The true-life case of Anneliese Michel is famous among those who study exorcisms and the occult — in 1976, the Catholic Church made a rare move in officially recognizing the demonic possession of the 18-year-old German college freshman. During her exorcism the young woman died, and a priest stood trial for causing her death.

While the movie The Exorcism of Emily Rose is based on the landmark trial, it will not take place in Bavaria, nor will it happen in the late '70s. Set in modern-day America, the film focuses on Laura Linney as Erin Bruner, a tough-as-nails lawyer who takes on the church and the state when she fights for the life of the priest (Tom Wilkinson) who performed the deadly exorcism on young Emily Rose (Jennifer Carpenter).

The movie was shot in Vancouver, British Columbia, in the Winter of 2005 and Horror.com was there. We were on-set for the shooting of a pivotal scene in which the State’s attorney (Campbell Scott) is vigorously cross-examining Father Moore on the witness stand, sneering that the priest thinks he’s “God’s gunslinger”. Director Scott Derrickson says that he believes this may be the first ever courtroom horror film… He could be right! (Though the courtroom scenes in The Devil’s Advocate are pretty memorable.)

In addition to the courtroom actors, we also got a chance to speak with the screenwriter, Paul Harris Boardman, and the film’s director, Scott Derrickson.

Without further ado, here are the INTERVIEWS…

Q: Where and when does THE EXORCISM OF EMILY ROSE take place?

Paul Harris Boardman (screenwriter): We are actually trying to get the, the setting for the movie to feel a little bit timeless.  Um, I think when we did the production design we sort of thought if it could feel like any time from say the seventies, maybe late seventies, to virtually the present.  Um, you might notice in the film there won't be people on cell phones.  There won't be things that particularly date it to right now. 

And even in terms of the, the kind of fashions we used, the, the settings, the, the, um, physical locations, the way things were art directed in the rooms, we tried to keep it a little bit timeless like that so that it would cover that kind of period, um, encompass it a little bit, and that was partly because we did not want the film to feel like a, you know, contemporary updating of this story that was from the past, or an attempt to completely set it in the time period when the Anneliese story occurred, the, the actual case. 

In terms of how much we used, you know, we certainly read all the material we could on that case, and we, we optioned the rights to the--  an underlying book that was, that, that had been written to cover the ma--  you know, the case as it occurred.  Uh, the only book we knew of about it really.  Um, but then we’ve fictionalized it quite a bit, so, um, I would say that a lot of the incidents in our movie are very different, but they are very true to the kinds of things that happened to her, uh, and the way the court case unfolded similarly there's a lot of dramatic license in our story to fit the story we were telling and make it more effective. 

But certainly, you know, and people can always look that up later on their own if they want to compare it, it might be an interesting thing to do and see what in the actual case occurred and, uh, what incidents we kind of changed for dramatic purposes.

Q: What are the particulars of the case?

PHB:   In broad strokes the case was a, a story of a girl who, um, became afflicted with what may have been mental illness, may have been demonic possession depending on your point of view. 

And then there was a court case that came out of it when her treatment ended the way it did, um, where some priests were put on trial.  Um, that's sort of the basic structure of our movie too, and that's--   And then, like I said, incidents and individual details of our plot are sometimes somewhat parallel, but we felt free to change them because we were just inspired by that story.

Q: How much time is spent in the courtroom and how much time is spent with the flashbacks?

PHB:   Yeah, without having edited it yet  I'd say based on the screenplay and what it feels like, um, it's fairly evenly divided.  I think there's probably a little bit less courtroom time then there is time for everything else, obviously, um, ‘cause there are scenes that have--  I mean the courtroom might be a little over a third of the movie or something like that, but there are also scenes that are not flashback or scenes from the courtroom.  There are scenes in Erin, the lead attorney's, life that happen in the present of the story as well. 

So it's, you know, it's a reasonable amount of time in the courtroom, comparable to a lot of courtroom movies actually, even though we have a whole other horror movie folded into it as opposed to just the lives of lawyers drinking and talking about the case and all that sort of thing.

