Deliver Us From Evil Review
My Amazon review of this film can be found here. It is reproduced below.
Using Abuse Victims as a Means to an End
There is something particularly shocking about the sexual abuse of minors, rallying, as it does, an array of intense emotions. Those exploring the issue must do so with particularly sensitivity, forcing themselves to present their material in a fair and objective manner. It should not be used as an opportunity to push a particular ideological agenda, be it from pre-Vatican II conservatives who equate all moral wrongdoing with a failure to adhere to traditional Roman Catholicism or reformist liberals who seek to blame the clerical culture of traditional Roman Catholicism for everything that goes wrong. The victims deserve better.
My focus, here, is the journalistic merits of Deliver Us From Evil.
Balance
The film ‘contextualises’ the distressing testimony of the victims of Oliver O’Grady by cutting in interviews with four main participants: Thomas Doyle, Patrick Wall, Jeff Anderson, and John Manly. Doyle is a priest who views all transgressions by Roman Catholic clergy as the necessary consequence of ‘clericalism’, i.e. conservative Roman Catholicism. Jeff Anderson and John Manly are both lawyers suing the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles. They are of no assistance to viewers seeking objectivity as both are obliged to present the ‘best case’ for their clients regardless of its objective merits. Patrick Wall, listed as a ‘theologian’ by Berg, is actually a paid consultant to Manly’s law practice. It would not be possible to present a more biased set of ‘experts’ even if one were trying, which may very well have been Berg’s intention.
A possible rejoinder to this is the argument that Berg sought to represent two competing extremes but the Catholic Church’s non-participation meant that she was unable to do so and the lack of balance is, therefore, of their making. To this there are two replies. The first is that the duty of a documentary filmmaker is to present a balanced view of a subject. There are plenty of individuals who could have balanced out the polemics of Doyle, Wall, Anderson and Manly, but Berg desired no such balance. Second, it is not at all clear that Berg ever made a bone fide, good faith attempt at gaining the Archdiocese’s response in the first place. In fact, there is evidence of a history of ethical breaches in her prior dealings with the Roman Catholic Church. If Roman Catholic officials suspected that they would not get a fair hearing, the end product shows they were right.
Issues of Fact
The issues of fact presented are difficult to assess because Berg has fatally undermined the viewers’ ability to do so by providing only biased experts throughout the film. Not a single one has a reputation for scholarship so even if one were to eliminate their ideological and practical biases it is still not clear why they should be consulted. The deposition videos shown are frequently edited so that viewers are unable to put each response in its proper context and the precise order of each clip is confused by Berg who at times to zooms in to cut off the timestamps on the base of the video. I had a feeling of being manipulated in the same sense I do when watching a Michael Moore film (or any right-wing equivalent) or a ‘tabloid’ TV program.
The film ends with a series of claims, white text on black background, but none of these are sourced so it’s difficult to determine their credibility. I suspect many viewers won’t care (it’s an anti-Catholic favourite) but those interested in the truth are put in the difficult position of having to do the filmmaker’s job for them.
Ethics
One disturbing element of the film was the manipulation of the victims at the film’s climax. The Jyono family are carted off to Vatican City, irresponsibly coaxed into believing that there was a chance that they, or someone else on their behalf, could march into to the offices of the head of a sovereign state and slap a letter of protest on his desk. They, of course, were treated as any other media group seeking to enter a foreign state without consent – their entry was refused. Berg, Doyle and Wall knew this would happen yet they persisted in their scheme in order to get the ‘rejection’ footage they knew could be used to paint the Church in a negative light. If it came at the expense of the victims’ dignity, so be it.
Others have commented on the filmmaker’s misrepresentations to a primary school so that they could position O’Grady close enough to its children that they both could be placed together in a single shot. This is another example of the filmmakers placing a premium on ‘moving’ visual imagery over and above the ethical considerations that must be made.
The filmmakers go as far as attempting to morally exculpate O’Grady of his crimes by (under Manly’s leading questions) suggesting it was simply part of a cycle of abuse ‘enabled’ by the Church. It seems that the excuses of a convicted paedophile are suddenly convincing once they can be used against the Catholic Church. The expression ‘cutting of your nose to spite your face’ comes to mind.
