Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

The Exorcism Of Emily Rose

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Pretty freaky movie, until the last half hour or so...then it's all courtroom stuff. Naturally, it's got a lot of stuff about Christianity and the spirit world in there, but as long as you can suspend disbelief for 2 hours, then it's an enjoyable movie. During the scary parts, I actually found myself wishing they would go back to the courtroom scenes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well yeah, but at the same time, I don't think the priest should have been on trial for killing her. He didn't kill her and was trying to help her, however mistaken he may have been. Doctors may get sued for malpractice when they give a patient the wrong treatment, but they aren't charged with murder when that treatment fails.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Doctors may get sued for malpractice when they give a patient the wrong treatment, but they aren't charged with murder when that treatment fails.

Isn't exorcism wrong treatment?

How is it supposed to work? :sorcerer:

He may have meant well, but that's true for the doctor giving wrong treatment, too. If you give the wrong treatment in a good way, the patient still dies.

I would have put the parents on trial, too.

Not taking medical advice. :lol: This is murder!

I suppose they even talked her even more into her insanity with all that garbage about the devil.

Just read the blue quote in your signature.

Edited by Felix
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not defending exorcism...I'm saying that the doctor and the parents should not have been legally culpable for what happened, for a number of reasons. First, a charge of mere negligence might be appropriate, but not negligent homicide.

Negligent homicide means that they engaged in some action that unintentionally caused her death. Negligence just means that they neglected to get her the proper care that could have saved her life. But the illness, not the priest's actions, killed her. It would have been negligent homicide if the priest had accidentally knocked a bucket of sulphuric acid onto her face, in the middle of the exorcism, but the fact the neglected to get her the proper care is just plain negligence.

Secondly, Emily Rose, herself, believed that the only way for her to be cured was through exorcism and she had voluntarily denied medical treatment and placed her life in the priest's hands. You can make the argument that she was crazy and, thus, not able to make that decision for herself but, given her highly religious lifestyle, it is likely that she would have made the same decision, had there been nothing wrong with her.

What the priest did was certainly stupid, but it was not malicious.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if she hadn't denied medical treatment, the priest should not have been on trial for homicide, because his actions did not produce her death. The illness produced her death...the priest merely failed to take the appropriate action to save her, but that does not mean that he actually killed her.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Secondly, Emily Rose, herself, believed that the only way for her to be cured was through exorcism and she had voluntarily denied medical treatment and placed her life in the priest's hands.  You can make the argument that she was crazy and, thus, not able to make that decision for herself but, given her highly religious lifestyle, it is likely that she would have made the same decision, had there been nothing wrong with her.

What is exorcism?
Link to post
Share on other sites

The following post has spoilers.

Even if she hadn't denied medical treatment, the priest should not have been on trial for homicide, because his actions did not produce her death.  The illness produced her death...the priest merely failed to take the appropriate action to save her, but that does not mean that he actually killed her.

One aspect of the movie that I think bears consideration is the cross examination of the neurologist. (Not the university doctor.) Essentially, he was asked what he would have done differently and his answer consisted of force feeding the girl and subjecting her to electroshock therapy. Witnesses tried to make it clear that her condition did not improve (and some argued that it even worsened) by the addition of the anti-seizure/psychotic drug. Additionally, Emily was apparently lucid enough at times to voluntarily decide for herself to remove herself from medical care. On top of this, the parents, (who I'm assuming at this late point of her affliction are still her primary guardians (only 19)) seemed to agree that the exorcism was the best course of action. Given all this, the doctor's response frightened me a bit. He was speaking in terms of saving Emily's life at any cost. Apparently this would have meant he would willingly go against Emily's own wishes, and that of her family's.

While I'm absolutely on the side of science (and was pleasantly surprised by the prosecution's line of questioning (esp. the monks)) wouldn't the suggested behaviour of the neurologist, in this particular case, be unethical?

--

End spoilers

On a side note, I've been amused at the reviews of this movie. It seems that many folks who gave the movie a poor review complained that there was just "too much talking" for an exorcism movie.

Link to post
Share on other sites
In the end she died and she could have been alive.

If it was her own conviction to deny medical treatment, then this was just aiding suicide, not murder, o.k.

