The Exorcism of Emily Rose: Real Demonic Tapes, Cursed Sets & The Tragedy of Anneliese Michel

Don’t touch that light switch—you’re going to want to see what’s hiding in the corners for this one.

In this episode, Ambrose and Kelly blur the lines between spiritual terror and psychiatric reality. We are diving deep into the heartbreaking and terrifying true story of Anneliese Michel, the young German woman whose tragic death inspired The Exorcism of Emily Rose. Was it a battle for her soul against six demons, or a failure of the medical and religious systems surrounding her?

We also pull back the curtain on Hollywood to explore the physical toll of "immersive acting" and the legendary "cursed sets" of horror history—from the fires of The Exorcist to the tragic deaths surrounding Poltergeist.

Plus, we get technical with the science of sound, explaining how the "Kuleshov Effect" manipulates your fear and how the ENF Criterion is used to authenticate audio recordings.

In this episode, we cover:

• The Real Emily Rose: The life, suffering, and recorded exorcisms of Anneliese Michel.
• Hollywood vs. Reality: Comparing the legal thriller The Exorcism of Emily Rose (2005) with the gritty German drama Requiem (2006).
• Method Acting or Madness? How Jennifer Carpenter’s body-warping performance blurred the lines of reality.
• Cursed Cinema: The eerie deaths and accidents on the sets of The Omen, The Exorcist, and Poltergeist.
• Forensics of Fear: Analyzing the "Anneliese Michel Tapes" and how audio experts prove a recording is real using the electrical grid's hum.
• The Critic’s Crypt: Ambrose and Kelly head down to the basement (mistake!) to rate The Exorcism of Emily Rose.

So, grab your holy water and your headphones—it’s time to confront the cost of belief.

Chapters

• 1:26 Intro
• 3:19 Anneliese Michel's life
• 13:31 Hollywood vs Reality
• 17:02 Jennifer Carpenters and other Actors Performances
• 21:18 Cursed Sets
• 27:57 The Science
• 34:52 Psychological Effect
• 36:56 Critic's Crypt
• 43:22 Final Thought

Transcript

AMBROSE: Welcome back, everyone. I hope you’re settled in... and I certainly hope you kept the lights on for this one.

KELLY: Hey guys! And yeah, Ambrose isn't kidding. Seriously—don't touch that switch. Trust me, where we’re going tonight? You are definitely going to want to see what's hiding in the corners of your room.

[Ambrose:] Exactly—so keep ‘em blazing, because honestly? You’re gonna need that visibility. Tonight we’re diving into the real case behind The Exorcism of Emily Rose, and we're talking about how a heartbreaking true story got pulled apart, stitched back together, and turned into big-screen scares.

[Kelly:] And, to make it even lighter, we’re looking at the chaotic, real-life curses that plagued the sets of some of those classic horror films.

[Ambrose:] So grab the popcorn—or maybe some holy water—because the madness behind the scenes is honestly scarier than what made it onto the screen.

[Kelly:] Seriously. The material we’re looking at today forces us to confront that weird boundary.

[Ambrose:] You mean the one between spiritual terror and just... psychiatric reality?

[Kelly:] Exactly. We’re zooming in on the tragic, complex history of a young woman named Anneliese Michel.

[Ambrose:] And we’re going to compare two very different film versions of her story, right?

[Kelly:] That’s right. We've got the Hollywood spectacle of Emily Rose versus the much more internal, gritty drama you see in the German film Requiem.

[Ambrose:] So, our goal is to really synthesize all of this for you guys. The clinical side, the religious side, and, of course, the cinematic side.

[Kelly:] We really want to look at what happens when a human tragedy becomes entertainment.

[Ambrose:] And how that quest for authenticity—you know, Hollywood trying to make it "feel real"—actually impacts the actors and the audience.

[Kelly:] This is about so much more than just jump scares. It’s really about the cost of belief.

[Ambrose:] Both in faith and in film.

[Kelly:] So, to really get this, you have to start with Anneliese Michel’s life. The foundations.

[Ambrose:] Right, take us back. Where did her story actually begin?

[Kelly:] She was born September 21, 1952, in Germany. Just picture a very traditional, very devout Catholic family.

[Ambrose:] And she was one of four daughters?

[Kelly:] Yes. And her whole environment was just incredibly strict. Deeply, deeply religious.

[Ambrose:] Right. And when you dig into the background, it’s clear that suffering was just... part of her life from day one. I mean, it actually starts with her family history, doesn't it?

[Kelly:] It really does. She had a half-sister, Martha, who passed away tragically at just eight years old from kidney failure.

[Ambrose:] Wow.

[Kelly:] Yeah. So that kind of early grief, that focus on mortality... it really hung over the family unit.

[Ambrose:] And it wasn't just emotional suffering, right? Anneliese had major health struggles of her own.

[Kelly:] A constant stream of them. By the time she was five, she’d already had the mumps, measles, and scarlet fever.

[Ambrose:] Jeez. These weren't just, you know, the sniffles.

[Kelly:] Not at all. They were so severe that she was actually held back a year in school because she’d missed so much time.

[Ambrose:] That’s a huge strain on a little kid. And that pattern just continued?

