras (Jason Miller), troubled with guilt over his mother

Everywhere the camera turns, we see examples of Satan’s work: the former alter boy, now a drunk sitting in his own urine and vomit in a subway; the pathetic inmates of an insane asylum, staring into space, helpless and lost in their own psychosis; the priest-psychiatrist – Karras – who has lost his faith because he has seen too many wounded souls that he could not repair. As if that were not enough, THE EXORCIST throws in a film-within-a-film, depicting campus unrest (with hints of potential violence). Evil, if we only open our eyes and look, is everywhere present; the Devil’s fingerprints are scattered everywhere throughout the film, as the Evil One strives to breed despair in the human race.

Even if we do not believe in a literal Devil, the symbolism is clear: Evil is at work in the world. What happens to Regan Theresa MacNeil is only one manifestation, a small microcosm that brings the larger world into clearer focus. That’s what good dramas do. Although I dislike the oft-heard claim “It’s not a horror film,” in the case of THE EXORCIST I can accept it to the extent of saying, “It’s not just a horror film.” As shocking as it once was, hopefully we can now see more clearly that it truly as, as Friedkin has often said, a film about the mystery of faith – a faith all the more mysterious when set against the weary world view depicted in THE EXORCIST.

Related posts:

1. Win The Exorcist on Home Video! UPDATE: Contest Closed
2. The Exorcist: an assessment of the 2000 re-release version
3. The Exorcist on screen September 30

Back in a review of VAMPIRES SUCK, I noted that we are in the era of movie-going as tribal identifiers. Purchasing a ticket is less a matter less of seeking entertainment than of supporting the group with which you self-identify. The problem manifest in this approach is clear: bad STAR WARS prequels, indifferent HARRY POTTER adaptations, and insipid TWILIGHT films attract huge audiences regardless of their actual quality, because fans feel obligated to prove their loyalty to the franchise – a bit like high school students who show up at the football game to support the home team, no matter how badly they lose.

The horror genre is no stranger to this phenomena, as I was reminded on Tuesday night when I attended the Los Angeles premiere of HATCHET II. This was quite a high-energy event: fans mingled with members of the press and the cast and crew, eagerly awaiting the sequel to HATCHET (2006), which had breathed some welcome life into the moribund slasher formula a while back.

Writer-director Adam Green was understandably giddy with delight. HATCHET had taken a tortuous path to the screen: There was trouble finding backers because it was “not a remake, not a sequel, and not based on a Japanese one” (these words, from a rejection letter, became the poster tagline during the film’s festival run). After the film was made, few distributors were interested. When HATCHET did get released theatrically, there was little or no promotional support, and the film was heavily re-edited to earn an R-rating from the MPAA.

In spite of all these travails, HATCHET somehow found an audience, who dubbed themselves the “Hatchet Army” and supported the film, turning it into a hit on video. Consequently, there mere existence of HATCHET II is a triumph – a vindication of the effort Green put into making the original.

The problem with this kind of success story is that it creates a narrative that overwhelms the film, as those who enjoyed it become emotionally invested in the success of the franchise and want to show their support. Yes, it’s great that the first HATCHET turned a profit. And it’s great that Dark Sky Films has the nerve to release HATCHET II unrated. And it would be really wonderful if this set a precedent, proving that unrated releases are viable, allowing filmmakers to bypass the MPAA so that viewers could see their work uncensored on the movie screen.

But here’s the catch: the film itself has to deliver; we should not have to support it just because we are good tribe members swept up in the triumphant narrative, whose satisfying conclusion demands a huge success for HATCHET II. What if the film, on its own merits, does not deserve success?

I will leave that question for a separate review. My point here is not to criticize HATCHET II; it is to note the extent to which the filmmakers and their supporters are trying to exploit movie-going as a tribal identifier. On Tuesday night, Green exhorted fans in the audience to go and pay to see the movie again on opening weekend, in order to raise the per-screen average and send a message to Hollywood. Uncle Creepy, of Dread Central, introduced the evening by announcing his excitement over helping to promote a film that could change the course of horror filmmaking. Publicists are currently sending out press releases advising me and others to support unrated horror.

