Saw the movie over the weekend... pretty interesting. What are your thoughts on Anneliese Michel's story? For those who didn't see or read her story, here's a quick summary: (I'm paraphrasing a lot here, so I'm omitting a lot of detail...I would advise to either see the movie or read the book and not go by this post alone... this was a court case after all) - she was originally diagnosed with "psychotic epileptic disorder/seizure", but this was discounted as the symptomatology of psychosis and epilepsy do not correlate. - she was on a drug called Gambutrol (which is not the name of the real drug since the use of the actual names of recognized medical conditions and pharmaceuticals in movies typically must be changed for legal and copyright purposes). The drug wasn't helping so she stopped using it. According to one witness on the stand, her scientific explanation was that the drug interfered with the exorcism and assisted in her death. It was at that point that the priests were called in to do the exorcism. - what's also interesting to note is that another doctor, who specialized in epileptic disorders, attended the exorcism. He stated off the record that he had never seen an epileptic disorder like that, and he was convinced that Anneliese was possessed after what he witnessed that night. - during the exorcism, Anneliese spoke fluent Latin to the priest, although she never took any classes. -one of the "demons" that "possessed" her (there were 6 in total at the same time) claimed to be a disgraced priest. I forget the priest's name, but it was alleged that Anneliese could have no way of knowing about this priest unless she had somehow gotten access to the church records. There are merits to both sides of the court case, and the truth probably lies somewhere in the murky overlap between them.
it just shows you how the human animal will buy into any kind of BS. I like horror films ghost stories etc for the sheer entertainment value, but thats it, it's just entertainment, there are no such things as ghosts and ghouls, monsters demons devils etc.. if you believe in supernatural things you need to see a doctor, it's call bipolar disorder I think.
I think that, like this thread, the movie was biased towards a religious (i.e. demonic) interpretation. The movie only half-heartedly spoke the rational side of the argument. This thread shows the bias by being posted in the religious subforum as opposed to the Human Science subforum. (Tricky thing, these predispositions, yes?) I thought the movie was so-so. It would have been a lot better if it had lived up to its intentions. It was intended to be the sort of movie that leaves you wondering, "Was she possessed? Was she crazy? Was she epileptic? What's the deal?" But, the treatment the movie gave the epileptic side of the argument did not compare even remotely to the possession side. Not even close. Take for instance the discussion of epilepsy. Now. Those of you who aren't interested in the functioning of the brain might not be aware of the effects of temporal lobe epilepsy. Here's a quote from Conversations with Neil's Brain by William Calvin: " Patients with left temporal foci — on average, and not reliably — are said to have somewhat different personalities, at least in some studies. The patient with a left temporal lobe focus more often has a moralistic, religious, rigid, sober, self-deprecating personality, tending to emphasize the personal significance of events, and often writing down all that personal significance in great detail. Both Dostoyevsky and Rasputin are thought to be examples of the left temporal lobe personality." This quote doesn't do the condition full justice. Ive seen other quotes that I don't have in front of me at the moment that go even farther in their descriptions of the effects of LTE. The epileptic suffers visions. Hallucinations. Visual and auditory. They see visions of the kingdom of heaven. They sense the presence of a figure often interpreted as holy or demonic. The list of symptoms are long, and as said in Calvin's quote, are not reliable. Not all left temporal epileptics have all or any of them. But, those who do... wow. A significant portion of the quote is the part about how they find deep, personal significance to things. I thought of this when seeing how Emily focused on the rainstorm before even noticing the hallucination of the demonic face. She sensed a significance within it apart from the visual hallucination. However, it must be borne in mind that the condition was not adequately demonstrated in the film. I don't know about the exact symptoms of the original patient, how they might have been distorted first in the translation to a book and then even more in the translation to film, so it's hard to really analyze the portrayed events in any reliable fashion. I can see a left temporal lobe epileptic fitting the role of the possessed quite nicely though. Down through the ages, the religious madmen, the saints, the visionaries, have been conjectured to be left temporal lobe epileptics. Some with stronger evidence than others. It is really quite an amazing phenomenon. But, it was barely mentioned in the movie. And then the defense lawyer says something like, "But you said she's epileptic and not psychotic. Does epilepsy have the type of symptoms you've mentioned?" The doctor sort of looks shamefaced at that question and it goes away. The other guy comes in with his 'epileptic psychosis' but no further mention of the left temporal lobe is mentioned. This is a sin against the rational possibility of the movie. As for the rest. Only the beginning of the movie even displayed a halfhearted attempt at raitionalism. They showed scenes from a rationalistic point of view where Emily was suffering from a seizure and hallucinations rather than the possession and effects which she described. But for most of the movie they were all shown from the religious perspective. The only other points that I can think of where 'rationalism' scored points was when the dual vocal cords were mentioned (a new fact for me. I'd never heard of that. And it might even be fake for all I know.) And the way the pseudoscientist came in with her Gambutrol bashing, clearly showing a lack of scientific reasoning and control procedures. She was a quack from way back and that came across quite clearly. But. By the end of the movie, I seriously doubt that any non-biased individual would leave the theater with the idea that she was epileptic. So. The movie was unfair. It exists on false pretenses. It's a movie that's supposed to make you think. But, it does your thinking for you. I suppose that's nice for those people who are deficient in reasoning ability. This way they can leave the theater with the warm, comfy glow that they've gone through all the evidence and come to a reasonable conclusion, never suspecting that they've been led by the nose. All the way down the primrose path. They say you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. But, if you make him think that he went to the water of his own accord... I don't recall there being mention that he specialized in epileptic disorders. I might have missed it though. I'm not calling you a liar. But, you must remember that the events in the movie are not the actual events. They are the distorted interpretations of distorted interpretations of distorted interpretations...
