Connect with us

Editorials

Special Feature: Exorcism Controversy

Published

on

Despite huge advances in mental health science over the last couple of centuries, many in the religious community continue to believe in demonic possession. In Part 5 of our series on exorcism – in anticipation of Warner Bros. Pictures’ The Rite, releasing January 28th – B-D’s Chris Eggertsen delves into the debate between religious leaders who continue to support the practice and those in the scientific field who are intent on putting an end to it. It’s an issue that doesn’t appear to be going away any time soon – with a rise over the last few decades in the number of exorcisms being performed around the world, the controversy will surely continue well into the 21st century.
The belief in demonic possession has persisted for hundreds, if not thousands, of years in religions and cultures all across the world. It was only with the emergence of psychiatry in the 1800s that emotional disturbance was seen as having a biological basis that could be treated or cured through advances in medical science. Nevertheless, even in the 21st century a large percentage of the world’s religious population continues to believe in the possibility of possession by evil spirits.

In ancient times, people afflicted with mental or neurological illnesses were thought to be possessed by demons. The involuntary convulsions of a person suffering from epilepsy; the hallucinations, paranoia, and violent behaviors brought on by schizophrenia; and the loud, random vocal outbursts and physical tics of Tourette’s Syndrome, among other disorders, were all believed to be signs of evil forces playing upon a person’s soul. Only by performing an exorcism, it was presumed, could the person be freed from the influence of the devil.

The rise of the field of psychiatry in the late 1700s and into the the 19th and 20th centuries led to a change in popular attitudes. The research of figures such as Philippe Pinel, Benjamin Rush, Sigmund Freud, and Emil Kraepelin, among many others, suggested that it was disorders of the brain, not the influence of demons, which led to divergence in human behavior.

Despite this new school of thought, the belief in evil spirits persisted into the 20th century, with the Roman Catholic Church continuing to officially sanction exorcisms in certain cases where it was determined that a person’s mental disturbances could not be explained or treated by medical means. Of course, the very fact of the Church’s willingness to take the possibility of mental illness into account just goes to show that even the Vatican could no longer deny the overwhelming body of empirical evidence proving the existence of psychiatric disorders. Exorcism surely never went away following the establishment of psychiatry as a legitimate scientific field, but the popularity of the method nevertheless declined considerably.

And yet the practice continues to this day, not only in Catholicism – where it is still recognized as an official rite by the Church – but in other religions around the world (though not in any officially-authorized capacity). Indeed, it seems even the advent of modern psychiatric theory was incapable of stamping out the influence of centuries of religious indoctrination. As a matter of fact, a 2005 Gallup poll showed that a whopping 42% of Americans still believe in possession by the Devil.

This large number, while it may seem surprising, is indicative of a pendulum swing in religious thought that occurred around the middle of the last century. In the 1960s and early 1970s the phenomenon of “charismatic renewal” – a movement within Christianity that emphasizes a form of ecstatic worship characterized by speaking in tongues and spirit healing, among other supposed manifestations of the Holy Spirit – grew quickly in popularity, leading to an increase in the number of exorcisms performed throughout the world in what have become known as “deliverance ministries”. These ministries have become a huge point of controversy in the last few decades given that many of them charge a fee in exchange for performing an exorcism ritual (with some even televising “mass exorcisms”) and are therefore seen as profiting off their parishioners’ belief in demonic possession without offering any real benefit.

The oft-repeated claim of skeptics and those in the mental health community is that by performing the exorcism ritual for those suffering from legitimate mental illnesses in place of proper psychiatric treatment, a deliverance ministry or other religious institution is in effect harming the person by preventing him/her from seeking the help they need to correct the disorder. And while those performing the exorcism will often point to the supposedly possessed person’s own belief in their possession to justify the practice, most mental health professionals would argue that merely suggesting the possibility of demonic possession to someone in a non-rational state of mind will of course lead that person to actually believe that they have fallen under the devil’s control. They will then begin to act in a way that validates this diagnosis, by, for example, speaking in a demonic tone of voice or demonstrating an aversion toward sacred objects.

There are of course many cases in which individuals undergoing exorcisms have suffered tremendously as a result. A classic example is the famous case of Anneliese Michel (whose story was made into two different films, The Exorcism of Emily Rose and Requiem), a young German Catholic woman who died of severe malnutrition and dehydration after undergoing 67 exorcism rituals in 1976. Though she had earlier in her life been diagnosed with Grand Mal epilepsy and may have also (it is now thought) been suffering from schizophrenia, Anneliese’s deeply religious parents eventually gave up on finding a medical answer for their daughter’s increasingly disturbed behavior and instead proceeded with the exorcisms that ended up resulting in her untimely death at the age of 23.

Anneliese Michel is certainly the most famous victim of an exorcism gone wrong, though she’s far from the only one – hundreds of recorded cases exist in which people thought to be possessed died after undergoing the ritual (though most were “unofficial” and not authorized by the Catholic Church or any other large-scale religious institution). In 1995, a Korean immigrant in San Francisco named Kyung-A Ha was beaten to death by members of her Pentecostal church during an intense six-hour-long exorcism. In 1993, a schizophrenic woman named Joan Vollmer in Horsham, Australia, died after undergoing an exorcism performed by her husband and several other amateur exorcists. Last July, a 4-year-old Russian boy named Dmitry Kazachuk died after being suffocated during an impromptu exorcism by shamanistic healers in his small village who believed he’d been possessed by the Devil.