The underlying message in all of this is: we’re all part of the tribe, and we want our tribe to win, even if that means turning a blind eye toward the film in question. Green can be given a pass for supporting his baby after all the work he put into it. But what about the fans and the genre press? Is it really their job to push a movie just because it is going out unrated? At this point, is there any way that someone like Uncle Creepy could criticize HATCHET II without being denounced as an apostate? (Come to think of it, can I writer this editorial without being branded as a spoil-sport critic who is not really a horror fan?)

At the premiere, Green noted that the Hatchet Army is not just about HATCHET; its members have supported other films, too, such as DRAG ME TO HELL. Sadly, this is another film that really works only as a tribal identifier – a way for fans of director Sam Raimi’s debut, THE EVIL DEAD (1982), to confirm that they are still part of the tribe, over 25 years later. The release of HATCHET II is being followed, one week later, by the remake of  I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE, which is also going out unrated. Will the Hatchet Army support that as well?

And what about the rest of us? Should we feel obligated to purchase tickets  just to prove our bona fides in the horror film fan base? Or would we be better off watching DEVIL instead?

You can guess my answer. Tribalism leads to insular film-making at best and bad film-making at worst. The feedback loop of fans blindly applauding whatever they see is not conducive to the sort of reflection and self-improvement that lead to growth as a filmmaker. What we need is not tribal support for idols or for unrated horror. What we really need is to demand quality horror and to hold our idols to the standards they they have set for themselves with their best work.

Related posts:

1. Hatchet coming to Blu-ray
2. London After Midnight: Film4 FrightFest to screen Hatchet 2 and Last Exorcism
3. Hatchet II midnight screenings with in-person guests

Here is a description from the project’s Facebook page:

Dracula, Nosferatu and now Edward are all part of cinema history and the Vampire legend, but is there any truth behind the spine-chilling fiction?

At first bite, the vampire seems to be just the product of our heated imagination, a dark fairy tale. But some folklore’s do hold truths, explain some fears, and satisfy some desires. Indeed, this terrifying monster’s beginnings is a lifetime away from the 21st century vampire – those real people living amongst us who drink human blood and purposely embrace the darkness.

The Real Vampire Files explores the evolution of the age-old myth that has truly become a blood-curdling reality.

Most of my discussion centered on the evolution of the vampire from folklore through literature, cinema, and television, not on any so-called real vampires; hopefully, it provides a little context for the public’s changing attitude toward the subject matter.

Airdates:

• Tuesday, September 7 at 8:00pm
• Friday, September 11 at 7:00pm EST

Related posts:

1. Sense of Wonder: Vampire Mania!
2. Blood: The Last Vampire – Trailer & Preview
3. Sense of Wonder: The Undead Metaphor, or Beyond Dracula Part 2

With all the artificial hype designed to sell PIRANHA 3D as the horror hit that delivered for audiences (despite a sixth place bow that barely topped $10-million), now is a good time to pay homage to the film that truly delivered for fans of cinefantastique: PREDATORS. Thought the film has not been universally hailed by critics (it rates 64% at Rotten Tomatoes, compared to PIRANHA 3D’s 81%), it did find a bigger audience, earning over $50-million in American theatres and over $109-million worldwide. This is one of those interesting examples of popular taste proving more accurate than critical consensus: PREDATORS is, in my humble opinion, the summer’s best sci-fi, action, horror flick. Not only that: it’s the most entertaining genre film released so far this year.

That’s more praise than I ever expected to lavish on a PREDATOR sequel. I don’t expect much from the franchise: the first PREDATOR is the only good movie; the sequel PREDATOR 2 was just more of the same, and the crossover films (ALIENS VS. PREDATORS and ALIENS VS. PREDATOR: REQUIEM) were even worse – just mindless junk.

PREDATORS reverses the trend. Not only does it match the original; this is the first PREDATOR movie that is good enough to be considered more than just a fun popcorn film. Rather like the first ALIEN (1979) PREDATORS is good enough to stand on its own as a piece of cinema, not just a genre film. Or to put it another way, I would recommend PREDATORS to people who are not into monster movies, because it has some good qualities that will pull in an “outside” audience of non-fans.