[Kelly:] Unfortunately, yes. Later she was hospitalized for heart and circulatory problems. But despite all this physical hardship, her faith never wavered. It actually got stronger.

[Ambrose:] So how did all that suffering start to shape her spiritual path?

[Kelly:] It intensified it dramatically. Her initial plan was actually to be a teacher. You know, pretty standard career path.

[Ambrose:] But then something shifted?

[Kelly:] Yes. While she was dealing with all this illness, all the hospital stays, she had what the sources call an epiphany. A moment of spiritual clarity.

[Ambrose:] Oh wow. So, because she had that clarity, did she start looking at the illness in a completely different way?

[Kelly:] Exactly. Because instead of just fighting the suffering, she started to accept it. I mean, she actually came to believe that her pain was basically God’s will.

[Ambrose:] Wow. That’s a... that is a profound shift for a young person.

[Kelly:] It is. And this radical acceptance completely reframed her pain. It turned it into a kind of offering.

[Ambrose:] Like redemptive suffering.

[Kelly:] Precisely. It’s a very specific theological idea. And that led her to change her career path from being a regular teacher to maybe becoming a catechist.

[Ambrose:] Someone who teaches Catholic principles specifically.

[Kelly:] Right. Her vocation became completely tied up with her pain.

[Ambrose:] You can definitely see that same intense faith in her mom, Anna, too. Especially with that one famous story... the Padre Pio incident?

[Kelly:] Oh, that story is a huge turning point. It's almost like an omen.

[Ambrose:] Absolutely. It really sets the stage for the rest of the tragedy. So, walk us through it—what actually went down?

[Kelly:] Right. Well, it all starts with her mother, Anna, because she was actually really, really sick with peritonitis. I mean, the doctors had essentially sent her home to die.

[Ambrose:] Wow, that’s heavy. So naturally, they must have been absolutely desperate at that point, right?

[Kelly:] Utterly. And then, out of nowhere, a stranger shows up at their door.

[Ambrose:] And that’s the thing! Because it wasn't just any stranger, it was the one wearing the sky-blue scarf. That specific, weird detail always gets me.

[Kelly:] It does. And this stranger asks for 500 lira. Just a small amount.

[Ambrose:] For what?

[Kelly:] To buy three candles for the church of Santa Maria delle Grazie in San Giovanni Rotondo.

[Ambrose:] Which is basically the shrine of Padre Pio. You know, the famous stigmatic friar? So we’re talking about a seriously powerful place here.

[Kelly:] Exactly. So later, Anneliese makes this pilgrimage to Italy, probably seeking some kind of miracle for her mother.

[Ambrose:] But when she gets there, it... doesn't go as planned. Right?

[Kelly:] Not at all. As she got near the shrine, near the garden, she claimed she couldn't enter. She said the ground felt like it was on fire beneath her feet.

[Ambrose:] See, that isn't just hesitation. That is a full-blown physical rejection of a holy place.

[Kelly:] Exactly. And that wasn't even the only red flag. Her friend, Thea, actually tried to offer her some holy water.

[Ambrose:] So, it’s  just a totally normal, standard Catholic blessing.

[Kelly:] Right. And Anneliese refused it. She said it smelled bad.

[Ambrose:] So you have fire on sacred ground and repulsion to holy water. In possession narratives, those are huge red flags.

[Kelly:] They're considered definitive signs that the problem isn't just sickness—that it’s something spiritual. Something external.

[Ambrose:] And this is really what solidified the family’s belief that they were dealing with a battle for her soul.

[Kelly:] Absolutely. But, at the same exact time, the medical world was trying to find a clinical reason for all this.

[Ambrose:] She saw a Dr. Lehner, right? What was his take?

[Kelly:] Dr. Lehner suspected epilepsy, a neurological disorder. But he added this really interesting psychological layer.

[Ambrose:] What was that?

[Kelly:] He believed the epilepsy was—and this is a quote—"frosted in a thick neurotic resentment toward her very strict parents."

[Ambrose:] "Frosted." Interesting choice of words. So he’s suggesting it’s a mix? A real physical issue made worse by the stress of her home life?

[Kelly:] That’s the idea. So the investigation continues and she’s referred to a Dr. Schleip at the University Neurological Clinic.

[Ambrose:] And he does an EEG. Right?

[Kelly:] Yes. And the EEG confirms it. It showed irregular brainwave patterns in the left temporal area of her brain.

[Ambrose:] That’s significant. The left temporal lobe deals with language, memory, emotion...

[Kelly:] Exactly. Irregularities there can cause all sorts of bizarre behavioral changes and sensory experiences. So they had a clinical target.

[Ambrose:] But the treatments didn't work consistently.

[Kelly:] No. She was on Dilantin, a common anti-seizure medicine. When that didn't work, they switched her to Tegretol.

[Ambrose:] And this is where the medical story gets really muddy. Because her later EEG scans actually looked better, right?

[Kelly:] Right. The medication seemed to be working on the brain waves... but her symptoms?

[Ambrose:] They were actually getting worse, right? Like, way worse.

[Kelly:] Much worse. And by the spring of '74, she was still complaining of these awful, persistent headaches. So if the physical marker—the EEG—is improving, why is the behavioral chaos spiraling out of control?

