As a bit of background, I'm not what you would consider a horror-movie genre "super fan". I love psychological thrillers and a few good scares, as well as classically campy over-the-top horror films. However, in contrast, I really cannot stand the recent penchant for gore-porn seen in movies like the Saw series or the Hostel series.
So, I thought, a film about an exorcism in rural Louisiana might be fun, and maybe even offer some unexpected twists on the old struggle of good versus evil. The movie started off very promisingly, in that it sets the scene as a documentary of a southern Pentecostal minister who, after having lost his faith, wants to expose the process of "exorcism" as a remunerative fraud. Interesting premise. But in the first two scenes, it struck me: this southern Louisiana minister and his family (save the small son) had hardly any accent whatsoever. They didn't sound any different than the "Hollywood" documentary crew following them. This faux-fire-and-brimstone preacher was audibly more like the dad on Seventh Heaven than Bobby Jindal or James Carville. OK, I thought, maybe they were transplants to the area, from say North Carolina, or some other generically "southern" location? I'm willing to suspend a little disbelief for a fun ride.
After a good period of time establishing the lead character's (Preacher Cotton Marcus') background and motivation, the movie proceeds with the preacher picking the "mark" for his latest - and last - exorcism scam. This poor victim (Nell Sweetzer) is supposedly a farmer's daughter in the backwoods of rural Louisiana. So, as Preacher Cotton Marcus and the documentary crew finally arrive at the location (passing the admittedly creepy scenery of decrepit barns and run-down farm houses), they meet the anti-social brother and father of Nell. And, you guessed it, they speak in totally generic mid-Western accents.
Since at least the mid-Nineteenth Century, storytellers have realized that writing - or in this case speaking - in the native accents and local dialects of the characters involved contributes immeasurably to the realism and believability of a story. But no, members of a backwoods Christian fundamentalist-home-schooling Louisiana family evidently speak just like Dan Rather or Matt Damon. Frankly, the preacher in There Will Be Blood was spookier than the characters in this movie.
That's not to say that the acting itself was bad; far from it. Other than the lack of any attempt to use local accents, each of the actors put in a relatively solid performance. Ashley Bell, who played Nell Sweetzer put in a very good performance, although her maturity (she was in her early 20s when it was filmed) at times belied the innocence of the young girl (who was only supposed to be 16). But that is a casting issue, and shouldn't be held against the actress.
What is truly horrifying about The Last Exorcism, is the writing. Although this movie never claims to be "found footage" (in contrast to The Blair Witch Project) it is explicitly set up to be a documentary from the beginning. Even in faux documentaries and mockumentaries, there are certain expectations that one has about such a film; the first being that the documentary crew (director, sound tech, cameraman, etc.) is rarely seen or heard from, and almost never interacts with the subject outside of a formal interview structure. Of course, documentarians aren't anthropologists or naturalists qua Jane Goodall, but they likewise shouldn't appear in nearly every scene trying to reason or argue with the subject of the film. One of the least believable scenes in the whole movie, is when, after just meeting the "possessed" girl, Iris Reisen (the director of the documentary?) gives Nell her boots because Nell seems to be interested in them. Really? The documentary crew is going to give their film's subjects gifts?
After this inaugural moment of incredibility, Ms. Reisen is then seen throughout most of the rest of the film, usually arguing with the Preacher.
In any event, the Preacher performs his "exorcism" of Nell, and she seems better, only to then wind up subconsciously traveling to the Preacher's hotel room, slashing her brother's face, and smashing a cat with the documentarians' camera. While Nell's father is gone with the son at the hospital, we learn from Preacher Cotton's playing of a message on the Sweetzers' answering machine (who still owns an answering machine?) that Nell is pregnant. This is an interesting twist, and it is implied - since we learned early on in the movie that Nell's mother died two years prior - that the baby might be the result of an incestuous union with her (quiet and bizarre) father.