Conclusion
Make no mistake, this film seeks incite ridicule and hatred, not of paedophiles, but of Roman Catholicism. Visual imagery depicting traditional Roman Catholic ceremonies is juxtaposed with audio descriptions of sexual abuse, a not so subtle attempt to link the two. The film uses abuse victims as set-pieces around which it attaches a series of contentious ideological claims, avoiding the scrutiny such claims would otherwise endure. But all this comes at a cost. The perceived benefit of a ‘reform’ cannot be used to justify a lack of balance nor ethical breaches of the kind found throughout this film. I cannot recommend this film to anyone seeking a balanced account of the abuse crisis.
Related Posts
- The Intelligence of Film Critics
- Recent Doyle Article
- Reverend Thomas Patrick Doyle
- Christopher Hitchens on Papal Fallibility
- My Worldview(s)
Comments
14 Responses to “Deliver Us From Evil Review”
Leave a Reply
[...] light of the near universal acclaim of the anti-Catholic propaganda piece Deliver Us From Evil,1 it’s no secret to me that many film critics are either stupid or gullible. I guess they [...]
your review disgusts me.
This review is deeply disgusting. The facts presented are widely accepted to be true by all parties concerned.
I’m sorry the lighting and editing upsets you more than the brutal rape of a three year old.
“This review is deeply disgusting.”
Well it’s unfortunate that you simply state your emotional reaction rather than to point out where I was wrong.
“The facts presented are widely accepted to be true by all parties concerned.”
That is an incredible claim to make. Incredible and completely false.
“I’m sorry the lighting and editing upsets you more than the brutal rape of a three year old.”
I never made a claim of that nature nor could it be reasonably inferred from anything I claimed. It’s extraordinary that you would make such a serious and demonstrably false claim against me. It says all I need to know about you.
EXCELLENT review.
“Make no mistake, this film seeks incite ridicule and hatred, not of paedophiles, but of Roman Catholicism.”
Absolutely correct.
Bravo.
–
Shame on you. It is Catholics like you that give the entire church a terrible name. Your efforts to belittle the actions of a horrible PEDOPHILE (make no mistake, the word doesn’t begin to describe the disgusting horrors that the devil planted in our church) are equal to those of Robert Mahony (although perhaps on a smaller level). Maybe we should focus more on pointing out flaws that are in the past and move on with a true and genuine love of Christ.
To Dillon
Two points:
First, I’m not a Catholic.
Second, my view is that this film contains a great number of misrepresentations and other inaccuracies. I don’t know why you think that repeating things that aren’t true will help the cause of victims.
I want those who contributed, directly or indirectly, to the abuse of children to be severely punished. This film doesn’t help achieve that objective because the filmmakers and some participants seemed more concerned with ideological point scoring than with a rational and objective analysis of the issues.
In your review, you state that Patrick Wall is not a theologian, but a senior consultant for a law firm. That is only half true. He is also a canon lawyer. Some people may consider a canon lawyer to be a theologian. In any case, you misrepresent him by making it look like he’s simply a “consultant.”
“In your review, you state that Patrick Wall is not a theologian, but a senior consultant for a law firm. That is only half true. He is also a canon lawyer. Some people may consider a canon lawyer to be a theologian. In any case, you misrepresent him by making it look like he’s simply a “consultant.””
I’m well aware that he is an ex-priest and therefore has formal qualifications in theology. My concern is with the fact that he is not a professional theologian in paid employment but rather a consultant in a law firm suing a number of RC Archdioceses. I think that the fairest and most accurate title is that of an employee of Manly’s law firm, with past experience as a priest. Instead, the relationship he has with Manly is minimised by labelling him a “theologian.”
I think that viewers should be given as much relevant information as possible, and I drew the conclusion that the filmmakers had deliberately excluded relevant information from viewers by labelling Wall a “theologian” when he’s not employed in that capacity.
