CaptainHowdy.com The #1 Exorcist Fansite Since 1999
- This topic has 79 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
A very valid theory/possibility. The only problem, though, lies in the fact that additional run-ins with the same demon/devil could prove redundant and a challenge to pull off with imaginiation and honesty, as Schrader and co. had managed to do (taking evil seriously and avoiding carbon copied-cliches), and unlike Harlin and co (they took the easy way out, to cartoonish results, giving their film’s admirers a paper-thin surface-only version of an Exorcist film; granted, with a nice “surprise” ending that could be seen coming from a mile… two miles away.).
One way to avoid such a pitfall, would be to not make it a cinematically-told story, but maybe a novel or comic book.
For there to be another exorcist film, I believe it’s a black-and-white issue: it can only be as different yet respectful and complimentary to the original film as Dominion, OR, the alternative is getting something you’d laugh at based primarily on the superficial qualities, since the “story” would be sloppily told and predictably all over the place (ie. E:TB or The Heretic). That is, the quality of an ‘Exorcist’ film is hinged first on the possessed; having a female who becomes really ugly and haggard when afflicted has already been done now; in the original, and then the Renny Harlin charicature piece (“Arguably the greatest horror-comedy ever,” it’s been said; hey, I’ve said it.), plus x-unoffcial remakes and derivitives from all over the world, for ages (too many to name). Despite the nice acting, cinematography, and does-the-job-to-get-the-point-across special effects of Dominion, Schrader’s film would have been damned to good and bad E:TB-level reception). Even Paul Schrader couldn’t have made a good movie with the material, if it were another possessed female — the bottom line. ‘Course, maybe it would have prevented Renny Harlin from doing E:TB. Posessed-femme movies are what everyone expects and demands; males are immune to evil, apparently, which is stupid if you believe that all of humanity is susceptable to sin and temptation; we’re within evil’s reach — we’re not beyond it. Males can become demonically oppressed or possessed as much as the ladies; we all fall short of the glory of God, which demonstrates how and why the Devil is after anyone and everyone, not just females. Anyway. posessed-femme movies are too comfortable, too safe, too mundane, and “why bother?”.
The Exorcist (1973) was about demonic possession, but also Christian and Catholic theology. Dominion succeeds in each of those departments. And, secondary, the special effects get the point across, and aren’t so over-blown it beomes a cartoon or “special effects film”. And third, if evil and the devil and demons are all real, it reminds us that both the sexes food for the Enemy.
In conclusion, any sequels or prequels sure better avoid a possessed femme. Or at the minimum have the femme become more beautiful instead of the predictable ugly.
Just rambling. Sorry!
M.I.K.E.
Following the M.I.K.E’s opinion, I think one has to be careful when one
compare Merrin with Jesus. Actually
this topic should be stressed and analized deeply in detail since Blatty
forget some lines concerning to Jesus in his book.
In effect, looking from the perspective
of a fight of high-level powers: The demon ought fight with Jesus, no ordinary human beings as Merrin.
If it is the case, well, then is missing
a passage in the Blatty’s book!!!
How Merrin became a strong spirit to be able to fight with the demon?
Of course, all best-sellers are subject to plausible modifications and very logical extensions, as it is clearly the case of Blatty’s book.
Naturally, and again, the point which link Merrin to Jesus is interesting.
Turning now to the The Dominion, and in despite of the fact of his argument, Merrin is forced to leave their faith,
we saw the Holland’s scene, during the second war, He is in the boundary of the good and the evil.
On the other hand, things are actually
complex to elaborate ideas based on Blatty’s book and a possible link with the The Dominion.
I would propose several extra scenes in the Dominion, also.
I suggest a scene where Merrin has a dream: there he finds an angel fighting with a secondary demon, and He feel missing. Suddently, He finds a way, it is obscure with dark water, he fears a lot. After of walking, He finds a people, that in principle should have to be Jesus. This people (I assume that He is Jesus) is in the floor. Merring help him to stand, and he recognize that He is in fact Jesus. On the other hand, appears too many people, with the face more or less of Regan trying to reach to Merrin and Jesus. Merrin is bringing to Jesus in their arms. Jesus looks like tired. But we cannot distinguish so well because it is obscure. Merrin put a Jesus on a rock, and He continue walking. Then, around him appears the subliminal imagen.
Merrin wake up, He is astonish because he wake up in a Church. He just wake up with the Medal.Well, it is my modest contribution in order to patch some missing fundamental scenes which only can explain why Merrin have the power to reject away the demon IN SITU.
Let us to speculate and opinions as always are welcome.I think it all comes down to a matter of taste.
ETB is the equvilant of Hollywood schlock whilst Dominion leans more towards the intellect (of the original 73 film). You could say its from the school of less is more & I think it is.
Though ETB & Dominion are interesting to compare. Watch how ETB portrays evil – the crucifix is upside down (GASP-HORROR!) – though I have to admit it is quite effective. (Joking aside). Especially the opening where you see rows upon rows of crucifixes upside.
Though in Dominion Merrin is confronted with a small ood shaped jewel covered crucifix (when he enters the burried church). It is little touches like this that differentiate the two.
