The Exorcism of Emily Rose - Reviews

Well, here come the reviews!

Watch for mine, featuring an in-depth interview with Scott Derrickson, here at SPU's Response. (It might not be up until late Friday.)

Ebert turns in an intriguing response. He says:

The movie was directed by Scott Derrickson and written by Paul Harris Boardman and Derrickson. The screenplay is intelligent and open to occasional refreshing wit, as when prosecutor Ethan Thomas makes an objection to one witnesses' speculations about demonology. "On what grounds?" asks the judge (Mary Beth Hurt). "Oh...silliness," he says.

Somehow the movie really never takes off into the riveting fascination we expect in the opening scenes. Maybe it cannot; maybe it is too faithful to the issues it raises to exploit them. A movie like "The Exorcist" is a better film because it's a more limited one, which accepts demons and exorcists lock, stock and barrel, as its starting point. Certainly they're good showbiz. A film that keeps an open mind must necessarily lack a slam-dunk conclusion. In the end Emily Rose's story does get told, although no one can agree about what it means. You didn't ask, but in my opinion she had psychotic epileptic disorder, but it could have been successfully treated by the psychosomatic effect of exorcism if those drugs hadn't blocked the process.

Peter T. Chattaway's review is up at CT. He gives it 2 1/2 stars.

And Steven D. Greydanus digs deep at Decent Films, which, by the way, is about to get an extreme makeover.


Josh Hurst Interviews Erin Zindle of The Ragbirds

I love The Ragbirds' Yes Nearby more every time I listen to it... and I'm listening to it a lot these days.

Thus, I'm thrilled to see Josh Hurst has just published the first interview with Erin Zindle that I've come across, and it's a keeper.

Here's a snippet:

J: Let’s switch gears now and discuss your songwriting. Your songs have some pretty heavy explorations of faith-related issues, and it’s evident that you write from a Christian perspective, and yet, unlike a lot of the so-called Christian music out there, you avoid becoming preachy or clichéd. Is it hard for you to write and sing about your faith without compromising your art?

E: The question seems foreign to me - why would writing about my faith compromise my art in any way? Writing about life's quirks or love or politics or faith - it all comes from the same pen out of the same heart and every word undergoes the same scrutiny. I try to stay detached from any cultural pressure to approach matters of faith with apologetics. In Native American cultures there is not a word for "religion" and "art" - these concepts are so intertwined into every part of everyday life that they don't need a separate definition. When I write I draw from a well of all of my experience, all of who I am and what I think and feel, these things are not separate.


Thoughts on The Constant Gardener

I saw The Constant Gardener last night and walked away unmoved.

Do I sympathize with the storyteller's passion to expose the cover-ups of corporations, and to speak the truth about the exploitation of the vulnerable in Africa? I have little doubt that this kind of corruption is a reality. And it makes me sick just thinking about it. There's probably a great film about this just waiting to be made. If someone made that film, I'd be shouting about it from the rooftops.

This isn't that movie.

When you heavy-handedly preach about corruption through art, it ceases to be art and becomes propaganda. Propaganda is usually well received by those who already agree with it but it rarely persuades anyone to believe othewise. In The Constant Gardener, important messages are interwoven through a long list of preposterous events that could only happen in a Hollywood movie. And that's too bad.

Problem #1 -- The romance of Diplomat Quayle and Tessa. Okay, he delivers a dull lecture... he's attacked by one of the students listening to him, Tessa... and five minutes later, he and that student are rolling around in bed.

And we're supposed to find this romantic? We're supposed to respect these people? We're supposed to see them as individuals of integrity? Give me a break! Right off the bat, I wouldn't trust these two with an international investigation any farther than I can throw them.

And then, right away, they're married! How did that happen?

Wait a minute. This movie wants my heart to break for Africa before it's over? If so, it's got to stop distracting us with Diplomat Quayle's tormented flashbacks about flirting with pretty, pregnant Tessa in the bathtub. Our heart shouldn't be breaking because gorgeous Rachel Weisz was betrayed. It should be breaking for Africa. Instead, we get Tessa switching back and forth between sexy mode and zealous Michael Moore-mode, something that keeps the focus on her instead of the crisis.

Problem #2: How Hollywood is this movie? When Diplomat Quayle needs top-secret information, just in time he stumbles onto The Kid Who Can Hack Into Anything.

Problem #3: There are moments that happen far too conveniently. Quayle seems to stumble onto everything he needs, right when he needs it, all along the way. And bad guys have a tendency of showing up in person far too conveniently as well, as if they're all in a van following him around, waiting to step out whenever necessary.