Nell continues to do creepy and violent things, until her father comes home, and forces Preacher Cotton to perform yet another exorcism at gunpoint. He reluctantly complies and seems to be trying to sincerely exorcise a demon from Nell. However, after only a few minutes of this latest exorcism, "demoniac" Nell tries to shock the Preacher by offering him a "blowing job". This is such a silly turn of phrase that the Preacher once again realizes she isn't really possessed by anything. He talks her down from her "possession", and she proceeds to seemingly confess to sleeping with a boy the prior summer. A local minister - from whose congregation Nell's family was estranged - arrives at the home to counsel Nell and her father, allowing Preacher Cotton and the documentary crew to leave.
Throughout this frankly stupid ordeal, none of the supposedly rational characters (Preacher Cotton, Ms. Reisen, the cameraman) ever go through with a well-thought-out plan for anything. Cotton initially takes Nell to the hospital when she appears catatonic at his hotel room, but, after Nell's father arrives and refuses psychiatric help for her, Cotton and the film crew return to the farmhouse. While several of these characters are disturbed by Nell's violent imagination and violent acts, none of them ever call the police or leave the isolated farmhouse. Even when there is a strong presumption that home-schooled Nell was impregnated by someone in her family, Preacher Cotton insists that the police not be called. This preacher character is supposed to be rational - with the intent to actually discredit his religious scams - but can't seem to bring himself to actually act logically in any situation Nell and her family present to him. What is so offense about this, is that this film (with its documentary style) is presented to us as a "realistic" series of events. Thus, when the protagonists conduct themselves so unrealistically throughout the film, it makes the movie not just bad, but incoherent.
But did you think the logical-explanation-for-Nell's-possession-let's-all-go-home end was the ending? No. That is where this film goes from mediocre to worse (and by worse, I mean close to the worst shit I have ever watched). On their way home, Preacher Cotton and the documentary film crew stop at a diner that Nell said her boyfriend worked at. They found a kid around Nell's age, with her boyfriend's name, and interviewed him. It turns out he is gay, and so presumably couldn't possibly have impregnated Nell. They then decide to immediately drive back - at night mind you - to Nell's house (why not?) to confront her about the lie. Upon the return to the house, they find several black magic charms and signs painted on the walls, but no-one is home. They hear screaming in the woods and decide to go investigate (but not call the police evidently). In a forest clearing, Preacher Cotton and the film crew see a giant bonfire with Nell's father bound to a pillar, Nell giving birth on a pedestal, while the local minister, his wife, and some random townsfolk are arranged around her in robes and making (presumably) evil incantations. She then gives birth to an inhuman creature, which is thrown in the bonfire. Preacher Cotton takes out a foot long crucifix (what else would a Pentecostal preacher have in his pocket) and charges toward the fire to fight the demon. By this time, the director and cameraman are spotted, chased, and killed by the cult members. In the very last scene, we see the cameraman (via his POV) running through the woods, only to be stopped and have his head chopped off (which results in the camera falling to the ground) ... fade out.
In this "ending", not only is the irrationality of the protagonists reprised (no-one is going to call the police when a man and girl are obviously in physical danger now?), but the writers / director cobble together random bits from other, better, movies in the span of no more than 5 minutes. Now, I admit that the "twist" of innocent townsfolk turning out to be an evil cult is intriguing. However, The Last Exorcism makes this twist without any setup, without any suspenseful development or gradual growth of understanding. This is no Wicker Man. As other commentators have ably pointed out, neither is it Rosemary's Baby (demon-childbirth), or The Blair Witch Project (the penultimate scene being the drop of the camera to the ground after the cameraman's violent death). As some free advice for Huck Botko and Andrew Gurland (supposed writers of this movie), may I suggest that splicing together three good endings from three different films into an un-related mess to end your film, is not a good idea. I suppose it's a bit like if U2 didn't know how to finish their latest album, and so they just threw in 2 minute covers of a Doors song, a Rolling Stones song, and a Smashing Pumpkins song.I guess what is so galling to me, is that The Last Exorcism had promise. If it turned out that the "possession" of Nell really was just a psychotic break due to abuse or incest at home, and the film-makers were to explore that theme with appropriate credulity, it would actually be an extremely disturbing thriller / drama. Unfortunately, the writers and director of The Last Exorcism didn't have the talent, freedom, or balls to make a truly "scary" movie, and instead made a truly idiotic farce.
No comments:
Post a Comment