Unfortunately (or fortunately) if the girl was diagnosed by a medical professional as a schizophrenic than she did not have the state of mind to judge the proper course of treatment. Her parents should have been responsible but apparently they weren't. Can I ask how old she was in real life when this occurred?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Unfortunately (or fortunately) if the girl was diagnosed by a medical professional as a schizophrenic than she did not have the state of mind to judge the proper course of treatment.  Her parents should have been responsible but apparently they weren't.

You are right. Had she said it when she has already been schizophrenic, this would have been invalid.

I meant that she had said it even if she had been sane at the point.

As far as I remember she was in her young twenties. But I give no guarantees.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On a side note, I've been amused at the reviews of this movie.  It seems that many folks who gave the movie a poor review complained that there was just "too much talking" for an exorcism movie.

I wouldn’t complain so much about the movie being “too much talk” if the previews leading up to the movie didn’t portray it in a more horror movie light. It was more like Law and Order than a horror movie.

I felt and I thought it was pretty obvious that the movie was a case against facts and reality and propaganda for the “possibilities,” as the defender closing argument was about, for the existence of god. They made the prosecutor, who was presenting facts and proof look cruel and disrespectful, while the defender kindhearted in the end, asked the jury to use their feelings to make the right choice.

As far as the scenes with Emily as a possessed women go, I thought the actress did a great job playing the part. The body contortions, movements were all great in bringing the scene to life. The part where here boyfriend woke up to find her on the floor was great. My favorite part would have to be when their all out in the barn and she listing off the names of all the demons and when she says “Lucifer” and everything goes dark except the shimmer in her eyes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hrm. I'm a huge horror movie fan, but I haven't seen any previews that looked interesting lately. I might check this out this weekend.

Art is man's metaphysical mirror; what a rational man seeks to see in that mirror is a salute; what an irrational man seeks to see is a justification—even if only a justification of his depravity, as a last convulsion of his betrayed self-esteem.-- Ayn Rand, Romantic Manifesto. Page 39
Edited by OismForever
Link to post
Share on other sites

OismForever,

I don't want to sound rude but your post irks a little of trolling. Are you suggesting that anyone who likes horror movies is automatically irrational? The implication that people who want to be viewed as rational by others (since you have offered a quote against another) should only seek out entertainment that they know ahead of time to be consistent with their view of life, seems to be an over-generalized condemnation of the ability to make judgments across all sorts of ideas and genres.

A person who likes horror films may have several reasons. He may enjoy cinematic special effects, he may enjoy the thrill ride of fear, he may enjoy plots that deal with confrontation of the unnatural, or maybe he just likes to see monsters. (This list is not exhaustive.) The movie discussed in this thread deals explicitly between the belief in the supernatural and provable science. Other horror films (like The Ring) forego science all together, and some horror films deal with more metaphysical topics such as "what is horror?" (like Frankenstein). However, until one actually sees the movie, it is not always immediately evident (from reviews and trailers) where a movie might end up.

After all, hunterrose didn't say, "I am a huge horror movie fan because I enjoy irrational things."

Cheers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
OismForever,

I don't want to sound rude but your post irks a little of trolling. Are you suggesting that anyone who likes horror movies is automatically irrational? The implication that people who want to be viewed as rational by others (since you have offered a quote against another) should only seek out entertainment that they know ahead of time to be consistent with their view of life, seems to be an over-generalized condemnation of the ability to make judgments across all sorts of ideas and genres.

A person who likes horror films may have several reasons. He may enjoy cinematic special effects, he may enjoy the thrill ride of fear, he may enjoy plots that deal with confrontation of the unnatural, or maybe he just likes to see monsters. (This list is not exhaustive.) The movie discussed in this thread deals explicitly between the belief in the supernatural and provable science. Other horror films (like The Ring) forego science all together, and some horror films deal with more metaphysical topics such as "what is horror?" (like Frankenstein). However, until one actually sees the movie, it is not always immediately evident (from reviews and trailers) where a movie might end up.

After all, hunterrose didn't say, "I am a huge horror movie fan because I enjoy irrational things."

Cheers.

I think Rand's quote speaks for itself. Art is a metaphysical mirror. I do not believe that a person who claims to enjoy horror movies is fully familiar with Rand's view of art and the psycho-epistemological meanings one can find in their own reactions to art.

