The Exorcism of Emily Rose (2005)

I never planned on seeing an exorcism movie. I missed the original with Linda Blair, and however many rip-offs or remakes have flowed from it. So how was it that I ended up watching this one (allegedly inspired by a true story)?

Well, after work I headed down from Times Square to K-Town for dinner and a movie with some Redeemer types. Although the original plan was to see Flightplan, we quickly ruled that out (it was panned even by the free daily papers, am New York and Metro New York, not to mention Miss Lettuce herself). So we headed back to Times Square after dinner to see what was playing at the multi megaplexes. And the only semi-tolerable movie playing at the time we arrived was The Exorcism of Emily Rose.

EER was interesting, and also creepy, but not as creepy (or scary) as I expected, thank goodness. I slept soundly last night, right through the "demonic" hour of 3 a.m.

But in all honesty the burning question after seeing EER is: What's up with the judge? At times, she comes across as very sensible and fair, cutting right through the baloney on both sides. However, her rulings are a bit whimsical (no Daubert/Kumho Tire-style factors for her, when she's deciding whether to admit dubious "expert" testimony on a lark), and she allows the foreman of the jury to provide her the jury's purported sentencing recommendation with nary a question to ensure that it is, in fact, the jury's recommendation rather than the foreman's. (Not that the recommendation would carry any weight in any event.) Is the judge really so confused that she welcomes the jury's sentencing recommendation -- and adopts it without hearing from prosecution or defense? Strange, indeed.

It seems also that the defense managed to track down an expert witness overnight during the course of the trial, just in time for the first day of the defense case. And the expert was available the next morning, having fully read the case file. Very impressive.

You may be wondering what all this has to do with exorcism. It doesn't. EER is really a courtroom drama movie, with a few sensational flashbacks. Which the film-makers apparently didn't appreciate. When the movie closes, defense counsel has just turned down a partnership with her firm based on her sensational "victory" in a pro bono case. (By contrast, I was told I would get "new business demerits" if I brought in new pro bono cases referred by my incarcerated client.) The movie-makers tell us about the fate of the priest and the effect of Emily Rose's story. But not a word about the fate of our heroine, the agnostic lawyer! Did she continue to practice law, and if so, where? Did she go to another firm? hang out her own shingle? move in-house? apply for clerkships? Inquiring minds want to know. Presumably she remained an agnostic, despite the evidence of her own senses about a demonic presence that infested her house at 3 am every day of the trial....