MovieChat Forums > Requiem (2006) Discussion > Spoiler - Cause of girl's problem

Spoiler - Cause of girl's problem

posted 17 years ago by idlewood
49 replies | jump to latest

It just seemed so obvious that the mother was the truly unloving and evil presence in the girl's life, and that the young priest fed into the mother's fanatical religiosity. Having received the rosary from her mother, Michaela was later unable to "touch" it because she subconsciously realized the "devil herself" had given it to her. Likewise with the incident at Midnight Mass. After all, the mother (just as hung-up on her daughter's blossoming sexuality as the mother character in "Carrie" -- remember the line "First comes the blood, then comes the sin.") -- had just thrown out the adorable fashionable clothing her daughter had bought in Tubingen because it made her look like an attractive young woman, not a shapeless farmgirl.

That being said, the initial unsaid problem within this very sick family was well-conveyed in quieter moments at the beginning. Why no one, including the world-weary older pastor, could not see the obvious family breakdown puzzles me. Perhaps that would have been what a psychiatrist in Tubingen might have discerned had the protagonist sought treatment. Unlike the _Emily Rose_ flick, where the antagonist seemed to be a real demon, in this one, the antagonist was the mother.

[–] twintowers11 17 years ago

You must be atheist.

[–] idlewood 17 years ago

Sez you. I believe in God, but sometimes it's clear the devil is a man (or worse, religious fanatics -- now those give God a bad name.)

[–] logan_wolves 16 years ago

I love it how you try to label him/her, but you lack any support for such an accusation....and so what if he/she is an atheist, this was more of an analysis than what I saw you put down.

You must be a moron.

[–] eatpastry 15 years ago

I'm not an athiest. I go to church every week and the commenter was absolutely right. it was clear the problem from the very begining was the mother. the girl was frightened of her. ive seen realtionships like this many times. the whole family was wrapped up in RELIGION not in a relationship w/ God, but religion. & yes she shouldve been in some kind of therapy, im sure it wouldve helped her.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Yujian 13 years ago

You must be possessed by a troll.

[–] Memories-Of-Murder 17 years ago

Great analisis. And most possibly, very true to what really happened.

"This are Nice shoes! Couldn't you afford some real Nike?"

[–] hoan999999 17 years ago

Uhhh IDTS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anneliese_Michel

[–] welshhibby 17 years ago

as there is no god or devil...i think she was just a bit mental

[–] ac51177 17 years ago

I ordered this movie,with great expectations. NoT!! I think this girl was generally sick, but not possessed. She had read about a women that had done great things, in the sake of the lords name....I believe she became obsessed with the idea of doing the same thing. Think about it, has anyone now days been reported to be demonically possessed.....I do not think it is possible. I truly believe this girl was sick in the head, but her mother was obsessive also. I think she did this things to rebel against her parents, and then it became a compulsive obesession, that it got to the point that she truly thought she was demonically possessed, but it was basically her mental state of mind. Every one has there own inner demons, but she went over board. I truly feel sorry for the father, this girl belonged in a mental institution. If given the right treatment, she'd be alive and well today. There is no such thing as demonic posession.

[–] Choyin666 17 years ago

Well, the problem here is that after watching the film, you believe what the director wants you to belive. The director of this one wanted you to belive there was no possesion at all, and that´s what happens. Over the same real event, if you watch the Emily Rose film, it tries to make you belive that the girl was in fact posesed.

It´s hard to get a objective idea if you don´t know the facts and just watch the version that one director wants to give to you.

[–] andrew_kelly_uk 16 years ago

But ac51177 is commenting on the film, not the real-life events that inspired it. The film is fiction and ac51177's interpretation is as valid as any other viewer's. The director of 'Requiem' kept things very realistic throughout - there is no real evidence for demonic possession in it (OR straightforward, if I can call it that, mental illness), it was an exploration of her illness, and yet the film WAS chilling and creepy. The context the story takes place in does - to me - seem to suggest that the woman's religion coloured and exacerbated her illness, and prevented useful help from getting to her, but the film itself gives no easy answers or forces any opinions on us.

On 'Emily Rose', the real events appear to have been fictionalised much more, but in that film the only conclusion to draw from the story was that the possession was an actual fact. The courtroom scenes brought another angle to the film that didn't question whether it really happened or not, but how we should deal with these seemingly fantastic occurrences and people's rights, and the context does - to me - create a position of sympathy for the family and priests.

Then there's the debate over which film is more artistic, more intelligent and/or better produced - I know which one I'd vote for! For the real story, I'll look to news and documentary sources… ;-)

[–] greenbananas 15 years ago

Great job, andrew kelly uk. Very well said

[–] stellar_child 13 years ago

well said!!!

[–] mkubel 16 years ago

"There is no such thing as demonic posession."

