This is a documentary about a Maori family who tried an at home exorcism on a mentally ill young mother and killed her in the process.
When you think 'exorcism' you think of the kind you see in movies where a priest goes into a room and fights the devil. The subject of the exorcism writhes, vomits, fights and it looks painful and it can take a long time, but then it's over. Janet's torture lasted weeks. Possibly months or years when you think of the lack of adequate medical care. It is a gruelling journey.
My problem with this documentary is that the makers were utterly fearful of pressing the participants on their actions and beliefs. In Maori culture, there is a demon called Makutu and this was what the family believed was the cause of what seemed to be Janet's untreated schizophrenia. I can respect those beliefs. I don't agree with them and think they should have combined their faith with mental health treatment, but what I cannot respect is the fact this family made up their beliefs and rituals as they went along and they were barely questioned about it during the two hours.
Experts testified at trial the things they did and said had no basis in any Maori tribe or culture, but the interviewers never bring this up with the family. I would argue they denigrate Maori culture and people by disseminating these ideas and defending their actions and the wider abuse of Janet and other family members (numerous children were harmed during the exorcism) by not separating this conduct from real traditions developed over thousands of years. Just like the people of Salem who burned women at the stake as witches claimed to be acting for the church, it was a perversion of the faith.
There is also a young lady interviewed heavily in the documentary, I'm not sure if she is 18, if she is she is very childlike, but she is clearly traumatised and doesn't want to be there, hiding under a hoodie the whole time. It feels exploitative watching her. It's also unclear who is interviewing the participants and ends up being confusing. The setup is a police interrogation room but the camera is professional quality and from the POV of the interviewer. The interviewer is blurred and labelled 'interrogator' but one of the participants says at one point 'I wish I could say this to the police' so the person she is speaking to is not a police officer, the 'interrogator' is in no way, shape or form 'interrogating' and the questions are of a compassionate nature, not fact finding. Is it even legal to create footage and represent it as a police interview? Maybe New Zealand just has very high quality interview room cameras and very odd interrogation techniques?
This is a very important story that needs to be heard, but you will be justifiably angry by the end. I really, really hope that the attention this case didn't make water exorcisms something that other people try at home. I wouldn't be surprised if the family themselves didn't try it again. RIP Janet. I have never meant that so wholeheartedly about another soul.
When you think 'exorcism' you think of the kind you see in movies where a priest goes into a room and fights the devil. The subject of the exorcism writhes, vomits, fights and it looks painful and it can take a long time, but then it's over. Janet's torture lasted weeks. Possibly months or years when you think of the lack of adequate medical care. It is a gruelling journey.
My problem with this documentary is that the makers were utterly fearful of pressing the participants on their actions and beliefs. In Maori culture, there is a demon called Makutu and this was what the family believed was the cause of what seemed to be Janet's untreated schizophrenia. I can respect those beliefs. I don't agree with them and think they should have combined their faith with mental health treatment, but what I cannot respect is the fact this family made up their beliefs and rituals as they went along and they were barely questioned about it during the two hours.
Experts testified at trial the things they did and said had no basis in any Maori tribe or culture, but the interviewers never bring this up with the family. I would argue they denigrate Maori culture and people by disseminating these ideas and defending their actions and the wider abuse of Janet and other family members (numerous children were harmed during the exorcism) by not separating this conduct from real traditions developed over thousands of years. Just like the people of Salem who burned women at the stake as witches claimed to be acting for the church, it was a perversion of the faith.
There is also a young lady interviewed heavily in the documentary, I'm not sure if she is 18, if she is she is very childlike, but she is clearly traumatised and doesn't want to be there, hiding under a hoodie the whole time. It feels exploitative watching her. It's also unclear who is interviewing the participants and ends up being confusing. The setup is a police interrogation room but the camera is professional quality and from the POV of the interviewer. The interviewer is blurred and labelled 'interrogator' but one of the participants says at one point 'I wish I could say this to the police' so the person she is speaking to is not a police officer, the 'interrogator' is in no way, shape or form 'interrogating' and the questions are of a compassionate nature, not fact finding. Is it even legal to create footage and represent it as a police interview? Maybe New Zealand just has very high quality interview room cameras and very odd interrogation techniques?
This is a very important story that needs to be heard, but you will be justifiably angry by the end. I really, really hope that the attention this case didn't make water exorcisms something that other people try at home. I wouldn't be surprised if the family themselves didn't try it again. RIP Janet. I have never meant that so wholeheartedly about another soul.