In 1973, director William Friedkin adapted William Peter Blatty's bestselling novel "The Exorcist" for the screen. The film shocked the industry by becoming an international phenomenon and the movie's impact continues to resonate with audiences of all ages even today. In 2016 Friedkin decided to return to the subject of demonic possession by personally filming the rite of exorcism performed by a priest, Father Amorth, the Chief Exorcist of the Diocese of Rome. The result is his new documentary "The Devil and Father Amorth", which has enjoyed some limited art house screenings while simultaneously being released on DVD. Before we go any further, it is appropriate when covering a film of this type for the reviewer to state his/her personal beliefs or lack thereof in terms of the subject matter. After all, Friedkin does the same in his film, stating that he is predisposed to believe in the possibility of demonic possession. I'm not. Friedkin is clearly a man of religious faith. I'm not, having happily lived most of my life as an agnostic who keeps an open mind but who has never seen an inkling of evidence that a higher being presides over the universe. So there we are....with one additional caveat. Although I have never met William Friedkin, I have conducted two separate, extensive interviews with him for Cinema Retro regarding his films "Cruising" and "Sorcerer", both of which I believe were very underrated. Based on those interviews, I can say that I like Friedkin and greatly respect him as a filmmaker.
With those explanatory remarks out of the way, let's delve into "The Devil and Father Amorth". Friedkiin acts as an on camera host of the movie, which opens with some brief archival interviews with William Peter Blatty, who relates that he was a student at Georgetown University in 1949 when he read a remarkable account in the Washington Post about a 14 year-old boy who had undergone the rite of exorcism. Other respected news outlets picked up on the story and it became a sensation. Blatty was fascinated by the alleged possession and hoped to write a non-fiction account of the incident. However, the priest who performed the exorcism refused to release the identity of the boy or his family and imposed upon him to respect their privacy. Blatty went the fictional route and turned the victim into a 12 year-old girl. The rest, as they say, is history- except that over the decades, the incident has been studied by skeptics who point out that there is scant evidence that the exorcism involved anything other than a boy who had a vivid imagination and that he may well have simply staged the incidents for those predisposed to believe in possession. (The boy's late aunt was a "spiritualist" who had influenced the boy's interest in the supernatural.) Whatever one thinks of the historical facts and theories, Blatty's book was a chilling page-turner and Friedkin's film version would motivate even the most headstrong skeptic to sleep with a nightlight on. Friedkin's documentary has some early scenes of him returning to actual locations from "The Exorcist". The action then shifts to Rome, where he introduces us to Father Amorth, then 91 years-old and proud of his position as Chief Exorcist, claiming to have performed the ritual thousands of times. Friedkin also interviews a woman who underwent the rite and who claims to have been saved by Father Amorth. Her brother, who went on to become Father Amorth's assistant, relates disturbing and fantastic accounts of his sister's alleged possession. Father Amorth gave Friedkin rare permission to film an actual exorcism on the provision that there would be no artificial lighting employed or any crew members present. Friedkin agreed to shoot the rite himself using just a small, hand-held camera.
The subject of the exorcism is Christina, a 46 year-old architect who has been bedeviled by what she claims are frequent instances in which she becomes possessed by a demon. She claims not to remember the occurrences but those who surround her relate that, when possessed, she speaks in strange languages, exhibits Herculean strength and shouts threats in a voice that is not her own. We learn that the exorcism Father Amorth is to perform will be the ninth time he has conducted the rite in relation to Christina. When we finally do get to observe what Friedkin is filming it certainly is disturbing. Christina is restrained by two men as she wriggles and resists their grip, all the while shouting insults at the priest in an unfamiliar voice. Unlike the famous scenes of the ritual depicted in "The Exorcist", the real-life exorcism is performed in front of a room full of people, presumably friends and relatives of the victim. We watch as Father Amorth doggedly remains fixated on reciting the religious phrases that are supposed to expel the demons. (At one point, the "possessed" Christina identifies herself as Satan.) The Friedkin footage seems relatively brief and he doesn't provide any context as to how much footage may have been edited out of the final cut. While the episode we witness is certainly "harrowing" (as Friedkin describes it) and the affected Christina is clearly suffering from severe disorder, there is nothing in the footage that is likely to convince skeptics that they have just seen proof of a supernatural event. There are no signs of superhuman strength and the admittedly frightening voice Christina speak in could clearly be her own, since every person on earth is able to significantly alter their manner of speaking. Furthermore, there is no context provided regarding whether Christina ever sought professional psychiatric help. Friedkin asks her if she did, but her answer is vague. She simply says that doctors can't cure her, leaving it ambiguous as to whether she ever underwent a psychiatric diagnosis. This is a pivotal point that is not pursued. If she did seek medical help, it would be imperative to interview her doctors. If she did not, then her affliction is one that is self-diagnosed. Friedkin interviews prestigious doctors in America to get their views of the case, having shown them the footage. They all give the answer that people of science would be expected to give: we can't explain it without having examined the patient. They profess to keep an open mind but none will go on record as endorsing the premise that demonic possession could really be behind the victim's affliction. At the end of the film, Friedkin himself stops short of stating for certain that he believes he has witnessed a supernatural event, but the implication is that he clearly thinks he has.