[Ambrose:] That’s the gap. The gap that the spiritual authorities stepped into.

[Kelly:] Yes. Father Ernst Alt becomes her spiritual director. And the sources say he was really conflicted. He saw the medical evidence, but...

[Ambrose:] But he also saw her behavior getting more and more extreme. Things that couldn't be easily explained by a treated seizure disorder.

[Kelly:] And that’s when the "symptoms of crisis," as they're called, became truly horrifying.

[Ambrose:] We're not talking about just headaches anymore.

[Kelly:] No. We're talking about monstrous, self-destructive behavior. She was leaping at walls, scratching and biting the plaster off, and drinking her own urine.

[Ambrose:] Yeah, and that’s the stuff the movie actually shied away from. Emily Rose is scary, sure, but the real Anneliese Michel? Her reality was so much grimier and more painful than Hollywood was willing to show.

[Kelly:] Oh, completely. I mean, they sanitized it. In real life, we're talking about her eating insects right off the floor, or dunking her own head in the toilet bowl. And like, just the physical pain of it—she was rolling around naked in gravel outside just to try and cool down this intense internal fever.

[Ambrose:] And the reports also mention unbelievable physical strength.

[Kelly:] Yeah, which is terrifying. Because remember, Anneliese was a small woman, but witnesses said she could fling her own sister across the room like a rag doll.

[Ambrose:] And then, just as suddenly... it would stop?

[Kelly:] Exactly. This extreme, monstrous state, and then immediate calm. Lucidity. She’d go back to studying or playing the piano. It was that pattern that was so disturbing.

[Ambrose:] And then came the claim that shifted everything. The language.

[Kelly:] This is the cornerstone of the spiritual case. The claim is that during these fits, she could understand and respond immediately to questions asked in languages she had never learned.

[Ambrose:] Like Latin or Chinese?

[Kelly:] Exactly. It’s called Xenoglossy—which is basically just the ability to speak a language you've never actually learned. And look, in religious terms? That is seen as pretty much impossible without some kind of external, demonic influence involved.

[Ambrose:] And they recorded all of this. Right?

[Kelly:] Yes. A companion named Thea Hein suggested they tape record the sessions. Father Renz agreed, though they apparently missed the first few.

[Ambrose:] Oh yeah, I’ve heard those tapes. And trust me, they are just as chilling as you’d imagine. Even if you don't understand a word of it, it’s terrifying. But that brings me to the big question—do we actually know what those demonic voices were saying?

[Kelly:] Actually, we do. And it gets really specific—like, weirdly theological. For instance, there’s one part where a voice claims that the Virgin Mary "steals so much from us"—meaning the demons—basically because she saves so many souls.

[Ambrose:] Whoa. So basically, it frames Anneliese as a literal battlefield in this huge cosmic war.

[Kelly:] Exactly. And the voices attacked the church itself. Using incredibly vulgar language.

[Ambrose:] So after witnessing all of this—the medical ambiguity, the physical chaos, the theological claims on tape—Father Alt comes to a conclusion.

[Kelly:] He does. He lands on a very specific and very controversial idea: Expiatory possession.

[Ambrose:] Explain that. What does "expiatory" mean here?

[Kelly:] Sure. It’s a challenging concept. It suggests her suffering wasn't just a random attack, but a necessary sacrifice.

[Ambrose:] So her suffering was saving other souls?

[Kelly:] Yeah.

[Ambrose:] She was like a living martyr?

[Kelly:] That’s the idea. That she was fighting the devil on behalf of all the faithful.

[Ambrose:] Man. That is an unbelievable burden to put on a sick young woman.

[Kelly:] And it was fiercely debated, even by other religious figures.

[Ambrose:] Wait, really? I mean, why though? What was the actual argument against it?

[Kelly:] Well, critics asked why Jesus didn't just free her, like he freed Mary Magdalene.

[Ambrose:] So, I take it they didn't exactly see it as redemptive, then?

[Kelly:] Definitely not. In fact, they called the suffering cruel and sadistic. And honestly, that central question—like, was this a divine sacrifice or just a brutal tragedy?—that is basically the raw material Hollywood ran with.

[Ambrose:] Which brings us to the movies. This incredible ambiguity is exactly what filmmakers love. But they went in two completely different directions.

[Kelly:] Totally divergent paths. You start with the big one: The Exorcism of Emily Rose from 2005.

[Ambrose:] Right. Which is basically the full-blown Hollywood spectacle version.

[Kelly:] Exactly. But what’s cool is that it takes the true story and uses it to create this really smart genre blend. So, yeah, it’s a horror movie, but it’s also a full-on courtroom drama.

[Ambrose:] That’s the hook, isn't it? The trial is literally about trying to prove the devil’s existence within the US legal system.

[Kelly:] A brilliant commercial concept. You've got Laura Linney as the agnostic lawyer defending the priest, Father Moore...

[Ambrose:] Who's on trial for negligent homicide.

[Kelly:] Right, because he advised Emily to stop taking her medication during the exorcism.

[Ambrose:] And the movie’s marketing hammered that "Based on a True Story" angle.

[Kelly:] Oh, absolutely. And it worked. It opened at number one, made over $36 million in its first week. It was a huge hit.