i only really have to say can you beleive anything the catholic church says about religon and if so you would beleive about anything
this remindes (SP) me of a story i read somewhere. so there was this girl, it was her first day at a new school and she wasn't making any friends, in fact no one was even nice to her. she sat down to eat lunch all alone when these two girls (sisters) of aribic (SP) heritage aproached her. "she looks so lonely" one of them said to her sister, as if the girl couldn't hear them. the girl said something in responce (SP) to that. they were shocked, not because of what she said, but because the comment one of them made to her sister was in aribic (SP). the girl had never heard a word of the language previously, but she understood it as if it were plain english.
The movie was not in any sense an accurate portrayal of the true story of Anneliese Michel. Unlike in the movie (where all the seizures and creepy demonic stuff began happening very quickly) Anneliese Michel slowly went insane over a period of 7 years. She had chronic epileptic seizures for two years before any sort of ‘demonic activity’ started. She claimed to be possessed by many ghosts and evil spirits, including the ghost of Adolf Hitler. She wasn’t killed by an exorcism; she stopped eating and slowly died of starvation. Her parents and two priests were charged with negligent manslaughter for allowing her to starve to death while under their care. They received six months in prison. The movie tried to portray her as suffering from a sudden demonic attack and quickly dying, and raised questions as to whether or she even actually had epilepsy – far more dramatic than someone who has epilepsy for years, went mad over a long period of time, and was allowed to starve to death by negligent parents. I’m sure they didn’t include the bit about being possessed by Hitler because most movie-goers would have just found it absurd.
I had literally just watched this movie and came upon this board while looking up the dual vocal cords... As everyone is entitled to their opinion I would just like to state that the only ones who can truly know what went on are the people present to the events... I would also like to state my opinion on the matter... Though I do believe parts of the movie were made up, this is necessary for the true drama of it all to take place basis for the movie were real... I consider myself religious and I have been a practicing witch of 11 years and align myself as a Christo-Pagan... It seems that more people are basing the plausibility of this story on Scientific fact, which is all fine and dandly, but Science can't explain everything... I've been witness to events that follow the same basic story line, though not as extreme or dramatic... I also have seen several doctors about "hallucinations" and dreams that I have had since as long as I remember and the most they can tell me is my brain isn't wired correctly, but they can't tell me where the short is, what's causing it, or how to fix it... I think for you to gain the full spectrum and impact of this movie you would have to set yourself outside what you know to be real and fake... There's more gray in fact and fiction than most wish to accept... So I leave you with this final question... Ponder it at your will or discard it as the ramblings of a delusional teen... What if science is wrong?
The magic question. But more specifically this: I find this compelling, the priest well that is just a name but would a mental case goad in such a manner? Plus if she had absolutely no way of knowing the name??? That is one thing but fluent Latin, was this really brought out in the trial? Not only that but the original Exorcist movie was supposedly based on an actual story, of coure it was "based on" because that is what happens in the creative realm. That being said, my father was a homicide detective and the stories he has told me would make CSI look like a joke (guessing, never seen it). The reason i mention that is because truth is stranger than fiction. You guys may think you've got it all figured out but from what i read ine post it seems to be slightly more than your average mental defect. So to make a long story short would anyone care to expound on the Latin part?...probably not. But try.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
welcome to sciforums, but you are obviously rambling, you say your a delusional teen, well your most likely right their, so we will assume your nineteen, so you've been a witch since you were eight. what did you parents say when this happened did they call you sabrina or sam, or tabitha. if I was one of your parents I would have had you checked and double checked if you kept having halucinations, or was it, you were told it was an over active imagination. I'd go for the latter myself.
So the priest claims she spoke fluent Latin, this being the same priest that was found guilty of man slaughter. Reliable testimony no doubt.
Weird, reading all the posts in this thread, i actually found you to come across most like a rambling teen.
of course I love rambling, the fresh air the open landscapes it a lovely pastime, and thank you for the compliment a teen, I haven't been one of those for a long time. though I do try and keep myself in shape.
You realise that such an alignment would be disavowed or even condemned by many in the christian world...just curious.
I'm just interested as how she became a witch at eight years old or even younger. she calls herself a rambling teen. (the oldest teen she could be right now is nineteen)
Of course it was Latin. Things sound creepy and profound in Latin, so it stands to reason that those religious nutjobs claimed she spoke in Latin rather than singing "my old man's a dustman" with a cockney accent.