I had lost any ability to believe what was happening by the time Quayle jumps off a plane in an African settlement, tracks down an eccentric doctor, and mild-manneredly gets this guy to spill his guts about corruption and confess to his role in a crime in just a matter of moments... while, at the same time, murderous bandits suddenly arrive to destroy the camp! This guy's timing is unbelievable!

CAUTION: MAJOR SPOILERS!

Problem #4: The conclusion pulls a familiar file from the Thriller Conclusion box--embarrass the bad guy in front of a big crowd. This particular conclusion is usually quite dramatic, but also hard to believe. Here, it felt just as contrived as the conclusion of Minority Report.

(In fact, you could do an in-depth comparison of Minority Report and find a lot of parallels, I think... from the dead wife right down to the flawed, doomed hero who goes on the run from agents sent to kill him, even as he tries to uncover the truth.)

Having just seen Serenity, I can't help but note that the Hero of the Moment seems to be the one who slowly wakes up to the government's corruption, resists getting involved because of the hassle, but then is persuaded to track down the evidence, and finally risks his life to get that evidence broadcast to the rest of the world, to expose and bring down the tyrant and his lies. These stories operate on the assumption that a world of evils can be traced to an easily-exposed lie, and if that lie is just brought into the light by a noble investigative reporter, things can be fixed. A nice idea, but unrealistic.

It also pivots on the exchange, "Do you believe you can redeem yourself for your sins?" "Yes, I do." Again, a nice idea. But it doesn't work. We know, on some level, that human beings, no matter how gushingly their hearts bleed for one another, can't save the world on their own strength. They need to appeal to a Higher Power. And no one in The Constant Gardener ever looks up.

I must, however, note that Fernando Mereilles is an immensely talented director who has a formidable command of style and editing. Ralph Fiennes is fine, and Rachel Weisz is radiant as always. So the film does have its strong points.

It's just guilty of many of the same faults that mucked up the seemingly "un-muckable" premise of In My Country. (How is it that a film about the South African Reconciliation Hearings sent me away more bewildered by the sight of Samuel Jackson and Juliet Binoche having sex than burdened by the weight of what happened there?!) If your story is about a massive, historic crisis, don't dilute the material with something as trivial as a shallow love story.


Broken Flowers (2005)

[This original version of this review of Broken Flowers was originally published at Christianity Today in August 2005.]


Bill Murray, under the direction of Jim Jarmusch, declares the beginning of the end of the summer season of blockbusters by delivering August's first high-profile American art film: Broken Flowers. It's time, at last, to bring our focus back to films that reward close attention and contemplatoin — that is, movies made for grownups. In this case, we have a story about a three-dimensional human being wrestling with deep sadness and regret.

Don't misunderstand—the movie is fun. Jarmusch will jolt you with big laughs, the sort that have earned him a loyal following through previous works like Stranger Than Paradise, Down by Law, and, most recently, Coffee and Cigarettes.

Don Johnston (Murray) made his money "in computers," and yet money hasn't bought him true love or joy. We're given hints of his younger self—the nickname "Don Juan" follows him around more like a curse than an honor. His dalliances with various lovers ended in disappointment. When we meet him, his latest girlfriend Sherry (Julie Delpy) is, in fact, leaving. With Don's face in profile filling the right side of the screen, we see Sherry standing with her suitcase in the entryway, as though inside a thought bubble—an echo of so many past departures. He's left staring despondently past handsome furniture into oblivion, sullenly resigned to another failure.

Enter Winston (Jeffrey Wright), Don's meddling neighbor. Winston's a family man who has discovered "the Net" and is indulging his interest in detective work. Another director might have cast Luis Guzman in the role, and that would have worked. But Wright, a powerfully versatile actor who made strong impressions as a violent gangster in the re-make of Shaft and as the traumatized war veteran in the re-make of The Manchurian Candidate, plays Winston with note-perfect humor and an Ethiopian accent. Winston's just dying for a mystery to solve, and Don unwittingly serves one up.

A pink envelope brings a shock to Don's system: he's apparently the father of an eighteen-year-old son. The letter isn't signed. Don, being Don, responds by bravely digging another furrow across his brow. But Winston's enthusiastic—near-hysterical—response involves a different kind of digging. Before Don can effectively protest, Winston gathers the tools necessary to solve the mystery.