How can YOU be sure.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] kennethpitchford 15 years ago

I read that Wikipedia link and find it very informative. This film is not advising the viewer to believe or not believe. It is a stringent portrait of what happened to this young woman. [I haven't seen Emily Rose; I'd like to do so at the next chance I get.] It's a perfect fit either way. Disbelief: The woman was driven mad by her oppressive mother.
Belief: Whatever superficially may have caused her problems (e.g., epilepsy, repression, etc.) she did truly suffer in the way dramatized in the movie. Both the religious view and the nonreligious view explain the situation, but are mutually exclusive. Yet the suffering is real. And shouldn't be diminished by a quick or cheap jump to some self-comforting conclusion. I myself happen to be an atheist, but I find this movie to be an exquisite dramatizing of a real spiritual condition. The acting and directing are superb. It's very well worth watching.

[–] vdsc 17 years ago

My take on it (as someone brought up as a Catholic with a v religious mum) is that religion was a very important and fundamental part of Michaelas life. When a very religious person starts to have psychiactric problems, one of the more obvious things to start going screwy with them is their faith, their either lose their faith or else it takes on more serious connotations and becomes completely imeshed in their mental problem. I think Michaelas saw her religion as one of the defining factors of the person she was, so when she broke down, all her madness was channeled in to her religion as she didn't understand who she was anymore and was desperately trying to define herself through religion. Her inability to touch the cross was the feeling that she was losing herself. Yes I agree that her mum was the root cause of her problem and the idiot priests were the final nail in the coffin, but I believe her madness took the form of 'possession' as she was locked in an internal struggle with trying to hang on to her old self - a self which was defined by religion

[–] panopticon7-1 17 years ago

i'm fascinated by your notion that losing faith is a sign of psychiatric problems--the notion that not believing in something for which there is no evidence in any way indicates a break with evidenced reality. i've honestly never heard that theory seriously proposed. so, suddenly no longer believing that if i blow myself up in a crowded club i will get 72 virgins is a sign of losing my mind? or suddenly not believing that life is suffering and is full of ups and downs for everyone to varying degrees is the start of mental illness? or recognizing that for centuries representatives of my church have raped hundreds of thousands of infants, children, mentally handicapped people and/or have known others have done these things and/or have covered for these acts and literally ALL-every single member of the clergy--know that the church hierarchy covers for these heinous crimes and by their being clergy are therefore COMPLICIT in these crimes ... and suddenly realizing that this is not only not anomalous, but is the nature of that church, which instantly repulses me from ever trusting them or anything they ever say ever again about anything ... marks me as unstable? well, then--call me crazy ...

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Rabid_Si 17 years ago

That isn't in any way what was implied. What vdsc said was that the loss of (or unhealthy attachment to) faith can be a side-effect of mental or emotional trauma in a person who is devoutly religious. How you read into that the notion that a lack of faith is a sign of psychiatric problems is honestly beyond me.

Read a little more carefully before you jump down someone's throat

[–] palvall 16 years ago

Re: panopticon7-1

Cheezus... How can someone so totally missunderstand something as much as you did? Read vdsc's post again - read right!

[–] Ceephax 11 years ago

i'm fascinated by your notion that losing faith is a sign of psychiatric problems--the notion that not believing in something for which there is no evidence in any way indicates a break with evidenced reality. i've honestly never heard that theory seriously proposed. so, suddenly no longer believing that if i blow myself up in a crowded club i will get 72 virgins is a sign of losing my mind? or suddenly not believing that life is suffering and is full of ups and downs for everyone to varying degrees is the start of mental illness? or recognizing that for centuries representatives of my church have raped hundreds of thousands of infants, children, mentally handicapped people and/or have known others have done these things and/or have covered for these acts and literally ALL-every single member of the clergy--know that the church hierarchy covers for these heinous crimes and by their being clergy are therefore COMPLICIT in these crimes ... and suddenly realizing that this is not only not anomalous, but is the nature of that church, which instantly repulses me from ever trusting them or anything they ever say ever again about anything ... marks me as unstable? well, then--call me crazy ...

Fundamental supremacist atheist alert!!

[–] Choyin666 17 years ago

I agree.

[–] jcappy 16 years ago

In a Freudian age, we are very quick to cast the blame at the mother... but isn't the real culprit the patriarchal catholic church (not alone in this, of course). It is this church of male priests (fathers), male family heads, male hierarchy, male sexuality (women equal temptation), and male mores which Micheala has to live within, and from which she cannot, having grown up in, escape. Her illness may or may not be a result of that faith but it sure does not help her escape--nor do the sympathetic men (good christians all)who come to her assistance. Only someone, female or male, with her or his life positioned against or outside of patriarchy could have driven out the true possessors of M's body and soul.

[–] Xeokym 16 years ago

idlewood I agree with your assessment, and I absolutely understand what happened to the girl because my family and my mom were very nearly identically dysfunctional and my life went in quite the same way. Except in my case we weren't super-religious and I simply dealt with my problems in therapy instead. In fact I'm still going and still working through it. But back then, 30 years ago or so, they didn't look at mental health problems in the same way they do today, and mental health hospitals (aka "looney bins") were horrible places (well, they are, in fact, still pretty crappy places today...especially if you get committed and it's not voluntary).