An unlikely team of mercenaries and assassins, trapped on an alien planet.

What makes me go so far out on a limb for a film that seems as if it were made only for the geeks? My joke response it to call PREDATORS the “Feel Good Movie of the Year.” Despite – or because of – the bloodshed, death, and terror, this film presents a scenario that is ultimately optimistic, with a surprisingly humane point of view toward its characters (and by extension its audience).

This interesting attitude toward humanity is about the last thing one would expect in a film that seems all about using humans as target practice for some bad-ass alien hunters. However, PREDATORS takes characters who are in many cases the worst of the worst – assassins and mercenaries, thugs and murderers – people whom the planet Earth is better off without – and the script and the performances combine makes the this despicable crew engaging, even likable.

These are people who talk tough, seem to be out for themselves, and at least initially are as likely to kill each other as team up against the common enemy. But as the story proceeds, that changes in ways that are entertaining and even uplifting without every descending into bathos. PREDATORS pulls this off by presenting its story in hard-boiled terms that hide the sentiment beneath a flinty veneer that applies to both the individual characters and the film as a whole. (In one of the film’s funnier moments, convicted killer Stans (Walton Goggins)’’s objection to the death of Mombasa (Mahershalalhashbaz Ali) is brushed aside by Adrien Brody’s character* with a casual “You wanted to kill him this morning,” to which Stans angrily replies, “This ain’t this f-cking morning!“)

Of course, we expect the characters to bond after initially disliking each other; that’s a standard plot development. But PREDATORS is going after bigger game. The characters are going through their process of recovery that ultimately leads to – dare I say it? -redemption. Although this theme is expressed mostly in secular terms, the religious allegory lurks just beneath the surface. The familiar scenario (trap a group of characters in an isolated location and bump them off one by one) recalls TEN LITTLE INDIANS – but in more than just plot mechanics. The underlying point of the original Agatha Christie novel (mostly abandoned in the film adaptations) is that the victims deserve what they get: they are all killers who have escaped the law. The same is true here; however, these characters – at least a few – will have a chance not merely to survive but to earn expiation for their sins.

PREDATORS cleverly lays the foundation for this interpretation in an early scene, when one character guesses that they might be in Hell. The suggestion is quickly contradicted by the facts of their situation (they have all been mysteriously parachuted onto an alien planet, which turns out to be a game preserve for the Predator species), but metaphorically speaking the initial assumption is not quite so far off: the characters may not literally be in Hell, but they figuratively seem to be in Purgatory. On this strange distant world, these inhumane humans come face to face with the crimes they committed on Earth. Time and again, individuals are able to guess what the Predators are doing to them, because these terrible actions remind them of atrocities they themselves perpetrated on others. In effect, their kharma has come back to bite them on their collective ass.

The Predators of course are not demons, but they fulfill a similar narrative function, forcing the human characters to make stark moral choices they may have avoided before. It is as if the actions of the Predators reflect the characters’ failings back upon themselves. Putting this in psychological terms, the humans are being faced with their Jungian shadow, which they must confront in an externalized form and destroy – and in the process, destroy that evil part of themselves, thus emerging at the other end as better people. Thus, PREDATORS says that, even in the worst of us, there is something good that is not beyond hope, something worthwhile that can emerge. It’s a positive message that is quite unexpected in what could have been just another action-packed bloodbath.

PREDATORS recalls THE MOST DANGEROUS GAME (above), which also compared the hunter to the hunted.

There are parallels here with THE MOST DANGEROUS GAME (the 1932 movie rather than the original short story), which also featured a doppleganger theme in which the hunter reflected the hunted, and our hero realized the errors of his ways – even while those violent ways provided him the means to survive when the tables were turned. One of the fews ways in which PREDATORS may be deemed deficient is that it lacks the sort of overt philosophical conflict that gave THE MOST DANGEROUS GAME its kick. By virtue of its set-up, PREDATORS cannot have Adrien Brody and his alien counterpart engage each other via dialogue in order to debate the morality versus the aesthetics of hunting (as Rainsford and Count Zaroff do in the 1932 film). But in a way, this fault has some small virtue, to the extent that it leaves viewers to mine the thematic ore without having it laid out in the open.

