CaptainHowdy.com The #1 Exorcist Fansite Since 1999
- This topic has 10 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
As much as I like Boorman & thought he made the best of a bad situation, did no one remember the considerable on-screen chuckles generated by the sight of Sean Connery diapered up for the piculiar “Zardoz”? I wonder if the scope of the production of “Exorcist II” was just too much for a young director to bear, especially with a major studio calling many of the shots.
Â
I wonder if Brian de Palma could have lent some of the crackling energy & garish carnage from the prom sequence of “Carrie” to the climactic moments of “The Heretic” or how his split screen techniques could have benefited the ridiculous sync machine. I wonder if a Scorsese could have lent dramatic weight to the relationships or if a Hitchcock could have trimmed “Exorcist II” down to the elements required to tell a meaningful story in a visually important way. What could Friedkin have made of it, for that matter.
Â
Not knocking Boorman exactly but the best than can be said for the “Exorcist II” is that is a well designed, carefully crafted disaster. I look at the dedication of Richard Rush in getting “The Stunt Man” made and released his way and wonder if that's the kind of guts it would have taken to get “Exorxist II: The Heretic” done right.
kokumo … I don't think so, although your alternate helmers are interesting. To me, EII was doomed from the beginning because WB wanted a sequel too quickly. Ultimately, the original tagline, “Somewhere between science and superstition …,” just didn't blend too well into another horror film of The Exorcist's caliber. It's not what audiences wanted obviously.
Father B
In my opinion there is nothing to save. The film we got is fine the way it is and I would not change a single thing about it. It is one of my top 5 favorite films of all time and nothing anyone says will ever change that.
Could another director have saved Exorcist II?
In a word, no. With a screenplay that messy, that had undergone that many rewrites, it was doomed from the outset. Boorman is a very good director and, had he been given a decent screenplay from which to work, he might have made a decent go of it. But the film never stood a chance.
As a bizarre, often very atmospheric, 70s sci-fi/fantasy film called The Heretic, I really rather like it. As a sequel to The Exorcist and bearing the title Exorcist II and all the expectations that name carries with it, it doesn’t stand a chance.
Some films are simply one-offs and can never have a good sequel.
The only chance that The Exorcist can ever become a proper franchise is for there to be a new adaptation of the book that’s designed to leave things open for more stories. The Exorcist, directed by William Friedkin, stands alone by design and any attempt at a follow-up is doomed!
William Peter Blatty should have done the Exorcist sequel. That he managed to create a suitable companion nearly two decades later is no small testament to his ability. A few very good directors have stumbled over the material and countless others have aped The Exorcist and failed miserably. A writer with the ability to craft characters with dialogue that stays with you long after the film ends is what Exorcist II needed. Most of the posts indicate nothing could save the Exorcist II but a man as talented as Blatty who understood the rythms of Friedkins' original film may have been able to salvage some of it.
Kokumo wrote:
a man as talented as Blatty who understood the rythms of Friedkins' original film may have been able to salvage some of it.
Agreed. But it would have been a Herculean task, since it seems that Boorman did everything he could to destroy Friedkin's subtle rythms from the original film.
FWIW, the only thing I liked about the Boorman film were the early scenes of Merrin in Africa – Kokumo, the very good stage set/sfx of the locust swarm, and Merrin speculating, “Does great goodness draw evil to itself?” – there's a germ of a good Blattian story right there, but for me the rest of the film is putrid roadkill.
EIII:
I always enjoyed the opening church scene that Blatty wrote and directed for EIII. I really hoped for a film that followed this same rhythm (since we are on that word). Alas, I laughed along with the audience when the elderly lady was crawling on the ceiling and I'm not sure who, besides Blatty, thought of that. Perhaps Blatty may have thought that the 360-degree head turning worked so well in the original, why not try the ceiling aspect. Oops. Also, I do know that WB truly forced Blatty to add the exorcism scene that didn't fit no matter how well it was produced and this IMO accounts for such a jagged and radical storyline. On another note (yes, I am having “flights of ideas” here), I honestly felt that George C. Scott was a terrible casting call. He was just about as bad as casting of Rod Steiger in The Amityville Horror. Talk about overacting.
EII:
Our topic here is one that undeniably was one of the worst follow-up films in cinematic history. I don't think it's odd that both Blatty and Friedkin wanted to disassociate from EII. In most aspects I think it was quite a good choice considering that The Exorcist is now a masterpiece and that cash just couldn't push some individuals into participating; i.e., the three “B's” – Billy B., Billy F., and Burstyn.
Overall, WB, and now Morgan Creek, did reap the benefits of one incredible film. It's really too bad that none of the follow-up attempts could even be slightly on par with the original.
Father B
Thanks for the comments, Fr. B. Do you – or anyone else reading this – have any idea of what the original Heretic story was about? I've only heard vague rumors and statements from Blair that originally it was a very different, more intelligent film. Apparently Jon Voight was considered for the part of a young priest sent in to investigate the circumstances of the MacNeil-Karras case. But not all the actors targeted ever came on board and in the meantime the script went through multiple changes until it bore no resemblance to the initiating story. Just curious about what this film might have been…
Sure thing, gran. You know, I have no idea what the original premise was supposed to be regarding EII. I only recall that Blair said things in magazines. I have never heard video or audio of saying how the film changed over the course of shooting.
It would be interesting to see the original script or even a book about the film. I'm sure something is around.
Father B
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.