[Ambrose:] But that commercial success is exactly where the criticism starts.

[Kelly:] Yes. And honestly, the real accounts argue pretty strongly that by focusing so much on jump scares and spectacle, the film actually does a disservice to Anneliese’s memory.

[Ambrose:] Right. So basically, the argument is that it distorts the tragedy just for the sake of entertainment.

[Kelly:] Which is a fair critique. But, the director, Scott Derrickson? He actually defended those choices. He said he wasn't trying to mock religion at all—he just wanted to treat it with real seriousness.

[Ambrose:] So, his goal was to make the audience ask questions, not give them answers.

[Kelly:] Exactly. He wanted people to, in his words, "take inventory and see how much room you've left for possibility and doubt."

[Ambrose:] So it’s less about proving the devil is real and more about challenging the audience’s own certainties.

[Kelly:] And it was that balance, I think, that helped it win Best Horror Film at the Saturn Awards that year.

[Ambrose:] Makes sense. So, that’s the big Hollywood version. But then, literally just a year later in 2006, the German film Requiem comes out.

[Kelly:] And let me tell you, it approaches the same story from a completely different angle. I mean, the contrast is just night and day.

[Ambrose:] Oh, how so?

[Kelly:] Well, if Emily Rose is this big, external, legal battle... Requiem is a quiet, internal drama. It basically strips away all that sensationalism.

[Ambrose:] So it avoids the horror movie style completely?

[Kelly:] Yeah. The director used handheld cameras, natural lighting. It’s all about realism and vulnerability.

[Ambrose:] So what did it focus on? Instead of the demons and the trial?

[Kelly:] It focused on the young woman. It puts her internal struggle, her mental health, right in the spotlight. She’s seen primarily as a victim of her illness and of institutional failure.

[Ambrose:] Man, that really changes everything. Because suddenly, it shifts the focus from "Is the devil real?" to "How did this actually happen?"

[Kelly:] Precisely. Requiem is about the tragedy of misdiagnosis and confusion. How her parents, her doctors, her priests... how they all fail to understand her suffering. It’s about human failure, not metaphysical evil.

[Ambrose:] So it gives her story more respect by refusing to sensationalize it.

[Kelly:] That’s the argument, yes. It contextualizes her religious faith as maybe a coping mechanism that was tragically misunderstood and exploited.

[Ambrose:] Right. So, it’s taking a completely different ethical posture.

[Kelly:] It does. And that actually leads to a completely different challenge for the actor who has to embody that suffering.

[Ambrose:] Oh, absolutely. So, let's talk about that specific performance—Jennifer Carpenter as Emily Rose. I mean, the physical and psychological commitment there, is just astounding.

[Kelly:] Definitely. Her dedication to getting that role is a story in itself. She was actually on vacation in Italy...

[Ambrose:] Ah yes, Italy… where the Padre Pio incident happened?

[Kelly:] Literally the exact same place. And get this—she only read twelve pages of the script, but she was so convinced that she actually spent money she didn't even have, just to fly back to LA immediately for the audition.

[Ambrose:] And the audition itself was intense. Right?

[Kelly:] Oh, "intense" is putting it lightly. Derrickson really challenged the actors. He basically asked for four specific things: Pure joy, the look of something inhuman entering a human body, an authentic seizure, and finally... an unscripted moment.

[Ambrose:] So it sounded like he wanted the whole spectrum? 

[Kelly:] He really did. And Carpenter delivered by getting incredibly physical. I mean, in her prep, she actually used a room full of mirrors to basically choreograph the possession.

[Ambrose:] To see what movements were genuinely scary?

[Kelly:] Exactly. And she said that adrenaline would kick in and allow her to bend a little further than she thought she could.

[Ambrose:] And that led to these little discoveries, right? Like the hand movement?

[Kelly:] Yes. She found that when she tensed up to simulate a seizure, her middle fingers would just pop out in this really strange, unnatural way.

[Ambrose:] And that became a detail they actually kept for the film.

[Kelly:] They had to. It was so unsettling. And it came from her own physical exploration.

[Ambrose:] She also said she wouldn't have done the movie if it relied too heavily on CGI.

[Kelly:] Right. She wanted it to be grounded. To feel real. To show what it could look like if this happened right in front of you. Corporeal terror.

[Ambrose:] And that’s not even mentioning the vocal work. I mean, you’ve got the guttural sounds, speaking Aramaic...

[Kelly:] Yeah, and she actually said the Aramaic was the hardest part, just because of how it feels in your mouth and your throat. So, again, it really just goes back to that commitment to the physical reality of the performance.

[Ambrose:] But see, that level of commitment... it kind of blurs the lines, doesn't it? And it definitely comes at a cost.

[Kelly:] A huge cost. I mean, the clearest example has to be that near-fainting incident during the barn exorcism scene.

[Ambrose:] How so?

[Kelly:] Well, basically, she spent the entire day just screaming—like, really pushing her body to its absolute limit. And on top of that? She had unknowingly taken an antihistamine.

[Ambrose:] Which is risky, because those can actually thin your blood and make your heart race.

[Kelly:] Exactly. So suddenly, she’s got this internal chemical chaos going on right on top of the physical extremity of the performance.