Adrien Brody, Alice Braga

This hard-boiled thematic approach to showing the sensitive soul beneath the cynical exterior may seem generic, but director Antal and screenwriters  Litvak and Finch make it work in a spectacularly satisfying way. Ironically, their achievement surpasses the more superficial approach  seen in the directorial efforts of producer Robert Rodriguez, who tends to depict cartoony violence lacking in any real resonance (with the exception of the hard-boiled SIN CITY). The result – a wonderful distillation of the macho ethos, of characters lost in the existential universe who must define themselves by the actions they take, without any assurance of a God in heaven to tell them whether they are right or wrong – stands comfortably alongside work by the most famous practitioners in the field: John Woo, Michael Mann, Beat Takashi, Christpher Nolan (at least the Nolan of THE DARK KNIGHT if not INCEPTION). It’s as if Jean-Pierre Melville had directed a PREDATOR movie.

Redemption is an old-fashioned, cornball concept that many modern filmmakers would not touch with a ten-foot cattle prod (I’m talking to you, Alexandre Aja). To traffic in this kind of story, you run the risk that cynical viewers may laugh at your sincerity; after all, the audience has paid to see predation, not redemption. So I think that producer Roberto Rodriguez, director Nimrod Antal, and especially writers Alex Litvak and Michael Finch deserve credit for not taking the easy “it’s only a movie” approach.

Topher Grace in PREDATORS

To be honest, the filmmakers do hedge their bets but in a way that adds a nice edge of credibility. When Edwin (Topher Grace) mocks Brody’s character for a last-minute change of heart, ironically calling him a “good man,” the reluctant hero replies, “I’m not good – but I’m fast” while dodging a sneak attack from behind. The emphasis on professionalism rather than morality sounds in-character, but we in the audience still see that, in the end, the avowedly anti-social mercenary did the right thing. Only then can he finally reveal his name, Royce, signaling the return of the humanity kept well hidden beneath the cynical survivor’s metaphoric armor throughout the rest of the film.

Of course, thematic analysis can be deceptive: films can be filled with great ideas without being particularly well executed. Fortunately, PREDATORS delivers on the gut level. The music score effectively enhances the beautiful location shooting. Special effects are not over-abundant (or at least not visibly so), instead paying off at key moments, such as a wonderful matte painting of the sky that finally proves to the characters beyond any doubt that they are indeed no longer on Earth.

On a plot level, the film follows a well worn track, but it’s the right track,  one that leads where the narrative needs to go. Although not loaded with surprises, the script works in a nice twist with one character who turns out to be not what he seems (he wants to embrace the predators as brothers in spirit). There is also an interesting bit with with Adrien Brody’s character trying to forge a brief alliance with a “Classic Predator” (who is victimized by a different type of Predator introduced here).  Something similar happened in ALIENS VS. PREDATORS, but the idea is executed to much better effect here.

Despite its virtues, PREDATORS is not perfect; there are some missteps. The exciting shot in the trailer, suggesting that Brody’s character will be targeted by multiple Predators, shows only one laser sight on his torso in the movie – a terrible disappointment thanks to unmet expectations. The low point arrives via Laurence Fishburne’s appearance  as Nolan, a survivor from a previous group transported to the planet.  Dramatic convention necessitates a brief respite, which allows the audience to catch its collective breath before heading into the big finish, but this lull is a little too lulling, breaking the tension that suffuses the rest of the film. And as fun as it is to see Fishburne show up in a PREDATOR movie, the sequence gives him little to do except act as an obvious “Johnny Explainer” who provides exposition; his only noteworthy personality trait is a tendency to talk to himself. At least this provides one bright moment: when Nolan, still babbling as if to an unseen other, tries to kill his new friends, Brody’s character fires a gun at him, while delivering a quip that cleverly paraphrases SCARFACE: “Say goodbye to your little friend!”

Fortunately, it is easy to overlook the occasional stumbling when the film delivers beautifully choreographed action built upon a solid dramatic foundation. One memorable highlight is a great set-piece that deftly combines Kurosawa with Tarantino: Hanzo (the Yakusa character played by Louis Ozawa Changchien) remains behind to cover the escape of his comrades. On the one hand, the scene is pure cinematic contrivance – an excuse to stage a fight scene between a Predator and a man armed with a samurai sword.

