Quantcast
Connect with us

Editorials

In Defense of ‘Deliver Us From Evil’

Published

on

Aw c’mon, guys, it wasn’t that bad.

While I admit that Scott Derrickson’s Deliver Us From Evil failed to pack the punch I was hoping for, I’m gobsmacked over the amount of flak it’s getting from critics. The film currently has a 32 percent on Rotten Tomatoes, which bums me out because I feel that although it might not be successful on all fronts, the film is admirable as hell for trying to do something different within the constraints of the exorcism genre. In this article I wanna address some of the arguments critics have made against the film.

(spoilers follow, duh)

As a recovering Catholic, the use of demonic elements will always give me the willies. It never fails. Even though I don’t believe in a Devil, the fear of one is so ingrained in me that exorcism films (even shitty ones like The Devil Inside) will affect me at least a little. What makes Deliver Us From Evil more effective than others is that Derrickson (along with his co-writer Paul Harris Boardman) grounds the supernatural elements strongly in reality. Horror-procedural hybrids have been done before (Angel Heart comes to mind), but this is the first time I can remember recently where one took its supernatural elements so damn seriously. And not since The Exorcist back in 1973 has a possession film felt so much like it existed in the real world. Maybe The Entity, but that was more demonic molestation.

Derrickson has stated in interviews that he is in fact a man of faith, which definitely comes through in this film. Not just because of that preachy bit at the end at Sarchie’s kid’s baptism, but because of the consistently solemn tone in regards to the spiritual battle between good and evil Sarchie and Mendoza embark on. It’s way more absorbing and wholehearted than an exorcism movie needs to be.

Some of the negative reviews I’ve read of the film call its story disjointed and incohesive. That’s an argument I really don’t understand. At first it may feel like Sarchie and his partner Butler are aimlessly driving around the Bronx, taking random calls, but quickly it becomes apparent that it’s all a thread leading up to Sarchie’s spiritual journey. The dead baby in the alley, the domestic dispute, the infant-throwing at the zoo – it’s all connected to help Sarchie come to terms with the “true evil” Mendoza speaks of. Sarchie’s seen so much horrible shit in the “sewer” (as he refers to his job) that it reinforces Mendoza’s argument. He goes from disbelieving in God because of the shit he’s seen to recognizing it all as a sign of true evil. And it all really feels organic thanks in part to Eric Bana’s solid performance (despite that sketchy NY accent).

I’ve also heard critics bitch about the pace, that it takes too long to really have any thrust. This I disagree with too. The story is structured like a police procedural, so it purposefully lacks that aggressive pace in the beginning. We’ve seen the trailer, poster, commercials, etc., so we know what’s going on. Sarchie doesn’t so he’s got to use his detective skills and Popeye muscles to figure shit out. It’s a really interesting way to tell an exorcism story, much more compelling than someone getting possessed, then exorcised, roll credits. One critic I read even complained that the exorcism takes place at the end of the film. Say whaaa? That’s when it goes down in pretty much all of the exorcism films I’ve ever seen, so unless they’re complaining about it being a cliche, I really don’t get it.

Another common complaint was funny man Joel McHale playing a jacked up knife-enthusiast cop “adrenaline junkie.” Okay, with you on this one. It’s really tough to see past McHale, the sarcastic, dry-witted comedian that he is. I didn’t buy him at times either. There’s no denying the bro chemistry between him and Bana on screen though. They were entirely believable as partners, guys who have probably been driving around at night for years, using humor to cope with the sick side of humanity they witness every shift. During his brawl with Santino in the stairwell is the only time I could see past McHale and felt like I was watching the character of Butler. Once he realizes he can’t win, there was some goddamn conviction in McHale’s performance. I felt sorry for the macho bastard.

The one major complaint I wholeheartedly agree with is the use of The Doors as a major plot point. It would’ve been fine to bring up once or twice to help Sarchie connect the case of Jane to the others, but using it during the climactic exorcism scene was miserable. Once Jim Morrison’s heroin-fueled voice rang out, it totally broke the thick supernatural feel of the moment. Speaking of the exorcism scene, holy crap. That was a helluva process. I love that there were stages to it and that both Sarchie and the demon-fighting veteran Mendoza slipped during the incident, almost falling prey to Santino’s manipulation.

People bitched about Olivia Munn too and while I agree she’s not the greatest actress, she wasn’t given all that much to do.

Yes, Deliver Us From Evil is filled with cliches and elements we’ve seen countless times in exorcism and cop films, but Derrickson presents them a truly refreshing and serious way. Even the impossibly tired “your job is consuming your life and your ignoring your family and by the way I’m pregant” trope that seemingly every big screen detective goes through feels imaginative here against the backdrop of the supernatural. Before completely dismissing it based on the wave of negative reviews, I suggest checking it out. Exorcism films with big releases have been pretty lame lately (The Devil Inside, Devil’s Due), but Deliver Us From Evil is definitely a fresh and compelling take with atmosphere so thick you could cut it with a spoon.

Patrick writes stuff about stuff for Bloody and Collider. His fiction has appeared in ThugLit, Shotgun Honey, Flash Fiction Magazine, and your mother's will. He'll have a ginger ale, thanks.

10 Comments

Editorials

Before ‘The Blair Witch Project’, ‘Alien Autopsy’ Showed How Real Found Footage Could Feel

Published

on

Alien Autopsy: Fact or Fiction

The line separating artist from con man is a lot thinner than you might initially believe. While I think we can all agree that lying for the sake of profit is actively malicious behavior, isn’t it also true that the faux documentary aspect of The Blair Witch Project is half the reason why that film became such a cultural phenomenon? After all, if there’s one thing filmmakers have in common with stage magicians, it’s that misleading and misdirecting audiences is simply part of the job.

