Friday, January 28th, 2011
40

'The Rite' Wants You to Believe in God (and Anthony Hopkins)

I hate to call atheism "cool" these days. "Cool" is a word for pork belly entrées or jeggings or "homemade artisanal spirits" (a.k.a., moonshine), not the ideological choice to disbelieve in a higher entity. Nonetheless, fully (and publicly) embracing religiosity and all its hymn-reading cross-loving righteousness is very distinctly uncool.

All of which presents an interesting backdrop for an exorcism film that takes place in the Vatican (The Rite, in theaters today). The built-in skepticism of the digital age sets up a hefty challenge before the first camera ever rolls: How the hell do you sell a movie about devout Catholics fighting hordes of tongues-speaking slime-spitting demon-hosts to an audience full of Godless iPad addicts?

One way, of course, is to humanize everyone—the priests, the nuns, the possessed, the works. Which is precisely the route director Mikael Håfström (yes, he’s Swedish—which on its own is enough to get you a job in the entertainment biz these days) decides to take. Chain-smoking nuns in Fiats, swearing priests with rude cell phone habits, even seminary schools where slacker priests-in-training play Xbox; we’ve got them all here. In fact, when they’re not waving crosses and chanting in Latin, these exorcists are (relatively) normal members of middle-class society. Sure, they spend their days with possible schizophrenics who roar Mesopotamian blasphemies and vomit up the occasional crucifixion nail—but whose day job isn’t a little crazy?

Into this over-normalized fray comes Sir Anthony Hopkins as the grizzled and pensive lone wolf of the exorcism racket. Whether or not this is yet another paycheck movie (and hey, who are we to judge—yachts are friggin expensive), Hopkins doesn’t treat it like a paycheck movie. No, he treats it like a finale of sorts, a veritable swan song of "Just OK" films that dot his career trajectory like bed bug feces. He’s in it to win it with this one: long, earnest monologues about the waning allegiance of faith; anguished lamentations over a lifetime of fighting evil (and, from what it looks like, getting his ass kicked); brutal tongue-lashings for anyone who crosses him or his army of feral Roman cats. None of it resembles the phoned-in camp he dealt out in The Wolfman or his fall of the house of Lecter in Red Dragon. Hopkins is still working up a storm in this business, racking up at least a movie a year, and The Rite is clearly one project he saw as an opportunity to express… well, something.

But no amount of Hopkins thespianism or sexy smoldering priests (co-star Colin O’Donoghue, whose only real task is to look skeptical and fuckable in his clerical collar) can overcome the fundamental problem with this, and every, exorcism movie: Things can only turn out one of two ways. Either the person is possessed by a demonic entity, thereby asking you to believe in God and Beelzebub and the entire spectrum of wafer-eating crucifix-waving nonsense… or he’s not. Classics like The Exorcist deal with this dilemma by minimizing the whole religiousness of it all—apart from a few drunken-priest scenes, they stay with poor little Linda Blair, whose unyielding suffering eventually makes you desperate to believe in anything that could save her (even Catholicism). Follow-ups like The Exorcism of Emily Rose also find success with this formula.

The Rite does give a nod to its predecessors (after showing O’Donoghue his first "possessed" teenager, Hopkins asks him, "What did you expect, spinning heads and pea soup?"). But from the outset, this wants to be an exorcism movie about priests, not victims. The whole point is one reluctant dude’s journey from skeptic to believer, all in the course of a few demonic visits, hallucinations and close encounters with those Hieronymus Bosch-types they show writhing across the illustrations in ancient texts. (Side note: where do they keep all these "ancient texts" that always make cameos in these movies? Is there some Lost Ark-style warehouse underneath the Vatican that houses all this crap?)