Cases of exorcism fraud have also become increasingly rampant. Controversial radio and television evangelist Bob Larson, president of Bob Larson Ministries, bills himself as “the world’s foremost expert on cults, the occult, and supernatural phenomena.” However, he has been charged from many corners with defrauding thousands of people by performing paid group and individual exorcisms (he charges $500/hour for “personal deliverance” sessions), wooing them through the use of alleged hired actors who fake possession for the T.V. cameras in order to “prove” Larson’s ability to cast out demons. In 2008, senior Catholic priest Francesco Saverio Bazzoffi of Florence, Italy was accused of fraud when it was found he’d been soliciting donations from audience members at his church after performing “stage shows” in which several of his associates would pose as ordinary people suffering from possession. Police found that Fr. Bazzoffi had amassed a nearly $6 million personal fortune from these alleged fake exorcisms.

Despite a rise in hoaxes like these, the belief in demonic possession continues to persist all around the world, and in fact seems to be on the uptick. In the U.S., one in ten Catholics polled in a 2008 survey said they had either witnessed or been involved in at least one exorcism during their lifetime. There are also more exorcists operating in Italy than ever before – over 300, up from a mere 20 or so ten years ago. In 2007 Pope Benedict XVI ordered his bishops to set up “exorcism squads” to counter what he saw as a rise in Satanism. In 2005, the Vatican-linked university, Pontifical Academy Regina Apostolorum, added a new course on exorcism for both priests and theology students entitled “Exorcism and the Prayer of Liberation”.

Interestingly, even some in the mental health community count themselves as believers. In 2008, Dr. Richard E. Gallagher, a board-certified psychiatrist and Associate Professor of Clinical Psychiatry at the New York Medical College (and also, it should be noted, a religious man), documented the case of a young woman living in the United States who had requested an exorcism from her local clergy. The woman, referred to as Julia, was an ex-Catholic who had previously been involved with several satanic groups and subsequently came to believe she was possessed.

Dr. Gallagher sat in on the exorcism rituals, witnessing and documenting strange phenomena that finally convinced him the woman was suffering from an affliction that fell outside any earthly explanation. These phenomena included speaking in foreign languages unknown to her previously; acts of psychokinesis (the movement of objects without the use of physical force); and a levitation in which Gallagher witnessed the young woman hovering six inches off the ground. His account was published in the New Oxford Review, an orthodox Catholic publication.

Despite outliers like Dr. Gallagher, however, the mental health community as a whole remains skeptical – if not outright critical – of the belief in demonic possession and the exorcism rituals performed to address it. They face an uphill battle, however, as even in the 21st century the exorcism phenomenon continues unabated.

Advertisement
Click to comment

Editorials

‘Amityville Karen’ Is a Weak Update on ‘Serial Mom’ [Amityville IP]

Published

on

Amityville Karen horror

Twice a month Joe Lipsett will dissect a new Amityville Horror film to explore how the “franchise” has evolved in increasingly ludicrous directions. This is “The Amityville IP.”

A bizarre recurring issue with the Amityville “franchise” is that the films tend to be needlessly complicated. Back in the day, the first sequels moved away from the original film’s religious-themed haunted house storyline in favor of streamlined, easily digestible concepts such as “haunted lamp” or “haunted mirror.”

As the budgets plummeted and indie filmmakers capitalized on the brand’s notoriety, it seems the wrong lessons were learned. Runtimes have ballooned past the 90-minute mark and the narratives are often saggy and unfocused.

Both issues are clearly on display in Amityville Karen (2022), a film that starts off rough, but promising, and ends with a confused whimper.

The promise is embodied by the tinge of self-awareness in Julie Anne Prescott (The Amityville Harvest)’s screenplay, namely the nods to John Waters’ classic 1994 satire, Serial Mom. In that film, Beverly Sutphin (an iconic Kathleen Turner) is a bored, white suburban woman who punished individuals who didn’t adhere to her rigid definition of social norms. What is “Karen” but a contemporary equivalent?

In director/actor Shawn C. Phillips’ film, Karen (Lauren Francesca) is perpetually outraged. In her introductory scenes, she makes derogatory comments about immigrants, calls a female neighbor a whore, and nearly runs over a family blocking her driveway. She’s a broad, albeit familiar persona; in many ways, she’s less of a character than a caricature (the living embodiment of the name/meme).

These early scenes also establish a fairly straightforward plot. Karen is a code enforcement officer with plans to shut down a local winery she has deemed disgusting. They’re preparing for a big wine tasting event, which Karen plans to ruin, but when she steals a bottle of cursed Amityville wine, it activates her murderous rage and goes on a killing spree.

Simple enough, right?

Unfortunately, Amityville Karen spins out of control almost immediately. At nearly every opportunity, Prescott’s screenplay eschews narrative cohesion and simplicity in favour of overly complicated developments and extraneous characters.