[Ambrose:] And what was the result?

[Kelly:] She almost passed out. She described this moment where she came to, but had no idea where she was or who anyone was. A total, momentary psychological break.

[Ambrose:] And she just kept going with the scene?

[Kelly:] She did. And she says now that watching that scene scares her—not because of the acting, but because she remembers how terrifying the feeling was. The performance was rooted in a real physiological crisis.

[Ambrose:] And that really opens up a bigger conversation about what this kind of immersive acting actually does to a person.

[Kelly:] Yeah. There are actually studies showing that actors who use these deep, immersive techniques? They run a real risk of having the role affect their actual sense of self.

[Ambrose:] So, it’s not just a mood? The character can actually carry over after the cameras stop rolling?

[Kelly:] For sure. There are tons of examples. Actors report losing their "native self," literally forgetting for a moment that they're playing a role.

[Ambrose:] And it can make them physically sick.

[Kelly:] Oh, absolutely. Like, take an actor who plays a really traumatic role—say, a rapist. They might actually become physically ill because their body is basically reacting to the psychological violation of the part.

[Ambrose:] And it can affect their thoughts too?

[Kelly:] Yes. Actors have reported having the prejudiced thoughts of a bigoted character carry over into their real-world thinking. Even if they consciously reject those ideas, the brain pathways get temporarily rewired.

[Ambrose:] Which is honestly terrifying. I mean, it’s basically a complete blurring of identity.

[Kelly:] It is. And in some cases, actors even become more comfortable living as the character than as themselves. The mask feels safer.

[Ambrose:] And if that's the kind of psychological chaos happening inside the actor... maybe that's what invites the chaos we see on these so-called "cursed sets."

[Kelly:] You know, that is actually a really fascinating connection to make. So, let’s talk about some of those curses... starting with the absolute gold standard: The Exorcist, 1973.

[Ambrose:] Oh, the stories from that set are legendary.

[Kelly:] Legendary for a reason.

[Ambrose:] Yeah.

[Kelly:] You remember when we did that episode on the Exorcist. Right

[Ambrose:] Sure do.

[Kelly:] Well we know by the time they wrapped production, a total of nine people associated with the film had died.

[Ambrose:] Oh yeah, I remember that. I mean, that isn't just bad luck. That is a full-on pattern right there.

[Kelly:] Exactly, an undeniable pattern. And the deaths were so specific. So, the actor Jack MacGowran, who plays Burke Dennings—the character who dies early in the film?

[Ambrose:] Right.

[Kelly:] He died unexpectedly just days after he finished his scenes. Then the actress who played Father Karras's mother, she also died. So two actors whose characters also die in the film passed away during production.

[Ambrose:] That’s uncanny.

[Kelly:] It’s chilling. And it wasn't just actors. A special effects worker and a security guard died too.

[Ambrose:] And then there's the tragedy surrounding Mercedes McCambridge.

[Kelly:] Right. She was the voice of the demon, Pazuzu—you know, that iconic, horrifying voice? But get this—while she was recording those lines, literally chain-smoking and drinking raw eggs just to get that rasp? Her son murdered his wife and children, and then took his own life.

[Ambrose:] My god. The scale of that tragedy is just unimaginable.

[Kelly:] And on top of all the death, the set itself seemed cursed. The main set, the MacNeil house, burned to the ground in 1972.

[Ambrose:] Right. And the initial report basically claimed it happened for "no apparent reason."

[Kelly:] They eventually blamed it on a pigeon in a circuit box. But still, the timing was incredible.

[Ambrose:] And the detail that always gets me is that one room was completely untouched by the fire.

[Kelly:] Ahh yes, Regan’s bedroom. The epicenter of the demonic activity in the film was the only part of the set that didn't burn.

[Ambrose:] The director, William Friedkin, was clearly spooked by all this.

[Kelly:] So much so that he asked a Jesuit priest who was advising on the film, Father Thomas King, to perform an actual exorcism on the set.

[Ambrose:] Did he do it?

[Kelly:] Nope, he declined. But he did offer a blessing for the cast and crew, just to try and calm the energy.

[Ambrose:] And even after the movie came out, the chaos continued.

[Kelly:] Oh, yeah. A woman sued Warner Bros. because she fainted during a screening and broke her jaw. She claimed there were subliminal messages in the film that made her pass out.

[Ambrose:] And the studio settled.

[Kelly:] They settled out of court. Which feels like an acknowledgment of the film's incredible, almost dangerous power.

[Ambrose:] And The Exorcist is the most famous, but it's far from the only one.

[Kelly:] Not even close. Think about The Omen from 1976.

[Ambrose:] Oh, the movie about the Antichrist.

[Kelly:] Yes. And get this It premiered on June 6, 1976. Two months later, the special effects guy, John Richardson, gets in a horrible car accident in the Netherlands.

[Ambrose:] Right, and it ends tragically. Because while he actually managed to survive the crash, his assistant, Liz Moore... she didn't.

[Kelly:] No. She was actually decapitated. And honestly? This is the detail that is just too perfect. A nearby road sign read: Ommen, 66.6km.

[Ambrose:] No... come on. That's too much.

[Kelly:] It’s like something out of a screenplay.