Unfortunately, the reason good exorcist movies stick to the script is that shifting focus to priests brings you dangerously close to a big fat sermon. "Here’s why you should believe in God—or why you should at least consider it!" Which is precisely where we wind up. While the special effects are as good as any (and the seriousness is a welcome change after the buffoonish joke that was The Last Exorcism) The Rite winds up trying way too hard to teach you something. It’s all based on true events! The Vatican really does train exorcists! Really, we have credibility here! This tactic sits poorly with an audience that can whip out smartphones and Google "exorcism hoaxes" as they leave the theater.

Still, ingrained skepticism aside, this movie does achieve something rare in horror: the slow-building sense of dread. No one does dread these days—it’s all hacked limbs and oozing entrails before the opening credits run. The only director who continues to make subtle unease an art is Ti West—his House of the Devil gradually wraps your stomach in maraschino-stem knots (though he sticks to devil worshipping, without any actual possession). Håfström drums up some decent dread here—he paces the craziness well, and summons the "Oh man, shit is about to go seriously wrong" feeling that differentiates true horror from the skull-drilling artery-spurting parlor tricks of the Church of Eli Roth. Which, in and of itself, is an accomplishment worth worshiping.



Melissa Lafsky is possessed… with a love of horror!

40 Comments / Post A Comment

deepomega (#1,720)

I missed these!

Tulletilsynet (#333)

"In times when nobody is interested in God, what would happen if you could prove the existence of sin, pure and simple? Wouldn't that be a windfall for you?" — Walker Percy, Lancelot (1977); this is a killer in a cell speaking to a priest.

libmas (#231)

Possibly worth noting that Percy was himself a Catholic, and a convert to Catholicism at that?

If memory serves, it wouldn't just be a windfall for the priest as priest, but the priest as believer as well. The priest has become a priest-psychologist, a man interested in explaining evil away, and in the process, maybe, explaining God away as well. But if you can put your finger on evil, real evil, well, it gives a soul pause, because it goes outside the natural order of things.

Or at least, that was my understanding.

LondonLee (#922)

I'm still waiting for Anthony Hopkins to start acting again. Hannibal Lecter was the worst thing that ever happened to him — professionally at least, I'm sure he got a very nice house out of it and the career it gave him.

Abe Sauer (#148)

Yuuuuh aaaaahr naahhhhht daaaaaamned.

melis (#1,854)

It's only a matter of time now before Remains of the Day 2.

Abe Sauer (#148)

Two things: "What did you expect, spinning heads and pea soup?" This line suggests that our horror movies, like our super hero movies, have gone all "gritty realism." Ugh.

Second: Can we talk about the marketing of this and the "based on true events" tag is uses. I mean, what true events? That people in the world are Catholic and that The Vatican exists on a map? It's like saying Avatar is based on true events because we landed on the moon.

That hand looks rheumatoidy…

It's based on a book called "The Rite" in which a journalist who shadows a few priests who performs exorcisms. The one thing I learned from it was the possessed more or less act really blase while they wait in the waiting area, and that exorcisms have follow up treatments.

roboloki (#1,724)

see the curate on your way out and have him schedule you for a fortnight from wednesday.

Hirham (#1,709)

Oh, man, is there ever a huge Lost-Ark style warehouse in the Vatican housing all sorts of ancient texts. It's basically my lifelong ambition to get accredited to go in there.

jfruh (#713)

I'm sure there are non-publically-accessible stashes, but he Vatican Museum is basically like this! I love the part where you run out of priceless works of art and get to the wing that's basically "Here's a bunch of tacky crap world leaders have sent the popes as gifts over the centuries, arranged haphazardly, on shelves."

jfruh (#713)

Also, a friend of mine who was in grad school wanted to study some manuscripts that only existed in the Vatican Collection and hadn't been published. He finally got accreditation and funding to spend a semester there, only discover basically within the first week that the manuscripts weren't what he had been hoping so, whoops! He got a three months to hang out in Rome not doing too much. Academia isn't all bad!

wallsdonotfall (#6,378)

Yes! It is called the Vatican Library, and it is not impossible to get in. The New Yorker had a (sadly short and superficial) story on it recently.