I think that I could have been more objective in my review, and I would not have employed the same tone were I to write another review today. I still feel that the film seriously misrepresents these important issues and by doing so I was disappointed not only in the failings of the filmmakers but the failure of many to recognise and criticise those errors.
Thank you for contributing to my discussion of this issue.
After reading several reviews on the film, I am unsure as to how I should react. It seems that indeed heinous mistakes were made by members of the Church in recent decades. However, does that serve as a justification to smear the entire Church on the same level as a pedophile who raped dozens of children? Hardly so. The critics seem to be very keen on giving the film positive reviews and acclaim for its gripping and powerful message, but I am yet to see one that takes other factors into consideration, as you have done in this review. I’ll look more into this, but this review seems like step in the right direction to me.
I can’t think of anything less material to the story than whether an interviewee is labeled “theologian” or “consultant”. Frankly, the two terms could be used interchangeably without clouding the issue. The facts are that the Catholic hierarchy has systematically covered up and ignored the grotesque abuses by it’s own priests. The simple facts are an indictment of the organization. What facts are in dispute? The Church itself admits the priesthood is rife with pedophiles.
I was raised Catholic, attended Catholic schools from 1st grade through college. I am in the process of actively seeking ex-communication. When I read reviews like yours which downplay the horrors perpetrated by the clergy it makes me sad and angry. The culpability of the Church Hierarchy in the cover-up is absolute.
Every documentary film has a point of view. It isn’t necessary to follow journalistic protocol to tell a true story. And in this film the facts themselves determine the point of view. This is a black and white story, and you’re complaining that the filmmaker told it from the white point of view.
The “issue” is Wall’s credibility. Everything he claims to be true is dependant upon it. If Berg decides to actively hide the fact that Wall has a vested interest, she is hiding information relevant to the truth. Would you be as forgiving if a pro-Church documentary listed a known defender of the hierarchy as a mere disinterested “theologian?” I doubt it.
What evidence are you basing this assertion on? The whole hierarchy? A systematic cover up by all of them?
Where is your evidence that “The Church” “admits the priesthood is rife with pedophiles”?
“I was raised Catholic, attended Catholic schools from 1st grade through college. I am in the process of actively seeking ex-communication.”
I was also raised Catholic and also went through Catholic primary and secondary schools. What’s your point? That it therefore makes you an expert on Catholicism? And why would you care what they think of your formal status? Just leave the organisation. You don’t have to be excommunicated in order to disassociate from the Church and it would only make sense to do so if you deep down care what they think of you. I simply stopped identifying as a Catholic and don’t care if the Church formally still considers me a member.
Now you’re just making things up. I never did anything of the kind.
When I view someone present an argument, I want to know if the things they’re claiming are accurate. That’s what “journalistic protocol” is for. It’s not some mere formality, like the font used in a title card. It’s there so that an objective person can have a reason to believe the claims being made are correct. This film may have confirmed your preexisting opinions, but it cannot have done so through the presentation of reliable arguments, because, in significant parts, it lacks such arguments.
“This film may have confirmed your preexisting opinions, but it cannot have done so through the presentation of reliable arguments, because, in significant parts, it lacks such arguments”.
My preexisting opinion was that the Catholic Church is guilty of ignoring the gravity of the crimes of its pedophile priests; that priests who were known by their superiors to be rapists were not removed or turned over to law enforcement. I am not alone in that opinion.
Journalists are ethically bound to present all the necessary facts of a story to remain unbiased. This movie is not a news story. It is a study of how these crimes affected those involved. In the same way as an op-ed story in a newspaper assumes one point of view, anyone watching this movie should have assumed the same of it.
When I see footage of WWII concentration camps, I don’t wonder why I never see happy, well fed people. I know why. Decrying that as manipulative would show a total lack of sympathy for those in the camps.
Sorry to play the “Hitler” card, but it’s completely appropriate here.
You’re just making more and more claims without justifying the previous ones. Let’s start with your previous claim that:
Could you provide verifiable evidence that some senior official used the words “rife with pedophiles”? If not, please admit that you made it up. Then we can progress to your other claims. This will prevent this discussion devolving into a vague and emotional shouting match.
Thank you.