The Devil and Father Amorth looks at real exorcisms
There appear to be four major antagonists when it comes to popular horror—zombies, ghosts, demons, and serial killers. Almost all involve some variant on this theme. Some might even belong in multiple categories.
Is Jason a serial killer or a zombie or a zombie serial killer? What about Freddy? Is he a ghost? Demon? There’s plenty of discussion to be had.
These creatures permeate our society on a near primal level, to the point where even non-horror fans can tell you the rules and regulations associated with each terror.
Ghosts are often unseen, moving objects and dragging heroes out of bed without warning. Serial killers are unnaturally quiet and quite deft with edged weapons. Demons cause temperatures to drop and heads to spin.
While each is rooted in folklore and legend, Hollywood has turned them into brands as well-known as Nike and Chef Boyardee. So when director William Friedkin, director of the seminal exorcism film The Exorcist, announced his documentary The Devil and Father Amorth, promising to deliver footage of a real exorcism and answer the question about how much he got right, I couldn’t help but wonder if that question could even be answered.
The Exorcist was a worldwide sensation. It would be hard to set up a controlled exorcism outside of the influence of the film. Friedkin was not to be deterred, however.
The film does exactly as advertised. Friedkin is given access to the ninth exorcism of an Italian woman by Father Gabriele Amortha, a working exorcist for the Catholic Church. Amortha is something of an exorcism superstar—well known and highly successful, despite his advanced age.
The priest appears as a calm, gentle elderly man, the type you might see seated at a Hardee’s very early in the morning, poring over a local paper and sipping a black coffee. He is good humored and friendly. He doesn’t appear at all world weary after his life-long battle with the principalities of darkness. Friedkin has no interviews with Amortha.
The priest has other duties to attend to. He does, however, speak with a woman successfully exorcised by Father Amortha, as well as her brother, and the cursed woman currently under Amortha’s care.
Later, Friedkin has a few conversations with experts in the field of exorcism and the devil, as well as neuroscientists, psychologists, and psychiatrists at well-respected institutions. Friedkin wants to get at the truth of demonic possession and its trappings. His conclusions, of course, are muddled.
Of the exorcism, I’ll say this: there is clearly something wrong with the woman in the film. Friedkin was allowed only a handheld camera to record the event and, supposedly, no manipulation of any type occurred after the fact, save for a few edits. The otherworldly voices coming from the “possessed” woman do appear genuine.
However, the DSM V diagnoses such maladies as dissociative disorders or possession trance disorders. Friedkin even expresses surprise that demonic possession is included in the DSM, although it’s not really. People who suffer from the condition aren’t possessed by an evil spirit—their brain just tells them they are.
Friedkin, however, believes differently. That’s why he brings in scientific experts. He’s trying to argue that exorcism is a legitimate treatment for mental illness. He might not be entirely wrong. The experts he talks do indicate that these symptoms manifest the way they do because of the deeply religious traditions they were raised inside. Using that religious tradition to assuage the real life symptoms might work as a sort of placebo treatment. But there’s possibility of damage as well.
Friedkin does a decent job of balancing what he believes with what other dismiss. However, there are frustrating moments. At one point in the film, Friedkin has scheduled an additional interview with the exorcised woman to follow up on her experiences. After a strange location change, Friedkin enters a church to meet her without his camera. Immediately, many strange and supernatural events occur.
The audience is asked to take his word for it as he recreates the scene through description and spooky music. It’s almost as if the exorcism wasn’t as dramatic as he’d hope and he needed something else to drive the point home.
The film works well enough to garner discussion, I suppose. This seems to be the ultimate goal. Friedkin wants people to question their reality and challenge their faith. It might work for some. It didn’t for me.