I think I might have linked to this before, but it is worth a re-browsing.

petejayhawk (#1,249)

But what I REALLY want to see is the SUPER SECRET (not just the Secret) Vatican archives; the shadowy ones mentioned in countless pieces of pulp fiction over the years. With the secret passages and candlelit walls and the crypts and the whatnot. Like, you know, in Dan Brown's books, which I'VE NOT READ I SWEAR.

Or better yet, the Secret Museum of Naples.

wallsdonotfall (#6,378)

How has Silvio not held a party there yet?

libmas (#231)

@petejayhawk: What would be down there? I mean, the promises of the Gospels are already pretty astonishing, and they're in hotel rooms all over the place. And things like the hand of St. Francis Xavier are encased in glass and on public display in the Gesu.

DoctorDisaster (#1,970)

Yeah, the Vatican was really prescient about secrecy. The key to having secret texts isn't burying them in a crypt or something — the key is to have hundreds of thousands of texts that all look pretty much alike and aren't filed particularly well.

So, if ok films that dot an actors career are considered "bed bug feces", what would you consider the fecal equivalent of nic cage's bad films? I would suggest, the droppings of an incontinent rhino.

Erm, it's not an "ideological" choice, generally, but an ethical or metaphysical (or both) choice. Or, for short, philosophical. Please amend your files accordingly. Thank you.

Lockheed Ventura (#5,536)

This review is equivalent to critic complaining about a zombie movie on the basis that zombies don't actually exist. Generally speaking, the current Ipad atheistic generation does not believe in zombies either, yet are somehow able to be scared by and enjoy zombie movies. It is called the suspension of disbelief a concept that is standard in cinema, in particular horror movies.

The problem seems to be the Author's deep seated prejudice against Catholicism and the Vatican that she brought into the theatre, not the movie itself. The Author is shocked that Catholic priests and nuns drive cars and may smoke on occasion. The filmmaker apparently had the audacity to show Catholic clergy as actual human beings. The question, "As opposed to what?" is unfortunately left unanswered.

Stated simply, art (and I am not saying this exorcism exploitation flick is art) should be judged on its own terms. By bringing personal prejudices into the review, you end up being no better than conservative hack movie reviewers who rail against "Librul Hollywood."

As for the Vatican Secret Archives, I mean come on, now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_Secret_Archives

That wasn't very hard. Google is the friend of the intellectually brave and curious. The Secret Archives are actually an official agency of the Church with 52 miles of books! That is a lot human history and culture. A visit to the Vatican is a culturally enriching experience even for enlightened atheists. I mean, there is like art and history and stuff. Who knows maybe you might learn something?

Horror Chick (#1,677)

Absurd argument. No one has ever ransacked nations or self-immolated or committed hate crimes over whether or not zombies exist. As for prejudice against Catholicism, the movie assumes the modern audience will come in with it — and obligingly, we do.

And thanks for Googling! Lord knows I'm too busy peeing on pictures of Pope Benedict and shoving crosses in uncomfortable orifices to search the Internets these days.

petejayhawk (#1,249)

ZING!

Tulletilsynet (#333)

"(Side note: where do they keep all these "ancient texts" that always make cameos in these movies? Is there some Lost Ark-style warehouse underneath the Vatican that houses all this crap?)"

Sounds a lot like Sarah Palin talking about Jurassic Park and not quite sure what to say about the very notion of fossils.

Also: The Walking Dead doesn't open each episode with "Based on a true story".

erikonymous (#3,231)

@lockheed I didn't find the review to be overly critical of Catholicism, just starting from a point of saying that religious affiliation in general, and especially Catholicism, is on the decline. which is true.

libmas (#231)

@erikonymous: the review's use of "…believe in God and Beelzebub and the entire spectrum of wafer-eating crucifix-waving nonsense…" is pretty critical of Catholicism, since the "wafer-eating" part of the nonsense is the Eucharist, which Catholics believe to be the actual Body of Christ, and call the "source and summit of the faith."

