MovieChat Forums > The Exorcism of Emily Rose (2005) Discussion > My Thoughts on the Prosecutor

My Thoughts on the Prosecutor

posted 13 years ago by RomeroXWannabe
13 replies | jump to latest

For a "man of faith" The prosecutor came off as a rude, unprofessional, and massive jackass to me. Then again I'm a person off faith so that would explain my disdain for him. I guess its a matter of belief. The troll Atheists on this site jump on the priest as a delusional idiot who tricked a sick girl out of medical treatment, while I see him as a courageous man under attack from people who refuse to see what's behind the curtain of reality.

To me, even if the prosecutor was doing his job, it felt like he was really out of line with a lot of his questions, almost outright mocking the priest's beliefs and his practices on the stand.

So what are your thoughts? Think the prosecutor was out of line sometimes, or just giving the best offense for a heated case?

[–] Osova 13 years ago

I agree completely. And I am no person of faith...

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mokienatrix 13 years ago

I agree that the prosecutor was a jackass, but I also think he took a needlessly combative stance. He should simply have pointed out that there was no reason that the girl couldn't have received medical attention concurrent with the spiritual treatment, especially since there was a doctor on hand during at least part of the exorcism.

I don't mean the highly disputed pills, but just basic examination and intervention when it was obvious (more an issue in the story the film is based on) that the girl was starving. Exorcisms aren't a now-or-never event that has to be completed in one night; they could have put the breaks on for a hospital visit. Their failure to do that, to address the physical as well as the spiritual, is where the negligence becomes an issue.

[–] anaconda89 13 years ago

"I don't mean the highly disputed pills, but just basic examination and intervention when it was obvious (more an issue in the story the film is based on) that the girl was starving. Exorcisms aren't a now-or-never event that has to be completed in one night; they could have put the breaks on for a hospital visit. Their failure to do that, to address the physical as well as the spiritual, is where the negligence becomes an issue."

Am I right in saying that this issue was raised in the film? Father Moore said in his testimony that he tried to persuade Emily to eat every time he met with her and that he encouraged her to continue to see a doctor. The only thing he advised against was continuing the taking of the pills because Emily had told him that they had not helped at all, it was a decision which really she made and he agreed with.

[–] Sonny_Darko 12 years ago

Well that's because he needed to be. He needed to prove his point by being arrogant and arguing that all the things the defendant was saying were "silly" and just superstition, even though he was a believer himself. No point in him being the prosecutor if he agrees with everything the defendant says.

I think that's what made this whole thing more interesting, that the believer was fighting his beliefs and the non-believer was fighting for faith...

"Remember my username...you'll be screaming it later"

[–] koffeenkreame41-1 12 years ago

True but he could've still achieved the same if he wasn't a jackass throughout this film. There were times where I wished that he would actually see what Father Moore saw but I knew it wasn't going to happen. He was a real prick to everyone, especially Father Moore.

"I am the ultimate badass, you do not wanna `*beep*` wit me!"- Hudson in Aliens.

[–] cajayson8301 12 years ago

it felt like he was really out of line with a lot of his questions, almost outright mocking the priest's beliefs and his practices on the stand.

That's his JOB as the prosecutor. His primary objective stood at annihilating the defense's contention that Emily's issues stemmed solely on a spiritual invasion rather than a condition only cured through clinical treatment. What better way to encourage the jury to disregard the defense's tale by overtly mocking, questioning, facetiously refuting and sarcastically opining about the defendant's theological explanation?

Was he a jackass? Sure. Name me one lawyer who isn't. Even Erin Bruner's attitude at times rendered her cocky.

When God made Tom Cruise, he was only joking.

[–] koffeenkreame41-1 11 years ago

Erin wasn't nearly that bad as time went on. He was an ass throughout the whole film, being a "man of faith" and MOCKING the priest's faith was an ass move. Lawyers can be lawyers without behaving the way he did.

"I am the ultimate badass, you do not wanna `*beep*` wit me!"- Hudson in Aliens.

[–] kurt-2000 12 years ago

I've observed the legal system and studied it long enough to know that he was doing everything in his power to win. And most prosecutors come off as jackasses, and that's just the way it is. Keep in mind the prosecution's argument. They're convinced the Father advised the victim not to take her drugs. The drugs made it impossible for Emily to fight the demon. This case is exactly opposite of the Scopes Monkey Trial (State of Tennessee v. Scopes): that evolution shouldn't be taught in schools. In the Scopes trial religion was the dominant influence in the Court, and in Emily Rose science was the dominant influence and religion was fighting the uphill battle.

[–] rebekahrox 10 years ago

Since the prosecutor was a devout Christian, I was disappointed in Campbell Scott's portrayal. I had no problem with the way he argued during the trial, but I was hoping for a little acknowledgement at the end of the truth of Laura Linney's closing argument. Or some empathy after the trial was over. He left the courtroom stiffly disapproving and outraged at the priest's light sentence. It left me wondering if he was a man of real faith or just going through the motions. The movie could have been even more powerful had the prosecutor's point of view had been explored a little more, or if he had shown a little of the same struggles that Laura showed.

[–] blakkdog 8 years ago

Thats the whole point. He is a "man of faith" and he sees this exorcism as a medieval farce and the priest as a charlatan so he especially wants to mock him and bring him down because its HIS religion thats being tainted. If he was an atheist I dont think he would have taken it so personally.

---
http://letterboxd.com/blakkdog/

[–] koffeenkreame41-1 8 years ago

For a "man of faith" The prosecutor came off as a rude, unprofessional, and massive jackass to me. Then again I'm a person off faith so that would explain my disdain for him. I guess its a matter of belief. The troll Atheists on this site jump on the priest as a delusional idiot who tricked a sick girl out of medical treatment, while I see him as a courageous man under attack from people who refuse to see what's behind the curtain of reality.

To me, even if the prosecutor was doing his job, it felt like he was really out of line with a lot of his questions, almost outright mocking the priest's beliefs and his practices on the stand.

Agreed, completely. He was a real a$$hole to Father Moore while he was on the stand, the Judge got after him several times throughout the trial because of how he acted.

"I'm the ultimate badass,you do NOT wanna f-ck wit me!"Hudson,Aliens😬

[–] thepartydjz 8 years ago

Yep, he acted like an arrogant jackass, that was another ploy in building the drama, playing with your emotions, Hollywood style. In my opinion it did not do the film any good.

My Top 50 Films http://www.imdb.com/list/ls033211402/