Take, for example, the wine tasting event. The film spends an entire day at the winery: first during the day as a band plays, then at a beer tasting (???) that night. Neither of these events are the much touted wine-tasting, however; that is actually a private party happening later at server Troy (James Duval)’s house.

Weirdly though, following Troy’s death, the party’s location is inexplicably moved to Karen’s house for the climax of the film, but the whole event plays like an afterthought and features a litany of characters we have never met before.

This is a recurring issue throughout Amityville Karen, which frequently introduces random characters for a scene or two. Karen is typically absent from these scenes, which makes them feel superfluous and unimportant. When the actress is on screen, the film has an anchor and a narrative drive. The scenes without her, on the other hand, feel bloated and directionless (blame editor Will Collazo Jr., who allows these moments to play out interminably).

Compounding the issue is that the majority of the actors are non-professionals and these scenes play like poorly performed improv. The result is long, dull stretches that features bad actors talking over each other, repeating the same dialogue, and generally doing nothing to advance the narrative or develop the characters.

While Karen is one-note and histrionic throughout the film, at least there’s a game willingness to Francesca’s performance. It feels appropriately campy, though as the film progresses, it becomes less and less clear if Amityville Karen is actually in on the joke.

Like Amityville Cop before it, there are legit moments of self-awareness (the Serial Mom references), but it’s never certain how much of this is intentional. Take, for example, Karen’s glaringly obvious wig: it unconvincingly fails to conceal Francesca’s dark hair in the back, but is that on purpose or is it a technical error?

Ultimately there’s very little to recommend about Amityville Karen. Despite the game performance by its lead and the gentle homages to Serial Mom’s prank call and white shoes after Labor Day jokes, the never-ending improv scenes by non-professional actors, the bloated screenplay, and the jittery direction by Phillips doom the production.

Clocking in at an insufferable 100 minutes, Amityville Karen ranks among the worst of the “franchise,” coming in just above Phillips’ other entry, Amityville Hex.

Amityville Karen

The Amityville IP Awards go to…

  • Favorite Subplot: In the afternoon event, there’s a self-proclaimed “hot boy summer” band consisting of burly, bare-chested men who play instruments that don’t make sound (for real, there’s no audio of their music). There’s also a scheming manager who is skimming money off the top, but that’s not as funny.
  • Least Favorite Subplot: For reasons that don’t make any sense, the winery is also hosting a beer tasting which means there are multiple scenes of bartender Alex (Phillips) hoping to bring in women, mistakenly conflating a pint of beer with a “flight,” and goading never before seen characters to chug. One of them describes the beer as such: “It looks like a vampire menstruating in a cup” (it’s a gold-colored IPA for the record, so…no).
  • Amityville Connection: The rationale for Karen’s killing spree is attributed to Amityville wine, whose crop was planted on cursed land. This is explained by vino groupie Annie (Jennifer Nangle) to band groupie Bianca (Lilith Stabs). It’s a lot of nonsense, but it is kind of fun when Annie claims to “taste the damnation in every sip.”
  • Neverending Story: The film ends with an exhaustive FIVE MINUTE montage of Phillips’ friends posing as reporters in front of terrible green screen discussing the “killer Karen” story. My kingdom for Amityville’s regular reporter Peter Sommers (John R. Walker) to return!
  • Best Line 1: Winery owner Dallas (Derek K. Long), describing Karen: “She’s like a walking constipation with a hemorrhoid”
  • Best Line 2: Karen, when a half-naked, bleeding woman emerges from her closet: “Is this a dream? This dream is offensive! Stop being naked!”
  • Best Line 3: Troy, upset that Karen may cancel the wine tasting at his house: “I sanded that deck for days. You don’t just sand a deck for days and then let someone shit on it!”
  • Worst Death: Karen kills a Pool Boy (Dustin Clingan) after pushing his head under water for literally 1 second, then screeches “This is for putting leaves on my plants!”
  • Least Clear Death(s): The bodies of a phone salesman and a barista are seen in Karen’s closet and bathroom, though how she killed them are completely unclear
  • Best Death: Troy is stabbed in the back of the neck with a bottle opener, which Karen proceeds to crank
  • Wannabe Lynch: After drinking the wine, Karen is confronted in her home by Barnaby (Carl Solomon) who makes her sign a crude, hand drawn blood contract and informs her that her belly is “pregnant from the juices of his grapes.” Phillips films Barnaby like a cross between the unhoused man in Mulholland Drive and the Mystery Man in Lost Highway. It’s interesting, even if the character makes absolutely no sense.
  • Single Image Summary: At one point, a random man emerges from the shower in a towel and excitedly poops himself. This sequence perfectly encapsulates the experience of watching Amityville Karen.
  • Pray for Joe: Many of these folks will be back in Amityville Shark House and Amityville Webcam, so we’re not out of the woods yet…

Next time: let’s hope Christmas comes early with 2022’s Amityville Christmas Vacation. It was the winner of Fangoria’s Best Amityville award, after all!

Amityville Karen movie

Continue Reading