Though you could accuse ETB of being dumb. Upside down crucifix = BAD & EVIL!
Depends what you want at the end of the day.
The Thinking Man = Dominion
Popcorn brain candy = ETBI still say to this day that DOMINION is the best in the series since THE EXORCIST.It has it’s moments that are less than exciting, but then again, so does THE EXORCIST.I mean, we have to wait over an hour in the 1973 film before the word “exorcism” is even mentioned…
Again Ken, its all down to a matter of taste. Yes we do have to wait over an hour before “exorcism” (in the 73 film)is mentioned but you have to remember that we are seeing a film from a different era.
A time when things like CHARACTER mattered! That’s why THE EXORCIST (73) works so well – because it spends at least an our building character(s) that we care about which makes the end even more powerful emotionally as well as psychologically – because we have come to know the characters – they are not just 2-D stereotypes that are placed around some special effects showreel.
Do people really love JAWS for the shark?! I doubt it – its the characters in JAWS that make it a great film.
That’s where ETB fell down. It delivers the gore that WE (or should that be Morgan Greek?!) supposedly want…
If anything ETB is living proof that we as audiences actually don’t want gore or CGI showreels WE WANT INTELLIGENCE. Its stupid that Morgan Greek spent an extra $80 million on ETB to learn the hard way (that DOMINION IS the better film) and that DOMINION got a limited release compared to ETBs wide.
But that’s what I was trying to say before. ETB is the horror schlock that nobody wants!! DOMINION is clearly the better film (as noted on here) because it is a film made with intelligence.
It maybe “slow” – but what would you rather – A FILM WITH NO BRAIN AND 2-D CHARACTERS – or a well crafted character piece with something to say that lingers in the memory long after you’ve seen it. I know which one would get my money & it aint ETB!
AMEN.
Seriously, I concur.
I concur so much… I now have a CONCUR SORE! 😮
*KLANG!* (and the joke collapses to the ground, rapidly bouncing back and forth until still)
M.I.K.E.
I couldn’t believe how dull Dominion was. I mean, I really, really wanted to like it – but the harder I tried, the more I hated it…
Where do I start? Gabriel Mann’s performance is so terrible, it’s hard to put into words. The script, the boring, plodding, lingering, turgid turd of a script… It was so drenched in religious angst to make it almost unfathomable… Clara Bellar is horrid. Billy Crawford not much better… I didn’t like Schrader’s direction one bit. I shan’t mention the special effects because I appreciate they weren’t finished… The flashback sequence is one-hundred times more effective in E:TB.
I can’t help but feel that an awful lot of Exorcist fans feel obliged to like Dominion as some sort of unified protest against E:TB… For what it’s worth, and in my humble opinion, you’re all directing your bile towards the wrong film…
E:TB is not perfect – for many of the reasons mentioned above. But it IS entertaining. And when I watch a movie, I demand to be vaguely entertained at the very least… With that in mind, all copies of Dominion should be destroyed so the excruciating boredom isn’t inflicted on anyone else. It really is THAT bad.
I don’t think the point is how he should do it, but why is he doing it. Sounds similar, but it really isn’t. I’ve met people who are just like Gabriel Mann’s character in terms of a personality, and if someone can pursue a consistent set of tactics in a performance like that then we know they were deliberate, clear choices which are what actors should be doing. Yes, you can disagree with the material, but not as much in the approach– if it is in fact a good one.
I think saying Mann has no on screen death scene doesn’t really prove much considering most of the deaths in the original film are off screen. Perhaps making a comparison to the original here is irrelevant, but to make a point I guess the comparison is merited.
By the way, saying I enjoy boredom doesn’t negate my point. I’m saying boredom is an illusion built up by people with shorter attention spans. When you compare older films like Lawrence of Arabia and Giant to films of today, the old may seem boring. You should be able to understand these technical concepts of boredom since you say you are a director, and therefore a film like this should be far from that considering the technical aspects of this film consist of many events, actions, and character drama to come by. Furthermore, most directors USUALLY do not reference apparent ‘boredom’ in their critques of films. At least not the ones I know of.
All I have to say about boredom is that it is a human concept and is totally subjective. From an actor’s perspective (Yes, I am an actor), I don’t agree that Gabriel Mann gave a terrible performance– quite the opposite. He probably gives the most natural performance in the whole film. Clara Bellar does have a whimiscal sense about her, but her honesty is what really counts. If there is anything to be said against Billy Crawford, we have to remember it is his film debut. He spends most of the film asleep however, and his possessed scenes come off very effectively.
Dominion is probably one of the most recent films and best examples I’ve seen that is directed like an old film. Watch any of the old Hitchcock, George Stevens, or King Vidor films and you’ll get a film that looks like Dominion. I don’t like ETB just so I can feel liberated by Dominion’s existence; not at all. The fact is that ETB sacrifices all insight and psychological storytelling for third-rate, apocryphal “jack-in-the-box” showmanship. In fact, if Dominion didn’t exist I could care less. This religious angst in this film, which I would not prefer to call it as such, is the subject of the film. If you watch Blatty’s The Ninth Configuration, it has the exact same kind of questions and contemplations Dominion has. Now if you didn’t enjoy the film that’s fine by me. I just don’t think Dominion should be torn down by such a whimiscal excuse as boredom.