Here, you're likely to share Jarmusch's tangible reluctance to tear Don away from Winston. Their casual chemistry is the film's richest resource of humor and nerves. But the show must go on, and so we're off on the Odyssey of Don: a trip down memory lane, the major points on the map being the current locations of his lost loves. Those failures are played by Sharon Stone, Frances Conroy, Jessica Lange, and Tilda Swinton.

Stone, making up for her embarrassing turn in Catwoman, is at once funny and painfully sad as Laura, a shallow but free-spirited widow and the mother of a dangerously ditzy teen. Appropriately named Lolita (Alexis Dziena), the daughter's eagerness to full-frontally flaunt her adolescent comeliness for Don is the primary reason for the film's rating.

Dora (Conroy) has entombed her regrets in a pile of stylish throw pillows and pristine home furnishings, her '60s ideals lost in a superficial marriage and a career as a pre-fab home seller.

Exquisitely strange, Carmen (Lange), guarded by a venomous and psychotically overprotective secretary (Chloe Sevigny, of course), has the most unusual occupation—that's best kept as a surprise.

And as a monster spewing bile and bitterness, Tilda Swinton is so scary that it's hard to imagine she'll be any more dangerous when she plays Narnia's White Witch later this year.

Each encounter reveals more of the history behind Don's defeated demeanor. And, during another visit, in a scene of rain, bruises, and defeat, Murray breaks our heart with an expression that may be the most affecting moment of his career.

Broken Flowers is the reverse of Murray's zany classic Groundhog Day. In Harold Ramis's comedy, Murray got to relive the same day over and over, behaving differently while circumstances and surroundings stayed put. Here, his surroundings keep changing, but he maintains the same reluctance and stoicism throughout, so beleaguered by his mistakes that he can't muster the energy to pursue a thing.

To regular moviegoers, it will feel like an art film; to art house patrons, it will feel mainstream. They'll both be right. It's a film that follows a simple storyline, and yet seizes every opportunity to turn a cliché into something slightly dissatisfying, slightly sour, with deep emotions and complicated thoughts running in barely perceptible currents under the sparse dialogue. With the help of Frederick Elmes' graceful cinematography, Jarmusch is a true artist who never steers matters toward an obvious lesson, inviting us to arrive at our own interpretations.

But it is interesting that the only glimmers of real joy in the film can be found in Winston's thriving family. During Don's four-city tour, he finds former flames in various phases of dissatisfaction or delusion. Glamour? It fades and reveals the emptiness beneath it. Success? It's no substitute for contentment. New Age hocus-pocus? Yikes. The continual misapprehensions of Don's real name ("Don Johnson?") bring to mind a popular ideal of the stylish, confident American male. This, we might conclude, is where the path of the macho seducer ultimately leads—to ruin, regret, and rumination on what might have been. Don's journey peels back the surface of so many American dreams to find them wanting, while Winston, dodging his kids and doting on his "perfect" wife, seems as rich as a king.

Broken Flowers has only one thing working against it: Murray's been playing sullen, withdrawn characters a bit too often. The fact that we've recently seen him sulk through Rushmore, The Royal Tenenbaums, Lost in Translation (still his finest performance), and The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou (another film about a man discovering fatherhood too late), blunts the impact of this, another brilliant performance.

Nevertheless, Broken Flowers' conclusion will send audiences out talking about what it means. But take note: Only the watchful will perceive the subtle significance of that final shot. It finally resolves the central tension of the story. Some critics are missing it, concluding that Don is doomed to the doldrums of disillusionment. But there is a crucial difference in the "hero" during our final, poignant glimpse of him. To say more would be telling, but it could be the key to his redemption.

Where Hitchcock insisted his films were not slices of life, but slices of cake, Jarmusch's are savory servings of life, and they deserve to be treated as delicacies.


Time of the Wolf -- DVD of the Day

I'm currently working on a manuscript about powerfully transporting films, and the chapter currently on the table is about films that explore loneliness, alienation, and division in contemporary society.

Thus, I've been thinking about a lot of films, from Taxi Driver to Barton Fink to Punch-drunk Love to Last Life in the Universe. The director I can't escape is Michael Haneke, especially Code Unknown.

But it didn't hit me until today that the events we're seeing unfold in what's left of New Orleans are strikingly similar... dismayingly so... to the events in Haneke's Time of the Wolf.

Because the disaster that sets the film in motion is left undefined, the subsequent events onscreen could be applicable to any number of tragedies. All we know is that something... nuclear holocaust? Hurricane? Civil war? ... has turned a seemingly secure and civilized society upside-down. Isabelle Huppert plays a woman trying to keep her family together during the chaos that ensues. The similarities between the current chaos and what happens in this film are uncanny...