[Ambrose:] Then you have The Amityville Horror. The curse there started before they even started filming.

[Kelly:] With James Brolin. He was on the fence about taking the role, right?

[Ambrose:] Yeah, he was reading the script and his pants just fell off a hanger in his closet. A simple, yet  weird little thing that spooked him so much he took the part.

[Kelly:] Oh my god, I bet.

[Ambrose:] And the weirdness follows these stories, even with The Conjuring. You remember, we did a whole episode about the movie and the Perron family.

[Kelly:] Oh, totally. And it wasn't just the movie—it was the filming, too. Like when the family came to visit the set, this fierce wind just kicked up out of nowhere. And—get this—at that exact same time back home? The mom, Carolyn, actually took a really bad fall.

[Ambrose:] Yeah, exactly—it’s like the scary stuff just bled right into reality. But listen, we can't do this topic without talking about Poltergeist. Because that one isn't just creepy... it's genuinely tragic. It is maybe the saddest of all the curse stories.

[Kelly:] Oh, deeply tragic. Because we aren't just talking about accidents or scary moments—this one actually involves the deaths of multiple young cast members.

[Ambrose:] Oh your talking about Dominique Dunne, who played the older sister Dana, yeah she was murdered by her boyfriend just months after the movie came out.

[Kelly:] Horrific, real-world crime. And then the young star, Heather O’Rourke, you know the one who played Carol Anne. Well she died of septic shock before the third film was even released.

[Ambrose:] Honestly, it is just absolutely devastating.

[Kelly:] Plus, there were other accidents, other deaths... it really just drives home the whole theme of the genre, doesn't it? Like, when you play with fictional evil, you might just be inviting some real chaos in.

[Ambrose:] It definitely feels that way. But then again, you start looking for patterns, don't you? It’s basically just human nature.

[Kelly:] Which brings us to the science of all this. Because whether you're talking about a curse or a possession, it all comes down to one question: What's real and what's manufactured?

[Ambrose:] And that starts with understanding how even "real" media, like documentaries, are still a form of manipulation.

[Kelly:] Oh, absolutely. But a key point to remember is that even the most objective-seeming documentary is still subjective. Because the filmmaker is always making choices about what to show you, and what to leave out.

[Ambrose:] Exactly. Like, we see a shaky handheld camera or some gritty on-location shooting, and we just kind of naturally assume it’s more "real."

[Kelly:] But that realism is a style. It’s an effect that filmmakers create to make you forget you're watching something that's been constructed.

[Ambrose:] And the best proof of how much meaning WE—the audience—project onto an image is the Kuleshov effect.

[Kelly:] The Kuleshov effect is fundamental to film theory. It proves that editing alone can create emotion.

[Ambrose:] Okay, so go ahead and break down the actual experiment for us. How does it work?

[Kelly:] Right. So, basically, this Soviet filmmaker named Lev Kuleshov took a single shot of an actor who had just a totally blank, neutral expression. Then, he cut that exact same shot with a bunch of different images. So, first? He shows the actor's face, and then cuts to a bowl of soup. And immediately, people were like, "Oh, wow, the actor looks so hungry."

[Ambrose:] Same face, different context.

[Kelly:] Exactly. Then he showed the face followed by a child in a coffin. People praised the actor's profound grief. Finally, the face, then a young girl playing. They saw joy in his expression. The emotion wasn't in the actor's face at all. It was created by the juxtaposition.

[Ambrose:] So our belief in what's real on screen is basically a product of clever editing.

[Kelly:] Exactly. And honestly? That is a crucial thing to remember when we start talking about authenticating actual evidence. Like, for example, the Anneliese Michel tapes.

[Ambrose:] Right. So let's get into the forensics. How do you prove an audio recording is real?

[Kelly:] Well, in modern digital forensics, there's this problem of the "absence of contacts and traces."

[Ambrose:] So, meaning there’s basically no digital fingerprint? Like, totally unlike a physical crime scene?

[Kelly:] Exactly. So they had to create a whole new field of audio authentication. And it was basically born out of the Watergate scandal.

[Ambrose:] Oh, right. The infamous 18-minute gap on the Nixon tapes.

[Kelly:] Yep. That investigation basically wrote the rulebook. In fact, the Audio Engineering Society now defines an "authentic" recording as one that's made at the exact same time as the event, and is completely free from any alterations, edits, or deletions.

[Ambrose:] It has to be a pure, untouched record. So what tools do they use to check that?

[Kelly:] They have a whole toolkit. They do critical listening, high-res waveform analysis, and they look at the metadata.

[Ambrose:] Oh you mean the file's digital DNA.

[Kelly:] Exactly. But the most powerful tool—the one gaining a lot of ground right now—is the Electric Network Frequency criterion. The ENF.

[Ambrose:] Okay, that sounds really technical. How does it work?

[Kelly:] Well, it’s based on a really cool principle. The electricity in our power grid, like the 60 hertz signal here in the US, isn't perfectly stable. It wobbles.

[Ambrose:] Wait, so you mean it actually fluctuates? Like, just a tiny bit?

[Kelly:] Yeah, just a tiny bit. But here’s the thing—that wobble is completely random and unpredictable. It almost never repeats itself.

[Ambrose:] So it’s like a unique fingerprint for every single moment in time.

