 |
|||||||||
 |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
September
19, 2005 
VOL.
43, NO. 16Oakland,
CA
COMMENTARY
Post-Katrina blaming: a disturbing lens into who we are
‘The Exorcism of Emily Rose’ is a sober look at the mystery of evil
Post-Katrina blaming: a disturbing lens into who we are
Post-Katrina
blaming offers many targets.
To deal with epic devastation and societal breakdown, we can blame a French
decision in 1718 to build a colonial city beside a bayou. We can blame
that city’s role in America’s slave trade and conflicted attitudes
toward residents of color.
We can blame poorly conceived levees, too much building amid water, and
more recent decisions to eviscerate and politicize federal agencies charged
with disaster response. We can blame a far-away war for squandering military
resources needed at home. We can blame insensitive federal leaders, a
sluggish bureaucracy, infighting among agencies and prevailing incompetence.
While that fur flies, we hold a disturbing lens into who we are and what
our future holds.
On the one hand, a nation’s capacity for compassion has shown forth
gloriously. Donations are pouring into relief agencies.
Universities are welcoming transfers from schools in flooded areas. People
are opening their homes. Leaders in Texas deserve special praise. The
fact that citizens are appalled by incompetent officials is a hopeful
sign that we still recognize the difference between competent and incompetent.
On the other hand, the aftermath of Katrina reveals deep divisions in
the populace, disturbing dysfunction in basic government services and
a growing sense of abandonment.
The burden of Katrina fell most harshly on the poor. Similar conditions
exist throughout America: a growing population of the desperate, who are
jobless or near-destitute, who live isolated lives in conditions other
citizens don’t see, who feel abandoned by their country.
People in Katrina’s path are voicing what many feel whenever they
deal with federal, state and local government: helpless, bewildered and
abandoned. Whether those perceptions are fair, scenes from New Orleans
feed a growing dismay with the condition of America’s public sector.
New Orleans’ rapid collapse into chaos feeds fears far beyond the
hurricane belt. What about earthquakes in California, tidal surges in
Manhattan and Boston, flooding rivers in Cincinnati or St. Louis? Or human-made
disasters such as terrorist attacks,
breakdowns at aging nuclear power plants or water-supply failures?
Many wonder if the covenant between government and citizens has been so
starved of funds, goodwill and wise leadership that any disruption, from
a natural disaster to a normal factory closing, could produce civil chaos.
In the religious realm, this is an energizing time. We do well in crises
and, despite our arguments, have an instinct for giving care. But we need
to ask ourselves: Where have we been? How could our social order have
become so divided and so dependent on perpetual poverty? How could Christianity
have been so easily co-opted as a political tool? We know what Jesus said
about oneness and self-sacrifice. Why, then, are we apostles of division
and self-interest?
Even as the Gulf region tries to rebuild, basic questions remain. In a
sense, our nation’s history has led inexorably to scenes of poor
people crying out for help and not receiving it. Would it have been different
if those crying out had been white and prosperous, or residents of a “wholesome”
Bible Belt city? I don’t think we know, and that is disturbing.
It could be that any area is one large accident away from disorder and
abandonment. Or that black and poor bear the brunt in America.
Going forward,
citizens can vote and lobby for better government services. The issue
isn’t more government or less, but better performance and adequately
funding basic services. As citizens, we can open our doors, turn outward
to our neighbors, and reverse decades of isolation and distrust.
As the faithful, we face the hard work of standing down from our righteous
ramparts and examining where four centuries of religious squabbling, fragmenting,
scapegoating and sectarian pride have left our nation.
(Tom Ehrich, an Episcopal priest in Durham, N.C. is author of “Just
Wondering, Jesus: 100 Questions People Want to Ask.”
‘The
Exorcism of Emily Rose’ is a sober look
at the mystery of evil
NEW YORK –
Generally speaking, Hollywood misses the mark in its treatment of the
supernatural. More often than not, movies which explore spiritual realities
– especially those dealing with the demonic – opt for sensationalism
or horror clichés rather than serious reflection.
Not so with “The Exorcism of Emily Rose” (Screen Gems), a
sober consideration of faith and the mystery of evil.
Thoughtfully directed by Scott Derrickson, an evangelical Christian, the
film is based, in part, on true events which took place in Germany in
1976, involving a young epileptic, Anneliese Michel, who died of starvation
after several exorcism sessions and led to criminal charges being filed
against the priests involved.
More theological courtroom drama than horror film (though it walks a fine
line at times), Derrickson’s fictionalized version transplants the
story to an unspecified rural American town and changes the names of the
principal players.
Michel has become Emily Rose (Jennifer Carpenter), a devout Catholic college
student, who, after experiencing terrifying episodes while away at school,
comes to believe she is possessed by demons.
When medical treatment proves ineffective, her family enlists their parish
priest, Father Richard Moore (an extremely empathetic Tom Wilkinson),
to perform an exorcism. Despite Moore’s sincere efforts, the girl
dies from associated medical complications (mostly malnutrition) resulting
in Moore’s arrest for negligent homicide. In the German case, two
priests stood trial, as did the girl’s parents.
Emily’s backstory is told mainly through flashbacks interspersed
throughout the various testimonies.
Laura Linney co-stars as Erin Bruner, the agnostic high-profile lawyer
hired to defend Father Moore and make sure the Church – which wants
to keep the case out of the spotlight and Moore off the witness stand
– avoids any embarrassing publicity. Campbell Scott plays pit-bullish
prosecuting attorney Ethan Thomas, a practicing Methodist, who disdains
the Catholic idea of exorcisms.
The film is not so much concerned about providing an answer to the central
mystery surrounding Emily’s death, as it is posing questions about
the nature of evil. Was Emily really possessed or merely suffering from
a psychological malady? The filmmaker remains intentionally ambiguous,
though the movie clearly leans toward the existence of larger realities
beyond the empirical.
The performances are solid across the board, especially Linney. Carpenter
does a credible job conveying her demonic torment with a minimal reliance
on special effects. But, despite the title, it is Bruner’s story
as she wrestles with her own demons and whose wavering between skepticism
and belief no doubt mirrors the inner spiritual grappling of many viewers.
The narrative tone remains respectful of Catholic tenets and rituals.
The film’s occasional excursions into horror territory – including
unsettling and at times intense depictions of Emily’s ordeal –
are relatively few, but used to chilling effect. Though comparisons will
no doubt be made to William Friedkin’s classic “The Exorcist,”
viewers hoping for Linda Blair-style spinning heads and projectile vomit
will be disappointed.
A late revelation that Emily endured her suffering as a self-sacrificial
martyrdom suggests that belief in God is somehow confirmed, or at least
facilitated, by proving that the devil exists. Viewers may have legitimate
questions about that proposition, as well as some other plot points such
as the effect of drugs on an attempt at exorcism.
Though not without flaws, “The Exorcism of Emily Rose” is
a well-crafted and intelligent movie that aspires to engage heads and
not just spin them.
The film contains disturbing scenes of demonic possession, a brief but
violent vehicular homicide, a grisly death image, as well as minimal crude
language. The USCCB Office for Film & Broadcasting classification
is A-III — adults.
(DiCerto is on the staff of the Office for Film & Broadcasting
of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.)
