My review of The Exorcism of Emily Rose is now up at CT Movies.
UPDATE: I’ve been browsing other reviews, which are mostly mixed, and perhaps the harshest criticism of the film so far comes from A.O. Scott in the New York Times. He concludes:
The movie pretends to take the same tolerant, anything’s-possible position. While not especially good – judged strictly on its cinematic merits, it ranges from O.K. to god-awful – it is still a fascinating cultural document in the age of intelligent design. Its point of view suggests an improbable alliance of postmodern relativism and absolute religious faith against the supposed tyranny of scientific empiricism, which is depicted as narrow and dogmatic.
The sincerity of a believer – Father Moore, in this case – is conflated with the plausibility of his beliefs. The doctors, meanwhile, seem so sure of themselves. But of course, the movie says, no one can ever be completely sure, and thus superstition becomes a matter of reasonable doubt. Meanwhile the clocks stop, the wind howls, and we are encouraged to believe – or at least not to disbelieve – our own eyes. Father Moore knows what he saw. So do I: propaganda disguised as entertainment.
The bits I’ve highlighted comprise a fascinating observation. I am reminded of how Thomas Hibbs, in his book Shows about Nothing and elsewhere, has observed that The Exorcist challenged modernism, with its smug and nihilistic belief that everything can be explained by science and rational analysis, by returning to a “primitive” view of the world. But if The Exorcist is pre-modern, then yeah, The Exorcism of Emily Rose is definitely post-modern; the important thing here is not the raw experience of possession and exorcism, but the polyvalent discussion that takes place afterwards and leaves us all thinking, “Well, who knows?”
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In