[Kelly:] Precisely. And any device plugged into the wall, or even just near electrical lines, picks up a faint hum of that unique wobble.

[Ambrose:] So you can compare the hum on a recording to a database of the grid's historical wobbles and you could potentially...

[Kelly:] Find the exact date and time the recording was made.

[Ambrose:] That’s incredible. But setting up that database must be insanely complicated.

[Kelly:] Extremely. It requires incredible precision. The ENF probe itself needs a transformer to step the voltage way down—we're talking 120 volts down to 6—just to protect the equipment and isolate the frequency. Then the signal has to pass through what are called "anti-parallel diodes."

[Ambrose:] Wait, "anti-parallel diodes"? Okay, why exactly do they need those?

[Kelly:] Because they filter the signal, clipping any voltages that are too high or too low. It’s all about getting the purest possible measurement of that frequency wobble without any contamination or noise.

[Ambrose:] So there are very strict rules for how to record evidence if you want it to be verifiable.

[Kelly:] Oh, absolutely. The sources are clear. The probe has to be plugged directly into the wall socket. Not into a surge protector or a UPS battery backup.

[Ambrose:] Wait, seriously? Never?

[Kelly:] Nope, never. Because think about it—those devices are literally designed to smooth out the power. Their whole job is to eliminate the very wobbles that the ENF criterion is trying to measure. So, if you use them? It would basically introduce error and make the recording forensically useless.

[Ambrose:] So we have these hyper-precise scientific tools to authenticate digital truth.

[Kelly:] On one hand, sure. But on the other hand, you have the Anneliese Michel tapes... which are basically what they call "sensitive recordings."

[Ambrose:] Right. They aren't just data for analysis. They've become these powerful cultural relics because of the intense emotion they evoke.

[Kelly:] Right. They’re described as "material effective samples" of the event. They capture the atmosphere. Listening to them activates what's called an "affective trace." The sound transmits a raw feeling—fear, despair—that bypasses your intellectual brain. It hits you on a gut level.

[Ambrose:] Oh, I can 100% vouch for that. Because when I was listening to those tapes? It didn't just feel weird—it felt wrong. Like I was genuinely hearing something demonic. And honestly, that brings us right back to the central conflict of the case.

[Kelly:] Exactly. I mean, is it just a psychological breakdown that we can analyze with science? Or is it actually an untainted record of spiritual warfare that demands faith?

[Ambrose:] Right. And it really is such a stark contrast. Because on one side, you have the cold, precise science of the ENF criterion... and then on the other, you have the raw, visceral claims of a voice speaking in unknown tongues in the dark.

[Kelly:] And the power of cinema—whether it's Emily Rose or Requiem—is that it takes that raw emotional power, applies the Kuleshov effect, and builds a narrative that feels more true and more compelling than the messy, inconclusive reality ever could.

[Ambrose:] We've seen how a single, devastating true story can branch into multiple complex narratives. One demanding spectacle, the other demanding understanding.

[Kelly:] And we've realized that the line between cinematic fear and real-world chaos is thin. Thinner than we might think. Whether we're talking about a movie set curse or the ambiguity of a digital recording.

[Ambrose:] So, considering the forensic challenge of verifying truth in audio recordings, the sheer technical rigor needed to prove a sound file wasn't altered, and the acknowledged power of film editing to create overwhelming emotion... how much of what we perceive as real horror today is fundamentally rooted in our willingness to accept the manipulation of sight and sound?

[Kelly:] You know... that really is the question. But honestly? I don't think I actually want to find out.

[Ambrose:] It really is, and I’m with you on that. And on that ominous note, the lights are actually starting to flicker in here... which means our time for this part of the show is officially over. So, go ahead and grab a flashlight, because we are heading down to the Critic's Crypt.

[Kelly:] Okay, you say "ominous," I say "we really need to pay the electric bill," but fine. Let's go with the spooky vibe. I’m actually dying to give my verdict on this one anyway.

[Ambrose:] Oh? Sounds like you’ve got a strong opinion brewing.

[Kelly:] You have no idea. I’ve got my shovel ready, so lead the way. Let’s go see if this movie deserves a resurrection or if we need to bury it for good.

[Ambrose] Okay, easy there, grave goblin. [soft chuckle] If you start swinging that shovel in here, I’m standing behind one of these stone slabs.

[Kelly] Go for it, but honestly, hiding behind a giant rock in a crypt is classic horror movie cliché. So if you get snatched by a demon because you picked a bad hiding spot, don’t expect me to come running.

[Ambrose] It really does. So let’s get into the good stuff. For me, the absolute best part of this movie has to be Jennifer Carpenter.

[Kelly] Oh, one hundred percent. Her performance is just... visceral.

[Ambrose] It’s terrifying! And the crazy thing is, she did almost all of that physically. The contortions? That wasn't CGI. That was just her wrecking her own body for our entertainment.

[Kelly] Which makes it so much scarier. When she’s on that dorm room floor? [shivers] It looked so painful that I actually forgot I was watching a movie.

[Ambrose] Exactly. It grounds the horror. And that brings me to the other big pro—the sound design.

[Kelly] Yes! The scratches in the wall? The breathing?