What about Mothmen? Because the Mothman Prophecies did.

DMcK (#5,027)

@lockheed: per erikonymous, yeah, I think the question on the table here is "how do you present these themes to an audience of non-believers in an interesting, thoughtful and non-preachifying way?". Something that The Prophecy accomplished very adroitly, at least to this card-carrying sinner.

erikonymous (#3,231)

@libmas I don't know. I guess I don't have a problem with the author admitting that she is an atheist and coming from the film that way. I agree that calling the Eucharist "nonsense" is dismissive, but also totally in line with atheist thinking, which is by nature dismissive toward belief. and I don't think it's wrong for an atheist to say that religious thinking is nonsense any more than I think it's wrong for believers to say that these things have meaning for them. free speech and all. BUT, at the very least, she points out right up front that she doesn't believe atheism is, in and of itself, "cool."
not that I'm trying to take sides in the Lockheed Vs. Horror Chick debate, because I think they're both hurting their arguments in this thread.

libmas (#231)

I think it's a debatable claim, saying that atheist thinking is by nature dismissive toward belief. Opposed to, sure, but I don't think that necessarily involves dismissal – the latter carries more negative implications. If you can dismiss a notion, that suggests it doesn't even merit consideration. And of course, the claim that the Eucharist is the Body of Christ is an outrageous claim – John's Gospel reports that Jesus lost a bunch of followers after saying that whoever eats the flesh of the son of man would have eternal life, and those were people who already believed in God. So sure, it's easy to be dismissive – but it does read as having a pretty critical spirit toward faith, which was my original claim.
All that said, Lafsky can of course write and believe whatever she pleases.

Lockheed Ventura (#5,536)

Horror Chick-

Thank you. You proved my point pitch perfectly.

Atheists can be bigots and as close minded just as much as any Fish Eater. Your self-admitted prejudice against a religion of a billion people and corresponding two thousand years of history, art and culture does not make you an "intellectual". Quite the contrary, it is the height of intellectual barbarism. The fact that you can not even see anything wrong with your own prejudices is rather comical.

Seriously, talk to a Nun or Priest sometime. They won't try to exorcise any demons from you despite what the scary Hollywood movies tell you. I promise. You might actually come to like them as human beings. And I am serious about the whole visiting the Vatican thing You will be impressed. And the pasta in that town is to die for.

Yamara (#9,395)

Might want to leave the kids at home though. The experience may be a bit much for them.

DMcK (#5,027)

@lockheed: A lot of history, art and culture was catalyzed by the Catholic church. A lot more happened in spite of it, or in its absence (there's a lot of history, art and culture in the big ol' world!). I wouldn't characterize you as a bigot (as you so ungenerously tarred "Author"), but I know when I smell a chauvinist (in the classic sense, no need to alert Jezebel). In any event I think your defensiveness on behalf of Mother Church has blinded you to the actual point of this article.

Lockheed Ventura (#5,536)

Prove your point. I take the position that human history and culture is broader than that put forth by the Author. The Author strikes me as someone who has limited exposure to different cultures.

The Author's response to my questioning was to celebrate urinating on the image of the Pontiff and inserting a Crucifix (a holy symbol to Christians) into her nether regions, whether she meant her anus or vaginal region, I don't know. This sort of hateful and frankly childish behavior should not be defended or celebrated by honest, serious people who live in a cosmopolitan society.

It's childish, anti-intellecutal and frankly LAME.

I suggest the Author live in the real wold for some time and encounter Catholics, Muslims and other people of different life experience. World travel would do wonders and expand the Author's limited and possibly bigoted world horizons.

im tearin in 2
a pic of the poap rite now
does that bug you now
mah mouf shoots p soop
blow ba blaow

Post a Comment