The Rite

[cruciatacara]

[quote name='Brother Adam' timestamp='1296321299' post='2206392']
Some things are problematic:

http://suburbanbanshee.wordpress.com/2011/01/28/the-movie-of-the-rite-better-and-worse/
[/quote]


Brother Adam - thanks for the link - I read the book and I'm glad that I read this review before making a decision whether or not to see the movie. I know that Hollywood always "enhances" the storyline by putting in things that contradict the facts (for dramatic effect) but I always hate seeing TV shows and movies that simply ignore all the rules of the Catholic Church and make up their own, especially those associated with the Sacrament of Confession. This is one of the things that leads people to misunderstand the Church because a lot of them actually believe the garbage that is supposed to depict Catholic life.


I think the review is so good though, I am going to quote it here for those people who don't bother to follow links! Thanks again. I would be interested in hearing Father Barron's take on it as well.

[quote]
The movie of The Rite: better and worse than expected.
January 28, 2011
Okay, so the trailer I saw was not what happens in the movie. Anthony Hopkins is playing a diocesan exorcist and a priest. At least at first. (Whether or not he gets possessed later in the movie, which I assume he does.) Steven Greydanus says there’s a generally positive portrayal of Catholicism, particularly once they get to Rome, and a non-magical view of exorcism. There’s also a main female character who doesn’t make it her business to stalk and capture the seminarian or the priest. So some major positives. This is something you don’t have to cringe about, when your non-Catholic friends tell you they’ve been to see it.

All the same, if you’re a nitpicky person like me, go to a theater with a liquor license. You’re gonna need it.

1. It’s really hard to get accepted into a bishop’s seminary program, and sometimes you even have to apply to go to school at a seminary outside your diocese, increasing the difficulty level. But in the world of the movie of The Rite, it’s so easy that your father can use seminary as the easy part of an ultimatum. Seminary or mortuary business. Yeah. Even though the mortuary business is also a competitive job requiring extensive schooling and licensing. Even though the US is very big, and there’s no real reason for an adult to stick around accepting such ultimatums.

2. Seminaries particularly try not to accept people pushed into religious life by their parents. An unwilling priest is the opposite of a good offering to the Lord. But nobody notices the ultimatum thing.

3. This movie depicts the BIG HUGE SIN of attempting to administer a Sacrament without the power to do so. The seminarian guy is confronted by somebody dying who mistakes him for a priest. Instead of just urging contrition and praying, the guy pretends he’s a priest and has the power to hear Confession and give Anointing of the Sick and last rites. This combines a sin, an abuse, and an offense against canon law (Canon 1378, Section 2), as well as against the right of every Catholic to receive honest treatment. He would automatically be interdicted (similar to excommunication). If he’d become a deacon, he’d be suspended automatically from his clerical deacon faculties. The bishop of his diocese would have to write up the initial report to the CDF. So grave an offense could only be judged by the CDF, and so great a sin only absolved with permission of the Pope. Serious serious stuff.

4. A seminary only sends good students to Rome, not slaves of their parents who refuse to deal honestly with the dying. They might help send the guy to Rome to be judged by the CDF, but he sure wouldn’t be getting near any kind of ordination. So the idea that a seminary head would send this guy to Rome for further training, on pain of having his student loans come down on his head, is silly.

5. You can’t even get into a seminary with student loans outstanding. That’s why we have funds for that.

6. They don’t let seminarians take exorcist training. A mature priest with plenty of experience dealing with people and a lot of solidity, who’s also someone living a blameless life with lots of personal prayer — that’s who they choose for exorcists. It talks about it in the book, remember? The book this movie is supposed to be based on?

7. Diocesan exorcists don’t have sidekicks. If they did, they wouldn’t be confused seminarians under canon law indictment and automatic interdict.

