|
pld59
Posts: 1
Joined: Dec 2005
|
December 29, 2005 2:38 PM
|
|
I have watched this film two times now in an effort to understand certain issues, and questions, that this movie inspires. (I have also seen the Exorcist several times.) I believe the ending was quite appropriate. Clearly, if one believes in God, one must believe that Satan also exists. However, the film, being produced by an agnostic, could not ever presume to answer the question(s) of why God does, or does not, allow "things" to happen. Only God can answer these questions. Therefore, the film, in my opinion, is constant (ie: scientific theory vs. spiritual theory; belief vs. non-belief vs. I don't know). It also pits believer against believer (the prosecuting attorney (a man of faith) and Father Moore) and illustrates the difference, or levels, of belief between different people, or faiths, in general. While the Christian faiths' create a list of certain criteria that must be met in order to be "possessed", I disagree. I believe that possession is what it is; possessed. While I am sure that there are true instances of possession, I am also sure that there are those who truly are mentally challenged and who only believe they are possessed, but are not. I do not pretend to have any answers to the questions offered in these types of movies. That would be presumptuous on my part and would, in my mind, be an act of hubris. All I know is that I deeply believe in God, and in Christ. And with them, as well as through them, all "things" are possible, whether they be natural, preternatural or supernatural. This film serves to strengthen my faith, as did the Exorcist.
|
|
|
|
snapshot
Posts: 2
Joined: Jan 2006
|
|
January 01, 2006 10:15 PM
|
|
I read the book, "The Exorcism of Anneliese Michel," by non-Catholic anthropoligist Felicitas Goodman, before seeing the film. I presume director Scott Derrickson based his production on this book, which I encourage all viewers to read BEFORE seeing the film, but even afterwards as well. Because I had the facts of the case from Goodman, I was quite disappointed in the movie. As I told everyone, "Just like Hollywood to take the real story -- which would make an excellent movie someday -- and turn it into something else...inventing things like the 'courtroom (and off-courtroom) drama' between the defense attorney and the prosecutor, which is fantasy; showing how the defense attorney became a target, too, of the demons (her finding a medal in the snow is pure fantasy, too) etc. to distract the viewer from the real drama of the case." Then my wife and I got the DVD and watched it -- or, rather, tried to. Would you believe, right when the priest began his testimony, the picture froze on my screen and the sound stopped! Every second or two after that, the picture advanced a tiny bit but eventually went completely haywire. My wife immediately said "It's the Devil!" and ran to get the holy water. She sprinkled it on the TV, me and the entire room, but to no avail. Soooo...we never got to see the rest of it. I fast-forwarded until the sound returned but by then Anneliese had been buried already. In her book, Goodman argued that the medicine she was taking was responsible for the failure of the exorcisms. She based her book on almost a thousand pages of evidence and testimony provided by the defense lawyer, including more than 40 tape recordings of all the exocism sessions. Her theory so impressed the lawyer that she was convinced she could get the verdict overturned if she could get the convicted (which included not just the priest, but Anneliese's parents, family and friends...all those who assisted at the exorcisms) to agree to a new trial. Unfortunately, they refused. The trauma was too great for them to go through again. Can't blame them, but it's a shame the truth will never come out and their names cleared. My main reason for wanting to comment on the film and the story is to propose my own theory, to wit: it wasn't the medicine but the new, revised Vat. II exorcism rite, which was written by "experts" who had never seen an exorcism or performed one. Rome's own famous exorcist, Fr. Gabriel Amorth, explained why he thinks the new rite is worthless in a June 2001 interview in the magazine 30 DAYS, which is must-reading for anyone who wants to hear from a man who has performed thousands of exorcisms. Read Goodman's book and Fr. Amorth's scathing criticism and tell me what you think. By the way, thanks to this review and the knowledge that Scott is a fan of Chesterton (my favorite book is Orhtodoxy, too) and in gratitude to him for depicting a real, honest-to-goodness Catholic priest, I plan to see the movie again. All the way through, I hope! Richard.
|
|
|
|
|
