[carlamae]

Toetag said:

I have to disagree with this.  The name Pazuzu doesn't appear until the sequels, which are abominations, in my opinion.  Pazuzu was conjured by the people that made those movies, not by Blatty or Freidkin, and is therefore untrue.  The entity that is possessing Regan in the first movie (and the only one that really matters) is Satan himself.

 

This idea is dismissed by most people and even Karras when he says, “It said he was the Devil himself.  That's the same as saying that you're Jesus Christ.”, but Karras is also sceptical that Regan is possessed at all and look how that turned out.  Also the statue in Iraq may be of a specific demon, however, it stood as symbolism of good versus evil, not Merrin VS. Pazuzu.  They only told us about his past exploits just to beef up his character a bit because he has very little screen time until the end.

 

Father Bowdern said:

Amanda,

Regan is possessed by the demon Pazuzu. “In Assyrian and Babylonian mythology, Pazuzu (sometimes Fazuzu or Pazuza) was the king of the demons of the wind, and son of the god Hanbi. He also represented the southwestern wind, the bearer of storms and drought (Wikipedia).”

At times during the film, it can be confusing about who is inside of Regan due to the various voices used. For instance, differing singular or multiple vocal entities emanate from Regan at various times. These are merely a part of the intentional mental illusions that Pazuzu exploits onto his victims in order to reach his ultimate goal of the grand showdown with Father Merrin in the film’s final exorcism scenes.

This is the very same demon in the initial scenes in Iraq when Merrin uncovers the small amulet head of Pazuzu, thus, opening something akin to Pandora’s Box. We see this same demon a few minutes later when Merrin is facing the large statue of Pazuzu at the archeological dig site. That scene is a crucial point because Pazuzu lost the battle against Merrin’s exorcism that lasted for months in Iraq. Pazuzu merely uses Regan as his instrument to find a way to even the score with Merrin.

I hope that helps.

Father Bowdern

 

 ''Also the statue in Iraq may be of a specific demon, however, it stood as symbolism of good versus evil, not Merrin VS. Pazuzu. '' 

 

_Yes, but this statue is the actual symbol of pazuzu as i understand. It IS pazuzu. Wheter father merrin has a problem with it, thats father merrin's problem (for the movie). Proof of a demon is proof of a devil,. or should i say: the devil.  For all karras cared it could be the devil himself. Karras should take that much care, pazuzu saying: treat me as if i was the devil( and i am the devil! now kindly undo me of these straps(whats the specific scene  quote guys??)). 

 

]Toetag: The statue is the statue of pazuzu, that the actual name isnt mentioned in the real exorcist movie is irrelevant. They used images of pazuzu. The real archeological image based imaged of pazuzu. Pazuzu who has good and evil meanings, considering different cultures around the world.

 

The good versus evil part of this movie was the sugar to make it taste better. It is an convieniant coincidence. I dont think that thats whats going on. (Good) Movies are rarely there to educate us in that simple manner. I think it shows us a way of the things that could be done. And not in the exorcist's way of putting it. But in the way that innocense and purity can be easily corrupted and can only be fought in live taking battles.(for instance).

If you want to refer to the good and evil symbolism, i want to hear (or read) you talk about the meaning of Merrin's death.

 

(btw in dutch pazuzu is has something to do with south-EASTERN wind..)

---

---

[carlamae]

Ok just remembered (with googles help)  that pazuzu also kept OTHER evil spirits out of mankinds way, i bet it had an agenda to do so, but either way, Its said to protect us from OTHER evil spirits.

[fatherbowdern]

From the script of The Exorcist (first mention of Pazuzu):

EXTERIOR – IRAQ- NINEVEH- DAY
The old man arrives back at that dig site in a small jeep. As he pulls up two armed guards rush out. When they see who it is the old man gives them a wave and they slowly walk back to there quarters. The old man walks up the rocky mound and sees a huge
statue of the demon Pazuzu, which has the head of the small rock he earlier found. He climbs to a higher point to get a closer look. When he reaches the highest point he looks at the statue dead on. He then turns his head as we hear rocks falling and sees a guard standing behind him. He then turns again when he hears two dogs savagely attacking each other. The noise is something of an evil nature. He looks again at the statue and we are then presented with a classic stand off side view of the old man and the statue as the noises rage on. We then fade to the sun slowly setting as the noises lower in volume.

 

William Peter Blatty did his research regarding Pazuzu and I trust his intent for this mythological demon in his writings. This entity is woven throughout the entire series of films based on the following mythology: 

PAZUZU – MYTHOLOGY
Pazuzu is often depicted with the body of a man but with the head of a lion or dog, talons instead of feet, two pairs of wings, the tail of a scorpion and a serpentine penis. He is also depicted with the right hand upward, and the left hand downward; the position of the hands means life and death, or creation and destruction.

Pazuzu is the demon of the South-west wind that was known for bringing droughts and famine during dry seasons, and locusts during rainy seasons. Pazuzu was invoked in amulets aimed at fighting against the powers of the malicious goddess Lamashtu, who was believed to cause harm to mother and child during childbirth. Pazuzu is also a demon who protected humans against plague and evil forces. (Source: Pazuzu: Encyclopedia II – Pazuzu – Mythology – http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Pazuzu_-_Mythology/id/597372).

 

This, I believe carlamae, is what you are referring to about “kept OTHER evil spirits out of mankinds way.” For the sake of superior creative writing, WPB could have used anything, anyone, etc. in the place of Pazuzu. Yet he didn't. Blatty chose this mythological demon as the representation of the evil side of the ensuing battles for Father Merrin (first at the Ninevah-mound battle and then during Regan's exorcism). WPB filled us in with clues that delve into theoretical thinking that goes well beyond the scope of the surface interpretations; e.g., again from the script:

 

MERRIN
We may ask what is relevant, but anything beyond that is dangerous. He is a liar; the demon is a liar. He will lie to confuse us, but he will also mix lies with the truth to attack us. The attack is psychological, Damien … and powerful. So don't listen, remember that, do not listen.