...the desperation for water...
...the problems of transporting the old and the sick and the weak...
...racial conflict...
...vigilantes and criminals running rampant...
...the absence of federal help until, for many, it's too late...
...the waiting for rescue, for compassion, for supplies, for anything...
...the desperate attempts of parents to keep a family safe and together in spite of the encroaching dangers of hunger, disease, dehydration...
... the threat of murder and rape in the night...

Part of me wants to revisit the film right now, because I'm curious to see what else relates. And also because, while the conclusion is wide open to varying interpretations, you can find hope there. But my emotions, battered as they are right now, couldn't take the weight of the experience. Not yet.

I appreciate Haneke more and more, though, and in the future, this film will be an even richer provocation to conversation and contemplation. I am thrilled to see he has a new film coming that stars the great Daniel Auteuil and the sublime Juliette Binoche. Cache is about a married couple who are torn to pieces by the experience of having videos delivered to their doorstep that reveal they are being watched by someone somewhere and documented. Ahh... just in time for Christmas!


New feedback at CT: Narnia

A letter worth noting at the Feedback page for Christianity Today Movies:

Narnia Evangelism

posted 09/02/05

Your Reel News column states, "It's not surprising that believers would see [The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe] as not just mere entertainment, but as an evangelistic opportunity. "In stark contrast, C. S. Lewis' close friend Walter Hooper argues "I was worried that those who talked about 'teaching' the stories as Christian 'theology' might by such efforts frustrate the spell of Lewis' clearly worked illusion."

As a Lewis scholar, I completely agree with Hooper. First and foremost, all seven Narnia books are literary masterpieces that were written to be enjoyed by all, and just as one need not be polytheistic to enjoy the splendor of ancient Egyptian art, or benefit from scientific progress, much of which originated in polytheistic cultures, one need not be Christian to enjoy the Narnia series or any other great masterpiece that happens to have been written by a Christian, especially as great a writer and philosopher as Lewis. However, the good fellowship that naturally comes from great books and great movies can definitely be used as an evangelistic opportunity. After all, before he became a Christian, Lewis himself shared a love of medieval and ancient tales with his friend and colleague Tolkien, a committed Christian. I believe this solid friendship that began with a mutual love of literature caused Tolkien to be influential in leading Lewis to Jesus. If anything is to be used as an evangelistic opportunity, then let it be the friendship that comes naturally from shared interests such as that of Narnia.

Katrelya Angus

What do you think? Are the evangelism events being organized around the Narnia release misguided? Shouldn't we just let the art speak... or better, show... for itself?

And, if I do say so myself, I was flattered to see this letter posted as well:

I thoroughly enjoyed Jeffrey Overstreet's review of The Brothers Grimm. Too few movie reviewers give such attention to critical analysis, but Overstreet's reviews are insightful, both because they tastefully express his opinions AND provide plenty of supporting evidence. As a fellow editor and writer, I'm impressed.

Kelly Tait

Thanks, Kelly! I must say, I had more fun writing that review than I did seeing the movie.


Don't forget... keep nominating your favorite 2005 films

Time to visit this link again!

What's YOUR favorite film of the year so far?

Mine? There are only a few candidates: Born into Brothels, Millions, 2046, Batman Begins, and Broken Flowers. Some fine films there, but I really don't think ANY of them are "film of the year" material.Read more


Specials: Proposition review. Good Night review. And more on Emily Rose.

Today's specials:

GUY PEARCE GETS DUSTY
A review of Nick Cave's The Proposition is up at Twitch. And it sounds like a must-see!

GEORGE CLOONEY GETS ARTSY
David Poland on Good Night, and Good Luck, the new film by George Clooney. He's impressed.

GREYDANUS GETS JUNKETY
Steven Greydanus reports from the press junket for The Exorcism of Emily Rose.

DERRICKSON GETS CHATTY
And Peter T. Chattaway links to his full interview with director Scott Derrickson.

Did I mention how much I can't wait to go back and see Serenity again?


"Serenity": I'm not allowed to speak.

I'm not allowed to--

WOOOOO HOOOO!!!!

I'm not allowed to say anything along the lines of, oh, say, "Serenity is the best Star Wars film since The Empire Strikes Back."

So I'll have to reserve my rave review until September 30th.