8. As you’d imagine, exorcists are always running into people with psychological problems and having to shunt them to shrinks and doctors. Weeding out such folks is part of their job, and pretty much everybody they see gets a psychological evaluation first. People with legitimate possession problems often have psychological problems too. This is one of the big points of the book, but is only used as a Scully comment in the movie.

I suppose that if you lurk outside the theater, and wait until the movie gets to Rome, you’ll spare yourself at least half of the stupidity. The movie house’s liquor license may help you bear up under the rest. OTOH, if you can ignore Hollywood and only see the good parts, this looks like a good movie.

[/quote]

[PaladinSoG]

Saw the movie just a few hours ago and it was amazing! Now to say that the movie is a horror movie is really off base. Creepy, yes, disturbing in parts, yes, made me jump once or twice, yes. But scary no. And when I mean I jumped, I mean things would appear where they where not before and it was unexpected.
It was good to see that they portrayed the Church in a pretty positive light and how they did things in the exorcisms and how they happened where pretty correct, at least so I've read. That and the little I know about the matter holds up.
Yea there was a little hollywood magic here and there but over all it was very good. Had a good pace, little jumps here and there to keep you from getting to relaxed but when it got time for the priest to shine it was like YES! It had a lot about faith that a lot of people, if they caught it, need. Though I no a lot wouldn't nor would they care. All in all it was a really good movie that was more about faith then actually giving you goosebumps if you ask me.

[Socrates]

I wanna see this.

[YMNolan]

I'm one chapter from finishing the book and then I will go see the movie. Looking forward to it.

[Nihil Obstat]

I have the book, and I thought it was a bit boring in comparison to some other books out there. Hearing decent things about the film though.

[Brother Adam]

I went to see this with another DRE today and we both agreed it was a disappointment and we cannot recommend it. We had high hopes when the movie opened up with a quote from John Paul II, but it went downhill from there. Before I am run off for giving the film a negative review, let me explain:

+ Yes, the filmmaker clearly has done some homework into Catholic exorcism, many of the prayers and the nature of the rite of exorcism. I was impressed by the ability of the filmmakers to get different religious habits correct, and you did have a sense that this is Catholic and based on reality. They also did the skepticism of the seminarian very well. That was one of the best parts of the film. He brought up everything a real skeptic would bring up and was not convinced with easy answers. He had to face the devil in his doubt. This film had great potential that I believe it ended up squandering.

- First of all, you do have a seminarian who is performing Catholic sacraments and rites that he would otherwise have no business or ability to do so. As the reviewer above mentioned, this is very serious and he would have dealt with serious canonical penalties. Actual data shows us that without the Sacrament of Holy Orders you are in an even more perilous situation trying to perform an exorcism. A Catholics best recourse and defensive weapon in spiritual warfare is the name of Jesus, and of course, we do not go looking to engage Satan.

There is no sense of how Satan operates or what his powers actually are, just a lot of trickery. The film does mention he is a liar and deceiver, and the demon uses personal experiences against his targets, but we are overwhelmed by the holly-wood creepiness of it all. They go way overboard with the sensationalism trying to be like other horror morvies and you have people being possessed who are supposedly in a state of grace, priests, and themselves exorcists. The demon seems to jump from one person to another. There is also no mention of Christ and his power over demons beyond invoking his name in the exorcisms. The film is not at all christocentric which is necessary to take up this type of subject matter. It leaves you fascinated by demonology without very important boundaries. You end up having a seminarian "fighting" the devil who has no training in exorcism and "winning" the fight. I doubt it.

There are definite allusions to Malachi Martin in Anthony Hopkins character. The sexual innuendo and death of an unborn child is also too extreme to recommend it as a Catholic film. Yes, it is tame compared to other films, but that does not make it suitable.

So the film is much better than the Exorcism of Emily Rose, but still gets 2 stars out of 4. Not Recommended as a Catholic film.

I recommend An Exorcist Tells His Stories instead.

[cmotherofpirl]

Theo recommends it.