The Exorcism of Emily Rose

Not since The Third Miracle (1999) have I seen a film that does such an effective job of challenging our presuppositions about the supernatural. The Exorcism of Emily Rose doesn’t exactly argue that the spiritual world exists, just that we would be unwise to place it beyond the realm of possibility, that the same body of evidence can potentially give rise to more than one legitimate explanation. The main difference between the two films is that the characters in The Third Miracle were looking for evidence of the holy, while those in Emily Rose are seeking truth of a far darker kind.

The film is structured around the trial of Father Richard Moore, a priest charged with negligence resulting in the death of Emily Rose, a nineteen-year-old college freshman who believed she was possessed by demons. When Emily first sought help with her affliction, she was diagnosed as having a combination of epilepsy and psychosis and was administered drugs accordingly. After these drugs failed to alleviate her symptoms, Emily—a devout Catholic—turned to Father Moore for help. Upon examining Emily and witnessing some of her manifestations, he became convinced that she was possessed and sought permission to perform the “Rituale Romanum,� a formal exorcism rite sanctioned by the Roman Catholic Church. Despite Father Moore’s efforts, Emily’s condition worsened, and she died shortly thereafter, with the official cause of death stated as “malnutrition� and Father Moore named as the man responsible. Once the trial begins, the film bounces back and forth between the court proceedings and the horrifying events that led up to them, making this film perhaps the first ever “courtroom horror," according to director Scott Derrickson.

Father Moore is defended by Erin Bruner, a self-proclaimed agnostic who sees the case initially as nothing more than an opportunity to make full partner in her law firm. However, as the trial progresses, Erin’s interest in the case takes on a far more personal tone. And when she realizes there is no way she can overcome the prosecution’s medical evidence head-on, she decides to take a different tack and attempts to prove that a spiritual explanation for Emily’s affliction and death is just as valid as a medical one. In this sense at least, this film could have been called The Conversion of Erin Bruner, because her experience definitely brings her one step closer to acknowledging the existence of the supernatural—or at least acknowledging that there is always more than one way to interpret the same body of evidence.

In the past, women were burned at the stake for being possessed, which was horrible. But in her defense of Father Moore, Erin suggests that perhaps we have gone too far in the opposite direction. As this film demonstrates so skillfully, taken on their own, the facts prove nothing. It is how the facts are interpreted that really matters. Unfortunately, using Occam’s Razor, we have completely ruled out the supernatural as a valid type of interpretation. Scientific, psychological, and medical explanations are all that matter. We tend to think of this as progress, as an emergence from the superstition and fear that plagued people in times gone by. But Erin begins to wonder if people in the past actually had a clearer sense of reality than we do now. Maybe the supernatural wasn’t just a product of our imagination after all. It’s still a significant part of reality, but we have just trained ourselves not to see it. Facts are still important, and seeking the simplest and most rational explanation for them is essential. But when it comes to deciding which types of interpretations will and will not be permitted, perhaps a little agnosticism isn’t such a bad thing.

Despite perhaps one too many “cheap scares,� The Exorcism of Emily Rose definitely earns a place alongside Rosemary’s Baby, The Exorcist, The Omen, and other films in the “smart horror� genre. (After all, what’s a horror movie without a few cheap scares?) It’s a frightening film, but more than that, it is a film that forces us to question the very nature of reality. Even if you think you’ve already answered that question for yourself, I encourage you not to close the case until you’ve considered the arguments presented in this film.