It would be of value to that person to fully examine why and what he enjoys about horror movies which are far FAR removed from the romantic school of things as they could and ought to be.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think Rand's quote speaks for itself. Art is a metaphysical mirror. I do not believe that a person who claims to enjoy horror movies is fully familiar with Rand's view of art and the psycho-epistemological meanings one can find in their own reactions to art.

It would be of value to that person to fully examine why and what he enjoys about horror movies which are far FAR removed from the romantic school of things as they could and ought to be.

Define 'horror movie'. And - are, for example, Alfred Hitchcock's movies all in that category?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Define 'horror movie'. And - are, for example, Alfred Hitchcock's movies all in that category?

I think my definition would be. A movie where a portrayal of evil is not means to an end, but an end in itself.

Where the gruesome is made to titilate. Where one is expected to derive some sort of pleasure by watching people die and be butchered. i.e. Friday the 13th..Texas Chainsaw Massacre..Nightmare on Elm St. Etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think my definition would be. A movie where a portrayal of evil is not means to an end, but an end in itself.

Where the gruesome is made to titilate. Where one is expected to derive some sort of pleasure by watching people die and be butchered. i.e. Friday the 13th..Texas Chainsaw Massacre..Nightmare on Elm St. Etc.

Given that scope, I tend to agree with you about the value of such movies. But what many dub horror movies usually encompass a wider range than those kind of malevolent slasher flicks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Given that scope, I tend to agree with you about the value of such movies. But what many dub horror movies usually encompass a wider range than those kind of malevolent slasher flicks.

Well there certainly is a distinction between a Horror movie and a Thriller.

Just look at the definition of the word "horror"; An intense, painful feeling of repugnance and fear.

Why someone would seek that out as entertainment I will never understand.

I am not sure the movie that this thread is named after is a horror movie or not. It seems to me that it may have some facets that are redeeming and have a broader message.

But, I just wanted to point out to the man who said he was a "huge horror movie fan" that he may want to examine his reasons for beaing a "fan" of such movies, since we are taught in Objectivism that art says much about our psycho-epistemology.

O.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I just found a couple of more Rand quotes that seem pertinent to this discussion.

"That which is not worth contemplating in life, is not worth recreating in art” OPAR Pg. 443.

“A slob portrayed by the technical means of a genius is an esthetic crime.” Objectivist Newsletter 10/1963

Just so you know, Dr. Peikoff likes horror movies (he mentioned it in Understanding Objectivism during a FAQ session I believe)...he must be irrational. (to give an argument from authority :-P )

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just so you know, Dr. Peikoff likes horror movies (he mentioned it in Understanding Objectivism during a FAQ session I believe)...he must be irrational. (to give an argument from authority :-P )

Well you can either believe what Rand said or not. This is an area where many people have disagreed with Rand.

But, Peikoff to my knowledge has never openly contradicted Rand. So I would love to know the context etc... Just do your homework, Rand was never ambiguous about the epistemological significance of one's interpretation of art.

O.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have gone back and researched the topic. Particularly from Piekoff's view. Here is what he said in his book. Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand:

The irrational man gains his form of metaphysical satisfaction from his kind of art. The concretized projection of "What fools these mortals be," for instance, gives him not fuel to act, but consolation, reassurance, a license to stagnate. On a lower level, as our own century's trend illustrates, art may satisfy the lust of the life-hater, giving him the sense of his special brand of triumph: the triumph over all values and, ultimately, over existence as such.

Whether men are good or evil, they characteristically react to art in profoundly personal terms. When an art work does objectify his metaphysics, the reader or viewer experiences a confirmation of his mind and self on the deepest level; the perceptual concrete functions as an affirmation from reality of the efficacy of his consciousness. "Your approach to values is right," the painting or story implicitly tells him, "your grasp of the world is right, you are right." When an art work clashes with a man's metaphysics, by contrast, the experience represents a denial of his efficacy or even a war against his consciousness. The implicit message is: "Reality is not what you think, your values are a delusion, you as a person are wrong, wrong in every way that counts, wrong all the way down." To messages fraught with this category of meaning, responses of passionate embrace or violent recoil are inevitable. OPAR Pages 421-422

I am certainly not calling you a liar. But, I have doubts that Piekoff would have ever said that he "likes horror movies" can you provide a definitive source?

O.

Edited by OismForever
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...