Q: What is being done to set this film apart from any other film with exorcism as a theme?

PHB:   Well one big thing that sets it apart is what we're already touching on, which is this is sort of a hybrid of a, a courtroom drama and an exorcism movie, uh, supernatural story, and it really does try to serve both of those things, uh, and fold them together, weave them together in an interesting way and make the two very interrelated in terms of how one unfolds the mystery of one thing unfolding very much pertaining to what's happening in the, the present and in the courtroom attorney's life and the courtroom story.  So that's very different.  And then also in our depiction of the exorcisms themselves. 

I think some movies, you know, people talk about THE EXORCIST for example and say “Oh, spinning head and pea soup and all that,” but there were a lot of very realistic things in THE EXORCIST, and, and Scott and I both love that film.  It's definitely a film we really enjoy even now.  Um, but I do think that some of those things then that the film--  you know, and a lot of the depiction of how they do exorcisms and like the medical treatment the girl went through in that film was all very harrowing and it felt very real.  Um, a lot of the films since then have kind of gone away from a more realistic approach and gone into these more Armageddon type things, you know, where the devil is, you know, blowing things up and all that. 

We definitely wanted to go back to something closer to that, and then even take it a little further in terms of realism by studying tapes and things of actual exorcisms and try to make our depiction of it stay very close to what at least has been perceived and recorded.  You know, whether you believe it's exorcism or not, or possession or not, I should say, that kind of things that she does fit into what we’ve really observed and studied. 

Q:  I hear the movie is already pretty much being shot as a PG-13… is this limiting at all?

PHB:   We, um, we haven't really felt constrained.  It's, it’s been a, you know, I think the studios love PG-13 movies right now.  Um, it's a bigger audience and, and they've seen that you can make PG-13 scary films that actually draw the whole audience, um, because I think that, you know, THE SIXTH SENSE and all these films that, that were scary and effective without being a gory type horror movie.  Nothing against DEAD ALIVE and those movies.  That's a different kind of movie.  So we have had a lot of discussions with the studio.  Ultimately they did not make us feel constrained.  They let us, you know, go into this knowing that it could be R, it could be PG.  Make the movie you want to make, um, you can always edit the movie as well. 

But I think we've kept in the back of our mind that it--  certainly we want the possibility of it being PG-13.  If the content is too intense and, you know, it ends up being that way then we’ll -- it'll be R.

Q: The title is kind of similar to AUDREY ROSE…

PHB: It did cross our minds.  Um, the, the studio head really liked the name Emily Rose, and there was a--  they, there's a process they go through with legal, basically, where the studio submits a name and the other studios who have the rights to those books or whatever can challenge it.  So on that level it did pass muster and it was okay.  Um, you know, you, you always wonder a little bit -- I mean ROSEMARY'S BABY too. 

You know, there's rose in the name of various movies.  Is that good or bad?  Will that evoke good feelings about those movies that make them want to see this?  I don't know.  But ultimately I think this movie will feel so different from those movies that that'll pass, you know, pretty quickly.  It was considered.  Yeah.

Q: How does an A-list cast affect the story you already wrote?

PHB:   It didn't change the movie in terms of the, uh, the script.  We, we kind of tried to write a movie that, that, um, would deliver the scariness, but also have this thematic depth to it and some, some characters that were layered we hoped and everything.   What was really gratifying was that actors of that caliber and actors with that kind of background responded to the script with a lot of interest and wanted to do it, um, and that the studio supported that. 

The studio supported the idea of making this not a, a genre film in a very narrow sense that we just gotta do everything about it, make it fit the genre, you know, and, and cast it that way and spend that kind of money on cast.  You know, look for that audience only. 

I think they know that the horror audience, um, is--  can be a very sophisticated audience that can like a lot of different films.  There are a lot of people that like DEAD ALIVE and they like, uh, you know, maybe they might go see CHUCKY and they also love to go to, you know, um, repertory theaters and see ROSEMARY'S BABY and THE OMEN and films from the seventies and Dario Argento films and, you know, all sorts of films. 