That’s why I’ve developed a habit of mostly ignoring the moral quandaries behind many of film and television’s biggest “hoaxes” in favor of appreciating the narrative elements that drive productions like Mermaids: The Body Found and even Animal Planet’s highly underrated The Cannibal in the Jungle. However, if there’s a definitive case of a highly publicized broadcast fooling the world into taking it seriously, it has to be Fox’s infamous 1995 TV special Alien Autopsy: Fact or Fiction.

It’s been over three decades since that eerie footage first haunted television screens right at the peak of the ’90s ufology craze, and in that time, the video has taken on a life of its own. From countless parodies and references in everything from The X-Files to Tony Hawk’s Pro Skater (as well as John Dower’s recently released tell-all documentary The Alien Autopsy Scandal, which I’d highly recommend to genre fans everywhere), there’s no denying the legacy of the Alien Autopsy video. However, I rarely see the tape discussed as what it truly is: a highly convincing found footage film directed by a passionate stage magician and brought to life by masterful practical effects work.

That’s why I’d like to invite readers to join me on a deep dive into one of the most infamous broadcasts of all time in an attempt to reevaluate the footage as a fascinating narrative experience rather than a complete hoax.

The TV Special That Convinced Millions It Was Real

Ray Santilli next to Extraterrestrial replica in ‘The Alien Autopsy Scandal’

For starters, regardless of whether or not you believe that there was in fact an extraterrestrial crash in Roswell during the summer of 1947 and that some form of autopsy was performed on the victims, the producers behind the black & white recordings, Ray Santilli and Gary Shoefield, insist that their video was a “restoration.” Though I’d argue that the proper word is “remake”of genuine footage that was too damaged to air on television. That’s why the duo went on to recruit filmmaker and eccentric magician Spyros Melaris and sculptor/monster designer John Humphreys to bring their version of the autopsy to life and sell it to the highest bidder.

This is where the story of the Alien Autopsy as a narrative experience really begins. Melaris claims that his approach to the faux recording consisted of striving for extreme period accuracy in both shooting equipment and setting while also planting subtle details that would initially seem like mistakes but could later be revealed to actually fit the time period. That being said, the filmmaker was under the impression that the short would be released for free as a PR stunt, with the team later producing and selling an informative documentary chronicling exactly how the footage was faked and commenting on how easy it is to manipulate public perception with a good old-fashioned magic trick.

This obviously isn’t how things went down, and that’s likely the reason why Melaris has since distanced himself from everyone else involved with the project. Yet, no amount of behind-the-scenes drama can undermine the genuine effort that went into making the short as impressive as it is. From the sourcing of real animal organs from a local butcher to make the organic part of the creature more lifelike to the highly detailed sculpt that made use of a hollowed-out underlayer that could be filled with fake blood and assorted viscera, there’s a reason why so many Hollywood specialists are still impressed with the artistry on display here.

Of course, the believability is only half the story, as I think that the best part of the autopsy is how Melaris builds on the existing tension by obscuring certain details and often embracing the chaos of what a real examination of extraterrestrial life could feel like. The camera often goes out of focus at just the right time to make certain effects hit even harder, and we can only speculate as to what the hazmat-suited doctors are gesticulating about during the operation. There’s a real air of mystery to the whole thing that almost makes it feel like a cosmically terrifying, cursed film containing forbidden knowledge that civilians were never meant to see.

So when Fox’s Fact or Fiction brings in the specialists to comment on the film and its otherworldly subject, it’s no surprise that we end up with one of the most memorable mockumentaries of all time – albeit one where the participants are unaware that the footage they’re commenting on is basically a large-scale practical joke. A joke that the network was obviously in on, as many participants claim that the TV special cut out significant portions where guests point out that they believe the footage to be an elaborate hoax.

The Lasting Impact of the Hoax Turned Cultural Event

Regardless, I remember going to bed terrified after watching reruns of the special and thinking about the respected pathologist who claimed that the body was almost certainly inhuman, with even effects maestro Stan Winston commenting on how difficult it would be to recreate some of these visuals through practical puppetry. That’s not even mentioning Jonathan Frakes’ dramatic hyping up of the disturbing imagery as if he was talking about the tape from The Ring, with his spooky demeanor here likely being responsible for his later role as the host of Beyond Belief: Fact or Fiction a few years later.

Personally, I’d argue that the Alien Autopsy phenomenon had just as much of an impact on me as a horror fan as The Blair Witch Project, a film that was almost certainly influenced by the success of this immensely popular hoax (to the point where they even produced their own TV special commenting on Heather’s found footage). Even if Fox didn’t intend to produce a narrative feature about the aftermath of the Roswell crash, the end product still holds up remarkably well as a highly entertaining mockumentary exploring the idea that we may not be alone in the universe.

While neither Santilli nor the rest of the production team has ever commented on this, I also think it’s very likely that the idea of a faux Alien Autopsy could have been influenced by Dean Alioto’s The McPherson Tape/UFO Abduction. I’ve already written about how this granddaddy of found footage was co-opted by rogue ufologists who began selling bootlegs of the tape at conventions as if it were real evidence of a close encounter, so it’s not that much of a stretch to imagine that Santilli and company could have heard about this phenomenon and been inspired to come up with their own highly profitable hoax.

At the end of the day, it’s unlikely that the Alien Autopsy film is recreating any real footage from Roswell, but I can still appreciate the short and the accompanying television event as a standalone horror story that still influences the way we see found footage to this very day.

After all, the possibility that something could be real is often much scarier than finding out for sure – and that’s why I think Alien Autopsy: Fact or Fiction is still worth revisiting three decades down the line.

Continue Reading