But it becomes something larger, almost mythic. When Hanzo sheds his suit, it is as if he is attaining archetypal status, becoming a larger than life character (like Will Munny at the end of UNFORGIVEN). He is shedding the man he was – the Yakusa assassin – and becoming the samurai warrior of legend, no longer a killer for hire but a soldier laying down his life for others. It’s an awesome transformation, and though it may be hokey, it is the kind of trascendant melodramatic moment that makes movies worth seeing. It’s the rapturous ecstasy of of losing oneself – and perhaps one’s better judgment – inside the land of cinematic make-believe. And the beauty of it is that it is utterly predictable, in the sense that the perfect outcome – the only satisfying outcome – is the outcome that had to be.

This leads to a nicely staged finale that deliberately echoes the ending of PREDATOR: Isabelle (Alice Braga) has earlier delivered exposition based on a debriefing of the character that  Arnold Schwarzenegger played in the previous film, and Brody’s character puts the information to good use. The interesting thing is that, despite the repetition, the sequence works because we are now seeing the action performed not by an action star but by an actual actor. PREDATORS is all about transformation, about becoming something better, and nowhere is it visualized more perfectly. You cannot watch Brody on screen without remember his Oscar-winning turn in THE PIANIST (2002). If Adrien Brody – man who ran away from Nazis for two hours, the man who was a useless wimp in KING KONG (2005) and was completely pussy-whipped in SPLICE earlier this year – can suddenly morph into a muscle-bound sinewy titan with the speed, agility and strength to take out a Predator, then truly there is hope for all of us.

In conclusion, I want to admit that, in a summer that contains Christopher Nolan’s blockbuster INCEPTION, which is immensely popular with both audiences and critics, I may be exposing myself to potential scorn by raving about PREDATORS. But the simple fact is that I found INCEPTION to be a technically astounding but emotionally empty exercise in visual effects; as much as I wanted to enjoy the ride, the film lacked the underlying substance that made Nolan’s THE DARK KNIGHT so great.

PREDATORS, by virtue of its franchise association, is not the sort of film that earns respect; the fans just want to have fun, and most critics probably don’t even want to know about it. And yet, for me, the film worked in ways I did not anticipate. That sense of surprise might have overwhelmed my better judgement; I will have to see the film again to determine whether it holds up to a second viewing. But for now I am willing to risk derision and stand by my declaration. In case, the heavy-handed analysis above leaves you in any doubt, I think that PREDATORS offers viewers a great time, fulfilling the basic requirements while offering something more; and judging by the justly awarded audience applause that concluded Hanzo’s duel with the Predator, I don’t think I’m the only one.

UPDATE: My designation of PREDATORS as the year’s “most entertaining genre film” may seem confusing in light of my having called SPLICE “the season’s best filmed science fiction.” Let me clarify: I see the relationship between the two films roughly the way I saw the relationship between MOON and STAR TREK last year. MOON was the best cinematic science fiction, because it carefully examined a science fiction concept in a fascinating way; however, STAR TREK was the most entertaining science fiction film, because it provided a joyously good time at the movies. In the same way, I may rank SPLICE slightly higher as an artistic achievement, but I find PREDATORS to be the more thoroughly satisfying piece of entertainment. Making distinctions between art and entertainment may be a dubious business, but in this case I think it makes sense.

FOOTNOTE:

• The character played by Adrien Brody does have a name (Royce), but since he reveals it only at the very end of the film, it seems misleading to use it throughout this article. Hence the awkward use of phrases like “Brody’s character.”

PREDATORS (20th Century Fox, July 9, 2010). Produced by Roberto Rodriguez. Directed by Nimrod Antal. Written by Alex Litvak & Michael Finch, based on characters created by Jim Thomas & John Thomas. Cast: Adrien Brody, Topher Grace, Alice Braga, Walton Goggins, Oleg Taktarov, Laurenc Fishburne, Danny Trejo, Louis Ozawa Changchien, Mahershalalhashbaz Ali, Carey Jones, Brian Steele, Derek Mears.

This article has been clarified since its original posting.