[Ambrose] It’s subtle, but it gets under your skin. It doesn't just blast you with noise; it makes you listen to the silence.

[Kelly] And I actually liked the courtroom stuff, mostly. It gave the movie a unique structure. It wasn't just "priest fights demon." It was "lawyer fights logic."

[Ambrose] It was a cool mix. It made the scary scenes feel like evidence, which was a smart twist.

[Kelly] But... and there is a "but."

[Ambrose] There is always a "but." Let’s hear the cons.

[Kelly] As much as I liked the idea of the courtroom, the pacing really drags in the middle.

[Ambrose] I agree. You go from this intense, terrifying barn scene straight into twenty minutes of legal objections.

[Kelly] It kills the momentum. You’re ready to be scared, and then suddenly you’re watching a legal drama on cable TV.

[Ambrose] [laughs] "Law & Order: Demonic Intent."

[Kelly] Exactly. And Laura Linney is great, but her character felt a little... I don't know, cliché? The skeptic who slowly starts to believe? We’ve seen that a lot.

[Ambrose] Yeah, it’s a bit of a cliché. And the ending leaves a lot hanging. If you want a clear answer, this movie refuses to give it to you.

[Kelly] Which some people love, but it frustrated me a little. I wanted a definitive win or loss.

[Ambrose] Alright, well, let’s put a number on it. What’s your rating?

[Kelly] I’m going to give it 3.5 out of 5 coffins.

[Ambrose] A solid middle ground. Ok, why?

[Kelly] Because Jennifer Carpenter is a 5-star scare in a 3-star legal drama. The horror is elite, but the trial scenes made me check my watch.

[Ambrose] That is fair. I’m actually going higher. I’m giving it 4.5 out of 5 coffins.

[Kelly] Wow, 4.5? You really did loved it.

[Ambrose] I did. Despite the slow parts, the scares genuinely kept me up at night. And any movie that makes me afraid of 3:00 AM deserves the extra half coffin.

[Kelly] You and your 3:00 AM phobia.

[Ambrose] It’s a real thing! Speaking of phobias... did you just turn your flashlight down?

[Kelly] No. Why?

[Ambrose] Because it just got darker in here.

[Kelly] Stop it. My batteries are fresh. Don't try to scare me, Ambrose.

[Ambrose] I’m not! Look at your beam. It’s flickering.

[Kelly] Okay, that’s weird. Maybe it’s just the dampness affecting the contacts.

[Ambrose] Or it’s something else. Do you hear that?

[Kelly] Hear what?

[Ambrose] That scratching. Like... fingernails on stone.

[Kelly] I thought that was your shoes.

[Ambrose] I’m not moving.

[Kelly] Okay. Okay, we are leaving. Right now.

[Ambrose] Yeah, agreed. Let’s just walk calmly to the—Did you see that shadow move?

[Kelly] Where?!

[Ambrose] By the archway! Something just darted past!

[Kelly] Okay, forget calm! Run!

[Ambrose] I’m trying! Don’t shove me!

[Kelly] Move faster then! The light is dying!

[Ambrose] I can’t find the handle!

[Kelly] Just push it! Push the door!

[Ambrose] It’s stuck! Kelly, help me!

[Kelly] Something touched my hair! Open it!

[Ambrose] I’ve got it—GO!

[Kelly] Don’t look back! Just run!

[Ambrose] It’s right behind u—

[Ambrose:] Okay. So reminder for future us… when you yell “Run,” you actually have to keep running and not just scream in place.

[Kelly:] I was running! My feet were moving, my lungs were screaming, my soul just left early.

[Ambrose:] Your soul left at, like, max volume. I think you blew out the mic and half the demons.

[Kelly:] Good. Maybe they’ll think twice before crawling out of a sarcophagus like it’s open mic night.

[Ambrose:] You also tried to use me as a shield while you were running, which is wild, because I am not made of stone.

[Kelly:] Yeah, but you were closer to the door, and I was closer to the hand, so it was either push you or high-five a demon.

[Ambrose:] Yeah, and instead of actually helping with the door, you just screamed, “It’s touching me!” and then climbed up my back like I was a ladder while I was still trying to get us out.

[Kelly:] If you didn’t want to be a ladder, you shouldn’t be that tall. That’s on you.

[Ambrose:] Honestly, I’m impressed. You skipped, like, five steps in one jump. If a demon ever chases us again, you’re going to the Olympics.

[Kelly:] Yeah, crypt hurdles. Gold medal in “screaming while sprinting up stairs in the dark.”

[Ambrose:] At least we made it out. It’s down there, we’re up here, and the door is closed.

[Kelly:] You say that now, but knowing you, you’re going to suggest we go back for “just one more recording,” so I’m keeping this door bolted shut because I am definitely not giving you the chance to change your mind.

[Ambrose:] Trust me, I won’t, because I left my bravery down there next to that sarcophagus, so even though the audio might be gold, I am perfectly happy staying right here on this side of the door. But with that being said you do know we have to venture down there again next week.

[Kelly:] Don’t even remind me, because I was just starting to breathe again! But since we have a schedule to keep, I guess we have no choice, although I am definitely bringing a priest next time, so don’t expect me to walk in first. Wait, did you just hear tha—