Hmmmm... just when I think I’ve seen it all, I look over (I am at the bookstore drinking coffee) and there is a bright yellow book on the shelf called C.S. Lewis & Narnia for Dummies.
You know the big yellow books?
A DUMMIES book.... about Narnia?
But this is not what I want to talk about.
I want to talk about a movie I have not seen yet.
I have just read two movie reviews that had the effect of making me want to go and see the movie they describe. One review was by the legendary Roger Ebert, and the other was by this guy Daniel Tencer, in Dose magazine. The movie is entitled The Exorcism of Emily Rose.
Ebert gives the movie four stars of a possible five, and that is what drew my interest, because Ebert does not casually fling four stars out unless he really likes something.
Of course, the movie is about demonism and exorcism. It’s based on a true story, that being the life of Anneliese Michel, a German university student the Catholic church exorcised to death. In other words, she died during an especially intense attempt to exorcise (or “drive out”) the evil spirit[s] believed to be possessing her.
The movie revolves around the courtroom drama that ensues as the priest who performed the exorcism is put on trial for murder. If the priest is correct in his assumptions (the girl was possessed by demons) he should be presumed innocent. However, as the prosecution will argue, if she died as a result of psychotic epileptic trauma and the priest complicated that trauma, leading to her death, he is guilty of murder.
Already, the plot is interesting to me. I can see myself just shovelling popcorn in. Ebert says “What is fascinating about The Exorcism of Emily Rose is that it asks a secular institution, the court, to decide a question that hinges on matters the court cannot have an opinion on.”
Ultimately the jury will be deciding according to their personal beliefs, regarding demon possession. An interesting twist is that Father Moore’s lawyer (the lawyer for the defense, played by the wonderful Laura Linney).... she does not believe in demons, but she believes in her client’s integrity. The prosecutor (played by Campbell Scott) arguing on the side of “science” is a churchgoing believer.
Emily Rose is played by Jennifer Carpenter. Father Moore, by Tom Wilkinson.
Ebert says that the film “keeps an open mind” and does not provide a “slam-dunk conclusion.”
“In the end,” says Ebert, “Emily Rose’s story gets told, although no one can agree about what it means.”
And Daniel Tencer has similar conclusions about the non-conclusion. He says “Where this movie shines is the intellectual and abstract level. The courtroom drama pits science (the prosecution) against religion (the defense) and poses some fascinating questions. If you’re looking for an intellectually challenging and meaningful look at faith and science see this movie.”
I am ALWAYS looking for an intellectually meaningful presentation of these two ideas.... faith and science. So I do plan to see this movie.
For the greater portion of my adult life, I have held to a belief in demons, as in, believing that a demonic force exists, and can take control of certain people at certain times. (All of my own demons have long since died of boredom...)
I’m pretty much an armchair expert on the subject, especially since I’ve read all of Frank Peretti’s novels!
Seriously though, in the past couple of years, my thoughts concerning demonality have undergone change, as have my thoughts on several other aspects of what might be called “spirit life” or even “the spiritual world.”
I am in flux. Definitely in flux.
I love the writings of M. Scott Peck and have wanted to pick up (and read) his latest book entitled Glimpses of The Devil: A Psychiatrist’s Personal Account of Possession, Exorcism, and Redemption. I would love to hear his perspective on the issue, because I highly respect his general viewpoint on things.
Something Roger Ebert said here, I must admit that I found it very intriguing.... very wisely stated. Quite relevant. Very food-for-thought-ish. It is the very beginning words of his review:
“Demons exist whether you believe in them or not,” says the priest at the centre of The Exorcism of Emily Rose.
Yes, and you could also say that demons do not exist whether you believe in them or not, because belief by definition stands outside of proof. If you can prove it, you don’t need to believe it.
Brilliant.
Perhaps, in anticipation of this movie, our bookstores would do well to stock up on Demonology for Dummies!
3 comments:
I have not read this book but have heard of it through my reading of M. Scott Peck, who speaks rather highly of Martin's work.
In Peck's (in my opinion) EXCELLENT book called "People of the Lie" he says (p.183-184) "All of my experience confirms the accuracy and depth of understanding of Martin's work, and a case description of my own would contribute practically nothing beyond his writings."
Not to give the wrong impression (of Peck) I should clarify that his book "People of the Lie" is not all about demonic possession and/or deliverance/exorcism. But one chapter is devoted to the topic. Peck has taken part in what he calls "exorcisms" and makes a clear distinction between what he deems "possession" and "ordinary evil." Few people would deny the existence of the latter thing, but Peck definitely believes in the former and makes it unequivocably clear, saying "I know Satan is real. I have met it." The book came out in 1983, and I have read it twice and found it to be utterly fascinating, both times. This is why I want to read his new one. To see how he has changed and/or altered his views in the past two decades, if at all.
People of the Lie is worth reading, if for no other reason than to have a gander at his Four Points of how to recognize an "evil" person (page 129).
Peck is the first (and only) psychologist I have ever heard of, who has had the courage (or audacity, I guess some might say) to label "evil" as a distinct and recognizable personality disorder.
Interesting comments Sylvia.
And that is the very thing, we all know people that are "evil" according to Peck's definition of the word. For anyone out there that may not have this book (People of the Lie) being discussed here... let me just fill you in on what Peck says, on page 129:
"...the time is right, I believe, for psychiatry to recognize a distinct new type of personality disorder to encompass those I have named evil. In addition to the abrogation of responsibility that characterizes all personality disorders, this one would specifically be distinguished by:
(a) consistent destructive, scapegoating behavior, which may often be quite subtle.
(b) excessive, albeit usually covert, intolerance to criticism and other forms of narcissistic injury.
(c) pronounced concern with a public image and self-image of respectability, contributing to a stability of life-style but also to pretentiousness and denial of hateful feelings or vengeful motives.
(d) intellectual deviousness, with an increased likelihood of a mild schizophreniclike disturbance of thinking at times of stress.”
As you well know, Ms. Bookpuddler, the implications inherent in these four points point towards the following scenario.
The wild teenager who attempted to kill his/her parents may be less "evil" then the seemingly “normal” parents themselves, who bring that same teenager in to the psychiatrist, for treatment.
I am of the personal opinion that Peck (back here in 1983) is far ahead of his time, and that what he is saying in these four points, is so RADICALLY important to recognize, that it cannot really be over-emphasized or exaggerated.
My Merriam-Webster here says that "evil" is "a source of sorrow or distress: calamity."
GOODNESS ME!
According to this definition... my going to work on Monday morning is "evil."
It is HIGH TIME we re-think this word... re-define it.... and the best definition I've ever read yet, is Peck's four points.
Thank you for reading bookpuddle.
Post a Comment