KARRAS
I think it would be helpful if I gave you some background on the different personalities Regan has manifested. So far, there seems to be three. She's convinced …

MERRIN
… There is only one.

 

More food for thought?

Father Bowdern

[carlamae]

Yes, more food it is. I believe thats what i read somewhere before. Good work FB! Thank you for digging this out so quickly 

A few weeks more and the bluray should be released over here!

[fatherbowdern]

No problem … ten minutes worth of research and an old man's knowledge can assist! 

Father Bowdern

[Toetag]

Wow.  Thank you for setting me straight.  I gave my interpretation of the film.  Nothing more.  Whether it's correct or not, I don't know, but it's still my interpretation.

Am I an expert?  Nope.  I've seen the movie over 50 times (both versions) and I read the book over 10 years ago.  I consider myself a great fan of the movie.  My mother saw the movie in eary 1974 when she was pregnant with me.  I saw it for the first time when I was 11 (I couldn't sleep for months).  I own all of the versions of the film on DVD and/or Blu-ray.   Do any of these things make me an expert?  No, but I do have an opinion.

You seem to have a monopoly for responses on these forums, many of which, I might add, are very informative.  However, I am very suprised at your nonconstructive response to my post.

If I'm wrong, and you have a constructive way to set me straight, please, by all means, do so.  If not, you should probably not respond at all.

Getting back on topic…When I was young, I read a poem by Robert Frost entitled “Stopping by woods on a snowy evening”.  It's one of his more famous works.  The interpretation that the teacher gave me was filled with hidden meaning and symbolism.  I rejected those ideas and asked her, “Why can't it just be about a man riding home late at night, and stopping to admire a beautiful nature scene?  Why does it have to be symbolism for his death, etc?”  To me, it was nicer that way.

She gave me an answer similar to yours.  Basically, her interpretation was the proper one and it was her way or the highway and mine was just wrong.  Poetry, and all other works of art, like cinema, have room for interpretation.  We, as consumers of art, are free to decide what each piece means to us.

I consider the original 1973 movie to be a stand alone work, open to interpretation.  I prefer it like this.  You, as I am, are free to interpret it as you choose.  I would never desparage you because your opinion differs from mine. 

Father Bowdern said:

My, my, toetag. Such a fine forensic analysis for things which you have no clue. It's not even necessary to go into details about the issues you have wrong. Perhaps the lithium has not quite built up an effective quality in your system yet. My best to you and your other asylum inmates. 

Father Bowdern

---

[Jagged]

Toetag said:

If I'm wrong, and you have a constructive way to set me straight, please, by all means, do so. 

---

---

I suspect the answers lie in most of the other replies to the original poster and if you'd read them first instead of just dismissing other peoples knowledge out of hand you may have received a better response.
 

Specifically, Blatty is on record as saying it was “the entity known as Pazuzu”, written long before the appearance of Boorman's shoddy sequal.

The whole prologue is pretty much designed to inform us it was Pazuzu and Merrin is familiar with him, and in the film he handily pops up and says howdy folks during the exorcism.

The Demon himself in the novel apologises for claiming to be Satan and admits to being a lesser demon.

There has, over the years been a wealth of document published to the effect of correcting the impression (mostly afflicting viewers of the film only) that the possessor was the Devil.

Now I'll grant you that it's possible that the existence of the Pazuzu entity is just a bluff for something else but… Occam's razor and all that.

[Jagged]

 

  

  Toetag said:

I consider the original 1973 movie to be a stand alone work, open to interpretation.

 

Except it isn't is it? Rather it sounds to me like you just want to manipulate the facts to support your interpretation.

Not the best way to propose a hypothesis.

[fatherbowdern]

Sorry, toetag. Jagged is correct in all of his statements above. He is well versed in both the novel and film.

If you took offense to my teasing statement, you need to understand that when you attack someone (which you did to me as a newcomer to this site on your very first post), the repercussions are not always favorable, just like the ones your teacher offers. You should listen to your teacher more often. She was not trying to trick you into believing the facts of what Robert Frost wrote. She was trying to offer you a way to understand concrete vs. abstract thinking. Without opening your mind, you close the doors to become a more astute person.

Father Bowdern

[Jason Stringer]

It's NOT Pazuzzu.

It NOT Satan.

The STATUE  in Iraq is Pazuzzu, in the book, mentioned ONCE.

The name is NEVER mentioned in the movie and Satan is never mentioned in either.

Regan says “And I'm the Devil…now kindly undo these straps!” out of exasperation.

It also pretends to be Burke and Mrs. Karras to torment Chris and Damien.

It isn't ANYTHING that someone can NAME.

But to end this arguement, let's remember that the “Demon/Regan” (which is what Blatty calls it in the script) DOES reveal who/what it is…BACKWARDS.

“I am NO ONE”!

It even mentions it's Creator!

Psychatrist: Where do you come from?

Regan/Demon: Dog

Psychatrist: You come from a dog?

Regan/Demon: dogmorfmocion…  (backwards for “no i com from god”).

[boogie]

After reading your discussion, I was curious about what you would say about the Greek gods.

[Jacdino7]

The Greek gods are very interesting because they represent many human qualities and emotions. Each of them represents different aspects of life: Zeus is the god of the sky, Athena is the goddess of wisdom, and Aphrodite is the goddess of love. Their myths are not only entertaining but also teach important lessons about human nature. I found a very interesting site on this topic with a lot of information and a list of gods both famous and not so famous, see here. What aspects of the Greek gods interest you the most?

[Author]

Posts