I can totally understand how someone with a dysfunctional family, an ice cold bitch of a mom who offers NO love and is 100% judgemental over everything she does, who also has, no doubt, manic depression and possibly schizophrenia or even psychosis, could interpret her symptoms (hearing voices, having fits and seizures) as "demon possession" in the absence of some other kind of medical assessment. If there's no one there telling you what you're going through, that makes the situation all the more worse and terrifying.

¸,«¤º°°º¤»,¸»«ëÕ|{¥(V)¸,«¤º°°º¤»,¸

[–] CAL_FORD 16 years ago

I agree with Idlewood. I would add that catholicism itself is a demonic religion based on a collection of most of the world's pagan occult practices. Doesn't take a roving demon to take over this girl, the church is quite enough. The mother would be a natural conduit of evil to her daughter, this is how the church operates, pass the darkness and control maternally.

[–] the_zookeeper 16 years ago

There were dozens of tapes made during the Annalise exorcism that the Catholic church still has. I leave the possibilities open.

Besides, I find it *beep* that we can be told to believe in God and not demons.

The gene pool could use a little chlorine......

[–] groovybaby62365 16 years ago

As one of the persons who has heard one of the tapes, I've no trouble believing it to be an actual case of possession. The prosecuter in Emily Rose made a fine point when he brought up the fact that (some) monks are able to use a second part of the vocal chord area; however, it would have taken two separate mouths to have articulated two differently pronounced words at the same time. They leave that latter fact out.

It's interesting that many who have posted this thread seem to embody the thought that the greatest feat the devil ever produced was to convince people that he didn't exist at all.

Someone on this thread also remarked that possession is little heard of in the present day. That is implicitly false: in fact, last year the number of priests who attended the so-called 'exorcism school' was a number increased by an exponential 300% over previous years. Feel free to Google the catchwords if you don't believe me. The class is held in Italy. Thus, in reality, never has 'demonic traffic' been more busy than in the present day; at no time in history has the church been (albeit somewhat quietly, as usual) open in it's admission that the demonic entities are evidencing themselves in numbers never seen nor imagined as before.

To the doubters, no amount of evidence will suffice; to the believers, none is needed. I fall into the unfortunate category of those who have witnessed the incontrovertible evidence (in toto, not just the Michel tapes), evidence i neither sought out nor wished or asked to see. I honestly don't know what to tell people other than what i have witnessed (and how thankful i am that i witnessed such while in the presence of others); I agree with a healthy mistrust of man-made religions and fallible humans, but not faith.

Last but not least, for IMDb fans, I suggest you look up the movie "The Exorcist" then read the 'trivia' page. Note the remarks from the real priests who were in the movie itself, who remain active in teaching in the present day. An eye-opener, to be sure. Those who had a connection to the actual case the movie was based on have stated that "80%" of what you see in the movie was factual. (They are referring to the original cut of the movie, which is the version most people in present-day have not seen -- to date the movie has never before been restored to it's 70's version, which was deemed too horrifying and brought about lawsuits from people who claim to have been damaged one way or another by having seen the movie.)

Just some food for thought for you.

[–] coprogirl 16 years ago

Groovy, your circular logic only indicates that you are a victim of brainwashing. Superstition is just that. You have no proof. "I've heard the tapes.." Oh pul-lease. This is the kind of thinking that left us in the dark ages for centuries.

Good movie, though. Breakout performance for the lead.

"'Scuse me while I whip this out"
Blazing Saddles

[–] jinx_malone 15 years ago

do you read malachi martin too?

the fact remains that there are no cases of possession among confirmed atheists.

in order to keep up with the evangelicals, who see demons everywhere, the church grudgingly employs the use of exorcists for mentally ill people who may respond to the very strong suggestion to get lost that an exorcism can provide. a very old-school form of psychiatric treatment.

what you're saying about the 'original cut' of the exorcist is patently untrue. there is no such film. people were psychologically damaged by seeing the film in initial release. there's no need to invent a film that doesn't exist.

it's also interesting to me just how many cases of 'possession' follow either the guidelines set out by two films from hollywood. i would think that demons would be a bit more imaginative than to copy either the exorcism of emily rose or the exorcist, don't you?

just some food for thought for you.

-------------------------
"It's better not to know so much about what things mean." David Lynch

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jinx_malone 15 years ago

you leave the possibilities open even though the Catholic Church itself has reversed their position on Annaliese and now say that she suffered from mental illness and not possession?

-------------------------
"It's better not to know so much about what things mean." David Lynch

[–] jigstik858 15 years ago

Yes, the mother was a religious nutcase, look at Ed Gein's mother another example. These people seem to be the worst parents.

[–] Duncan_Idaho02 14 years ago

I am always disgusted when I see the religous fanatics on all sides coming out claiming all sorts of truths and being narrow-minded. They are all on this thread, the atheists, the catholics, the evangelicals. It is really amazing how people, just because they choose to believe something, claim that all other possiblities are wrong.

[–] m_antonioni 14 years ago

On the issue of demonic possession, atheists agree with mainline Christians, a group which you did not mention.

As for OP's question: yes, her mother played a significant role in the development of Michaela's mental illness, though I imagine that many people who are not predisposed to schizophrenia grow up in similar families without going mad.