Boredom – a whimsical excuse? If you’re happy to be bored senseless during a movie, then I guess we look for different things to entertain us…
And from a directors perspective (and yes, I am a director) Gabriel Mann’s performance is so ridiculously forced and un-natural, it beggars belief! But I guess some of the blame should be portioned out to Paul Schrader too…
The ‘Satan is real’ line was the real highlight for me… I hope you’re not taking acting tips from him!
I agree on Mann’s performance – it was like he was trying too hard or something. His performance iseffeminate, to say the least, especially when he is hovering over CheChe’s cot and calling him “child”. He seems on the verge of tears much of the time. I wanted to take him by his cassock and shake some virility into him. His recessiveness was all the more obvious when placed next to Skarsgard’s unimpeded masculinity. It was hard to feel much for him, even when he was found lanced in the desert. The screen play didn’t even give him an on-screen death scene – but I doubt even a death scene would have beefed up his performance. Apparently, he’s one of those actors who can’t play sanctity without identifying it with wimpiness.
The performance was good and more than simply paint-by-numbers (ie. James D’arcy in…wow, a lot of things, including…! No, I’m sick of typing that title! Gah!).
And at the risk (big or small) of ridicule of my own character or that of the actor Mann or his character portrayed in Dominion, I offer humbly that…
Mann portrays a human being. A Christian . There are men of all types in this world, just like the women. Father Francis is one extremely specific example, just as any other man is in real life or in anything else. Merrin, as played by Skarsgard is another. Both actors portray truth, in that limited, and superficial sense (to say nothing of the content of their character or actions). Heck, anytime you see characters in any film, and humans are portraying them, you have specific examples of humanity; the characters appear and act as they ultimately do, based on all kinds of determining factors. We accept it; in theory, the actors are portraying the characters — characters who, like it or not — have real-life counterparts whom we may or may not to varying degrees like to associate ourselves with. Characters in novels, film, video games, they’re all based on humanity, to various extents.
Anyway, in reference to Dominion, Mann’s Francis is a portrayal of a young man (20s or so), who’s given his life to Christ. His mind and heart are on helping others — whomever — theoretically for God, not himself. There you have it: A human being, and a priest atypical of even Damian Karras from the original Exorcist, a priest of a totally different era and background, geography and age. Karras, if I’m not mistaken was a failed boxer. He’s more world-worn. Merrin, too, in The Exorcist (where he’s barely there), and in Dominion; he’s imperfect and world-weary; you might say, “a wimp”. And Francis is just as real. He’s a priest doing his thing, in Kenya, trusting in the Lord and doing his best to help those around him in a loving way, as Christ would have done (and instructed his followers) — with compassion, a compassion similar but different to that of Karras’. One’s lifestyle can help inform one’s demeanor/manner. Francis may appear a wimp to some, and I DO see your point, but the “wimp”, again, is who Francis aspires to be like — Christ. Christ wasn’t a bullying street tough or gruff and frank wise guy. Christ was all kinds of things in all kinds of situations, yes, but specfically he was warm and compassionate to a child, adults,lepers, anyone, even his enemies. He could also be strong, confident and stern to others. But he did everything in LOVE, not for ego or profit, etc.
Francis, Merrin, “Joe Christian” down the street, Christians aspire to be Christlike. Anyway, Mann’s character Francis could have been more stern or hard-edged or whatnot, and still be loving, but that would have been another story for another time, as they say. This one was about Merrin, pre-1973. And the young priest he’d once known in Kenya was a very different kind of man, Christian, Catholic, whatever than you’d expected. No matter one’s beliefs, we, men, women, we can all be strong, patient, humble, weak, anything and everything at different ratios and at different times in our lives, if not our whole lives.
If you want a tougher, “safer”, Father Francis, you should see EXORCIST: THE BEGINNING; it’s a character that shows that particular aspect which every man is capable of, as well. It’s not nearly as performed as well as Mann’s portrayal. D’arcy is too… as the great EKM (www.bloodynews.com) once said about the performance, “He’sa ghostbuster in training.” He stands around. Mann’s version, however, suits the story just fine, and shows us another aspect of what it means to be Christian — “like Christ”, even if he is sort of a wimp — or, because you mentioned it, “effeminate”. By the way, “effemminate”…? I really think that’s painting with too broad of a brush stoke. His outward appearance might be softer-edged than, say, a crazyman like Jack Nicholson or somebody, but not every hairy apeman-type actor can get these kind of priest parts; probably not many, if any. Incidentally, since this is an issue for some, Mann doesn’t look like his character in real life; he’s an actor, and dresses the part when before camera. Father Francis is a young man. Younger men are by default “less manly” , more “effeminate” than the men they will ultimately become in time (ie.old men). Need I go on? Anyway, one other thing:
As for “Satan is real,” I bought it. The timing and delivery were right, considering it was a sudden revelation for Francis, who now had to get the heck out for there to get that Roman Ritual book!
Respectfully,
M.I.K.E.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.