And so that's a smart sophisticated audience and I think we were very happy to see that the actors responded and that was supported to go for that kind of cast.  So it's helped us make the movie we kind of dreamed of making, I believe. 

Q: Does this film have a lot of special effects?

PHB:   It's, uh, it's interesting, you know.  We, we tried to write it again with that realism-based idea.  We wanted to use them spar--   no, I wouldn't say sparingly, but subtlety and selectively in terms of special effects.  Um, and, you know, we hoped we'd be able to do that.  I think the casting of Jennifer Carpenter helped us in that a lot. She can do so much with her body and her face and her voice, um, it kind of changed the paradigm a little bit for the visual effects people, and they just said “Once we saw her audition we all decided that, you know, we just wanted to stay out of her way.”  Um, obviously they're doing more than that and, and there will be effects through it, both visual effects and special effects like the old-fashioned kind that are-- we use and have a lot of fun using.  They're very effective too. 

I think keeping it more real like that and then having those little things just to enhance certain things that are there for this kind of movie makes it scarier because it doesn't take you outside the, the reality and make you think “Oh, gee, look, that's a cool effect.”  You don't ever -- we hope -- have that kind of moment while you're watching this.

Q: Given the obvious comparisons you’re going to have with THE EXORCIST, is there any concern?

PHB: Yeah, I mean well maybe not the same horror gut feeling they have from THE EXORCIST, but yes, I do think--  I mean one thing people might wonder about this film is it more about the ideas behind this and the court case and the themes and, you know, more cerebral.  Um, the, you know, a good half of the movie is the experience that Emily has, and we really did try to shoot these exorcisms -- that's another thing -- kind of getting back to the question before, it's different also in the approach that we had to the exorcism sequences, the way they're shot, where they're set and staged.  Not just the exorcisms, but all the demonic, you know, manifestations in the movie. 

It should feel different from what people have seen and from what--   I, I've seen most of it all cut together now, and it's very visceral and very, uh, very frightening.  And I think because her performance again is so good she's very empathetic, even as she's going through these horrific experiences, and so you, you know, you feel for her.  You're in there with her, I think, and that makes it terrifying. 

Q: So Emily is very humanized?

PHB: Very humanized, yeah.  And, and so you, you're attached to her and you watch her go through this and it's wrenching to watch a lot of it.

Q: Did you consult church representatives or mental health professionals?

PHB:   We did.   I mean we, um, we did a lot of reading.  Scott's wife works in the health profession and we talked to people that she knew and other people we knew about it.  Read a lot of abnormal psychology things.  Um, we had a priest who came in to consult with us, um, and with, uh, Tom Wilkinson about--  we had some meetings with him to-together with Scott, myself and Tom, and just to talk about what would the real props be that he would have?  Um, you know, how would he use them?  What would a priest do or not do?  You know, obviously you take all that in and then you look at the scenes and you see if there's certain adjustments you might need to make for dramatic purposes. 

But we tried to be very cognizant of all of that and do our homework and help the actors to do theirs, so that Tom particularly could feel comfortable being this guy, uh, going into this.  One interesting thing too and I don't think it gives too much away is, is he's not the exorcism expert that, you know, that, uh, Max Von Sydow was in THE EXORCIST for example, who comes in, who's kind of this is--  he's got this long history with this. 

This guy is doing an exorcism for the first time, and so that was also something we really wanted to talk to that priest about and Tom wanted to get a handle on that of if this is new to him, he's a--  he might be a priest, a parish priest who's been a priest for a long time, but he's never done an exorcism -- hardly any Catholic priests have.  What would that be like?  And how would, you know, and we wrote it that way in the script that he goes through that experience trying to find out what to do as he does it.  And, uh, I think he played that very well.

Continue to part 2….

= = =

Staci Layne Wilson Reporting