Related posts:

1. Predators theatrical release
2. Predators – Adrien Brody Interview
3. More New Pics From Predators!

This upcoming release of THE LAST EXORCISM on Friday has fans of cinefantastique thinking back, inevitably, to THE EXORCIST (1973), the Oscar-winning horror classic that really upped the ante in terms of mainstream movies willing to pull no punches when it came to shocking viewers. (THE LAST EXORCISM even contains a clever dialogue reference to the older film: the minister Cotton Marcus [Patrick Fabian] notes that, when it comes to exorcism, the Roman Catholic Church gets all the press, “because they have the movie.”) However, THE LAST EXORCISM actually bears a stronger similarity to THE EXORCISM OF EMILY ROSE (2005), in terms of setting, circumstances, and tone. In particular, both films strive to unnerve audiences by playing with the concept of “reality”: THE LAST EXORCISM is presented as a faux-documentary; THE EXORCISM OF EMILY ROSE IS presented as “inspired” by a true story. This breaking down of fictional barriers adds an extra layer of tension, but in the end the makers of THE LAST EXORCISM do not seem intent on presenting their film, a la THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT, as if it were the genuine article. What about the makers of THE EXORCISM OF EMILY ROSE? Since the possibility that movies may be “real” seems to hold endless fascination for viewers (judging from the number of hits this website gets from visitors seeking to learn whether PARANORMAL ACTIVITY is a “true” story), I want to take this opportunity to delve into that question.

THE EXORCISM OF EMILY ROSE is a serious, sincere effort to combine horror with the structure of a courtroom drama. The result is that the story is told with a level of conviction often missing from modern horror films, allowing viewers to become emotionally involved and thus far more vulenerable to the scares when they strike. Perhaps the film works so well on viewers because of the true story claim, as much as its own inherent qualities, and this is where I start to draw the line. The attempt to make a believable horror film is laudable; the fact that the horrific events have consequences for the characters (instead of serving simply as gratuitous set pieces) lends the story credibility. However, we should not let that fool us into thinking that what we see on screen really happened.

It didn’t. At least, not the way it is portrayed in the film.

I have no problem with filmmakers taking inspiration from real life and then fictionalizing it (that’s what William Peter Blatty did with THE EXORCIST), but there should be no pretense that the fictionalization is in any way authentic.

Tom Wilkinson as the priest on trial for the death of Emily ROse

My objection to the “true story” conceit of THE EXORCISM OF EMILY ROSE is that the story is framed as a courtroom drama. We all know that Hollywood never lets reality get in the way of a good story, but generally speaking, you can usually depend on films about court cases to be a bit more accurate, because trials have official transcripts that can be used as a basis for a screenplay, providing an accurate account of what was actually said under oath. By presenting the story in flashbacks, based on what we hear from the witness stand, the filmmakes seems to imply that they are giving us an accurate account of what was said to have happened. The film then portrays many of these scenes in different ways, according to the interpretation of each witness. In a sense, the filmmakers seems to be saying: we are offering up the facts of the case and leaving you to be the jury who decides whether Emily was sick or possessed. Which would be okay if we were getting the actual facts. But we’re not.

THE EXORCISM OF EMILY ROSE EMILY ROSE has a credit at the beginning, telling us that the film is “based on a true story.” Before the closing credits, there are also a few title cards, telling us what happened to the characters next. One even informs us that one of the characters in the film cooperated with an author who wrote a book that served as the basis for the film. Yet the actual credits for the movie’s script reads “written by” rather than “screenplay by.” The Writers Guild of America makes a clear distinction between the two credits: “screenplay by” is used for adaptations of existing material; “written by” is used for original scripts. In other words, THE EXORCISM OF EMILY ROSE is an original story, not an adaptation of a non-fiction book.

To their credit, Scott Derrickson and Paul Harris Boardman (who also directed and produced, respectively) are honest and forthcoming when discussing the extent to which their film is fictionalized, making it clear that there was an actual case that gave them the idea of making a “courtroom horror film,” which they then developed, creating characters and using ideas derived from other research into the phenomenon of possession.