What the viewer derives from "The Devil and Father Amorth" depends
greatly on one's own religious convictions. If you believe in God,
angels and the power of prayer, then it stands to reason you will
believe people can be possessed by the devil. Friedkin cites a statistic
that in Italy, a devoutly religious nation, 500,000 people a year
request exorcisms. That's pretty much all a skeptic needs to suggest
that these cases are all due to power of suggestion or disturbed people
who simply seek attention. Indeed, a fanatical adherence to religious
dogma can have real world effects. It's been said that true believers of
voodoo can indeed drop dead if they believe they have been cursed. That
isn't to say that the "victims" to whom Father Amorth administered
don't have a legitimate problem: anyone who feigns demonic possession is
clearly suffering from some type of psychological trauma. When it comes
to such cases, I'm reminded of Carl Reiner's 1979 comedy "Oh, God!" in
which George Burns played the titular entity who comes to earth and
chooses an innocuous taxi driver (John Denver) to spread the word of his
existence. Most of the fun comes from the exasperated man's inability
to understand why the superior being simply doesn't perform miracles
himself in order to convince the world of his powers. Similarly, one has
to wonder why ol' Satan keeps trying to be relevant by inhabiting the
bodies of everyday people whose stories are doubted by the world at
large. In the same vein, why do advanced alien civilizations keep
kidnapping local yokels on secluded country paths or fishing piers
instead of simply showing their superior technology by landing in Times
Square? The film has an interesting final act in which Friedkin and a crew member are to meet with Christinan in the wake of the exorcism they have witnessed. According to Friedkin, when she does not show up at the appointed place and hour, Friedkin reaches her on the phone and is told by Christina that she is awaiting him at a nearby church. Friedkin says that when he and his colleague entered the church, they found Christina had rescinded into a possessed state and was in the hysterical throes of some mind-altering power. For reasons never explained, Friedkin says he decided not to film this remarkable occurrence, thus depriving viewers of perhaps persuasive evidence that wasn't on display in the exorcism footage. The movie ends with the sobering news that Father Amorth had passed away shortly after filming. Friedkin says he regarded him as the most spiritual person he had ever met.
Friedkin obviously intended his film to set off debates on the
subject of exorcism, and by extension, the existence of God and Satan.
He acknowledges that cases of possession, while predominantly associated
with the Catholic church, can be found in other religions as well,
indicating that Old Scratch may be an equal opportunity antagonist.
Friedkin's film is highly watchable and although done on a shoestring
budget, certainly succeeds in being thought-provoking, though the
abbreviated 68 minute running time makes it feel more like a TV special
than a feature film. One hopes that he might add more footage and create
a longer cut one day. The Oscar-winning director works too infrequently
in cinema today, preferring to spend much of his time directing
international operas. When he does make a film, it tends to be
provocative and this is certainly the case with "The Devil and Father
Amorth". Check it out and draw your own conclusions. It's a compelling
experience and you will most definitely not be bored.
The DVD release is available through the video label The Orchard. The
quality is very good but the only bonus extra is a trailer that
Friedkin has cannily cut to emulate the marketing campaign for "The
Exorcist". Given the personal nature of this project to Friedkin, one
would hope there will be a Blu-ray issued at some point that includes a
commentary track or interview with him. As it stands, we want to hear
more of his personal experiences relating to this case than the DVD
currently allows.
CLICK HERE TO ORDER FROM THE CINEMA RETRO MOVIE STORE