But I can offer you some advice:

If you want to enjoy an incredibly exciting action movie, you'd better get out and rent or purchase the Firefly DVD series and watch each episode. You won't regret it. The more you know the show, the more you'll appreciate the movie. There are MAJOR developments in the relationships of these characters, and if you don't know what's come before, you'll wonder why the people in the theater around you are laughing and crying.


2046: Glorious imagery, troubling relationships

2046 demands to be seen if only because no film (at least, no film *I've* ever seen) captures the beauty of its actresses so artfully, with such spectacular style and light. I mean that Wong Kar Wai's long-awaited follow-up to In the Mood for Love captures the subtle grace of several fine actresses in a take-your-breath-away, "aren't-women-confoundingly-fantastic" kind of way.

Few films have ever concentrated so closely on colors and textures. Cinematographer Christopher Doyle (Hero, Last Life in the Universe) builds this film out of shots in which most of the screen is obscured by screens, walls, or curtains, so that we focus on a face or a figure framed in a narrow space, and the effect of detail contrasted with solid color or swathes of shadow is fascinating.

I will offer a precaution about a few sex scenes (filmed without explicit nudity--the film is not in any way pornographic.) 2046 is for viewers who aren't led astray by art that is about sexual relationships. Like Mike Nichols' Closer, the film's characters are far from role models. They're deeply confused about the difference between love and lust, and they're using each other to make up for the fact that they don't have what it takes to develop the Real Thing. Consider it a cautionary tale about settling for self-centered romance instead of cultivating true love.

Ziyi Zhang is a revelation in this film. I liked her before, especially in The Road Home, but here she nudges her way into Juliette Binoche/Audrey Hepburn territory. It's hard to believe she's real.

Tony Leung gives a suave, understated performance, and I can't imagine anyone else in this role.

The otherworldly Faye Wong (Chungking Express) gets to play both a writer AND a Blade-Runner-style pleasure-android, and few actresses could play an android so convincingly. Gorgeous, in a way, and yet unnervingly plastic. She also gets to wear the coolest shoes I've ever seen in a film.

Did I mention that the always-dazzling Gong Li deserves praise too? After weeping over her husband's gambling habits in To Live, now she gets to gamble herself.

It's a film that is open to a thousand interpretations.

To me, at first viewing, it's about our longing for heaven, for a state of unchanging love and contentment, that elusive experience with the divine that happens in romantic love only in fleeting moments. It's about how, in this life, most of us experience the frustration of relationships that are exciting but not perfect, that seem to be puzzles missing a piece. Mr. Chow is involved with several women over the course of the film, seducing them, being seduced, manipulating them, being manipulated, occasionally bedding them, breaking up with them, being abandoned. (After the show, my friend Martin Stillion compared it to Dangerous Liaisons, and he's right on--it's like Dangerous Liaisons meets Blade Runner in the aesthetic of In the Mood For Love.) Each time Mr. Chow flirts with, falls for, or mourns the loss of a woman, we become increasingly aware that, at the core of these messed up relationships, he's longing for the "one that got away." (Wong Kar Wai fans can probably guess who that is, and yes, she does appear, but only briefly.) At the same time, he's writing a sci-fi novel about a time and a place that is said to be unchangeably wonderful...

2046 represents an unchangeable place, an ideal, a destination (is it a year? an address? a room number? a state of being? nirvana? heaven? Or all of the above) that is difficult to reach, and that you might not be able to escape from. People who reach it never return... and thus no one's sure if, indeed, it's all it's cracked up to be.

In spite of his longing for transcendance, Chow seems cursed to never reach what he desires, because he can't get over himself. For all of his affairs, he holds on to the right to manipulate, leave, break promises, and do whatever the heck he wants. He's an arrogant @#$%@$!, but that's not to say we can't learn from observing his mistakes.

I was enthralled. It does start to wear out its welcome with redundancies near the end (some say 20 minutes too long, I say maybe 10) but that didn't bother me as much as some of the others in the crowd. I'm so caught up in Wong Kar Wai's mastery of style and form, and Doyle's cinematography, that the story is a secondary aspect of the film for me. I come away feeling as if I've been served an extravagant meal, and enjoyed it so much that I ate a few platefuls too many.

You're going to hear a lot about Ziyi Zhang and Gong Li when Memoirs of a Geisha arrives in a couple of months. They may even earn Oscar nominations for it. I have a hunch that in 20 years, 2046 will be considered a far more significant achievement for both actresses than Geisha. It'll be interesting to see if the Academy even acknowledges Wong Kar Wai. (Geisha is, after all, being directed by an American.)