When asked at a recent preview screening about the misleading title cards (which seem to suggest that the film’s characters are real people), co-writer Paul Harris Boardman replied, “Many people have remarked on the epigraphs at the end of the film. Even though it’s inspired by a true story, the characters have been fictionalized. That [title card] only really says how [the defense attorney played by Laura Linney] facilitated getting case files to a person who wrote a book that inspired the film. Those were actually very true to the underlying [story]. Erin Bruner’s character was almost completely fictionalized. There was a female defense attorney in the case. She did help the author of the book get information—that’s about all we know about her, so she’s completely created. In terms of the others, there are a lot of instances in the film that parallel things that happened—a lot of the broad strokes of the exorcism things, the manifestations of the possession, the behavior she had. The structure of the story, the way it unfolds, is very much what we created. Through some other sources, we had researched some real exorcisms to pull some things about how these exorcisms unfold and what characteristics the people would have. It’s pretty close. We tried to be true to a lot of what [we researched].”

Curiously, Boardman did not mention the book’s title. When I asked him why, he explained that the book is actually titled The Exorcism of Anneliese Michel, and although he and Derrickson did purchase the screen rights to the story, the people involved in the real case wanted to keep the connection to the film quiet. Although a doctor involved with the case is given a screen credit, the story of the film does not have much in common with the book, except for the general outline of events. (For example, only one rite of exorcism is performed in THE EXORCISM OF EMILY ROSE; in the Anneliese Michel, daily exorcism were performed over a series of months).

Jennifer Carpenter as Emily Rose, the fictional stand-in for Analise Michele

You can read details about the real-life case here: “Was the real Emily Rose Truly Possessed?” and “The Real Emily Rose.” Both articles seem to be regugitating the same basic information; I’m not sure which was written first, but I recommend you read at least one to get a good idea of how different the film is from its source material. (Surely the more amusing of the two articles is the first one. The author, a self-proclaimed paranormal investigator, claims there is “no evidence whatsoever for the idea of demonic possession.” This would not be amusing in and of itself, but it becomes amusing when he immediately follows up by insisting that there is “good evidence” for ghosts,hauntings, Big Foot, and other psychic phenomena.)

In the end, what Boardman and Derrickson have done is not all that different from William Peter Blatty, who told me during an interview (as he has told many others, before and since) that he was inspired to write THE EXORCIST by an actual cases of possession he had read about in 1949. “I was a graduate at Georgetwon University at the time,” he recalled. “It stuck in my mind. I thought, ‘If I ever do go ahead and write, I’d like to write about this, non-fiction.’ But I never wrote a word.”

Blatty, despite what you may read on the Internet (including the usually reliable www.snopes.com), never pretended that the novel he eventually wrote was a true story. And neither the book nor the film of THE EXORCIST made any such claims, either in the advertising or in the credits. (Director William Friedkin may have made a few careless statement to the effect that the novel was based on a true story, but he never pretended he was making a docudrama.)

THE EXORCISM OF EMILY ROSE is a good film that seeks to address the topic of faith in a manner somewhat similar to THE EXORCIST, presenting us with horrible events that may or may not be supernatural in origin and asking if the presence of the demonic, ironically, does not also suggest the existence of the angelic. Although the film cannot hope to match its historic predecessor (director Derrickson calls THE EXORCIST his favorite horror film of all time), THE EXORCISM OF EMILY ROSE stands on its own feet as a worthwhile successor. Not only is it better than the ghastly rip-offs that followed THE EXORCIST (e.g., BEYOND THE DOOR), it is much truer to the spirit of THE EXORCIST than last year’s official sequel, THE EXORCIST: THE BEGINNING, which tried to turn the material into a typical special effects horror franchise. THE EXORCISM OF EMILY ROSE is not a true story, but it is a very believably-told story. That is an all-too-rare thing in the horror genre, and it makes EMILY ROSE perhaps the best horror film of this year.

This article is updated from an earlier article, copyright 2005 by Steve Biodrowski

Related posts:

1. The Exorcism of Emily Rose (2005): horror film review
2. The Exorcism of Emily Rose: Interview with Paul Harris Boardman & Scott Derrickson
3. THE LAST EXORCISM – Eli Roth and Daniel Stamm Interview