CaptainHowdy.com The #1 Exorcist Fansite Since 1999
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Well it was obviously typed up by someone eventually. Afterall its on the web in text format (could had been OCR transcribed) but the question is by whom and why.
Yes Browdern, I was aware that Blatty had read the diary previously. Apearently the priests were so appalled by the result that they “burned” the diary to prevent others from doing the same.
I guess the priests are human and make mistakes. I was under the impression that the diary was an unedited manuscript so that is probably why the oversight survived.
jaj6786, when you say “treatment” I’m guessing you mean the exorcism journal, not his private medical records.
fatherbowdern, interesting observation. Could it be because in this case Ronald’s name is being in the context of an exact quote from the Devil (notice quotation marks) as opposed to how the priests refer to him?
I certainly agree that shitting in one’s pants or even projectile vomiting are no proof demonic possession. Still its uncomfortable and socially unacceptable. Most normal ppl would not do it unless they were tied to a bed and not allowed to use the bathroom for instance. This also shreds some more light on why Ronald has not come forward to the press. How would you like it if at age 80 ppl were still asking you on a regular basis if it was true you shit your pants at 13?
None of it makes any real sense: I can buy the prank theory, but some of the other stuff worries me. The scratching of the body, regardless of its intent could well be a sign of emotional disturbance. Also how many 13yo boys would take a prank to the point of shitting in his underwear. Was he denied bathroom privileges by the priests? If so then what were they expecting? Finally, they let a possessed boy cut the grass with a lawn mower with great big blades on it? Huh?
This is very strange language: “Fagged out”, “Shitting in his underwear”. This is supposed to be an official document of the Catholic church. Can you imagine if a physician wrote this?
Hi Ratboy. Although I’m not sure I appreciate your analysis of the younger generation (I’d like to consider myself to young) I think your characterization of remake is spot on. The Dennings death scene WILL DEFINITELY be in the remake I can say this at least. The idea of making Merrin struggle with pedophilia is also interesting was there any hint of this in the book at all?
Interesting you should say this Capt. Personally, I first saw the Exorcist (original cut) on VHS at a party with classmates when I was 15yo. I thought I was pretty much past the point where any horror film could terrify me. Creep me out sure, but terror no. I was wrong. In fact I avoided the film for years after that. I recently decided to rewatch the film (the new cut) after I decided to purchase a copy of it for a friend of mine that was a Catholic priest. I thought he’d appreciate the film, and he did like it. I found the second viewing much different from the first. I don’t know if it was because I’d seen it before or because the new cut was so different, but my impression was totally different. Instead of being horrified I was actually amused and understood for the first time how some people find the film funny. Notwithstanding it was still a very beautiful and powerful film. I believe the problem is that the film is intended for religiously literate adults, not children. Given the wrong audience the film would be lost. In fact I found viewing the original cut at 15 to be quite confusing (and I’d like to think I was a teen of above average intellect) I think the new cut flowed much better and explained a lot of things. My confusion about the plot in the original cut may have actually contributed to its creepiness. In any case I would recommend the new cut over the original to anyone. That’s my two cents on the subject.
I think that a lot of people ignore some pretty obvious considerations when analysing Hunkler. First, we have to consider where he ended up working: NASA. Obviously he was a very, very intelligent individual. Who is to say he didn’t know latin, or have the ability to fool the priests.
Second, who is to say that all priests are not guilable. Yes, they are supposed to go into these cases with a degree of scepticism, but one has to consider that many religious people spend their entire lives looking for authentic cases that confirm their faith and finding Hunkler’s they may have been all too eager to declare this to be the miracle they were looking for.
Third, look at the number of converts that the Church gained through the Exorcist movie. The catholic church has long been accused of using hoax miracles to sell their religion.
As for the diary, I’m not convinced it was burned. I think the priests just said it was to deter the media from bothering them after the Exorcist emerged as a pop culture phenomena, and perhaps to protect Ronald’s privacy. Wouldn’t surprise me if the Church still has it in their archives!
As I was trying to allude to earlier, Christianity is a small minority religion in Turkey. It is very odd that a Catholic movie would be remade there. Does anyone know if the characters in Seytan are portrayed as Christians or Muslims or does the film maintain religious neutrality. If Seytan was an Islamic re-purposing of the Exorcist story this would go a long way to explain why they remade it rather than dubbed the original. I doubt a Christian film would fare well there and there is probably a good demand for an Islamic retelling. If this is so, it also goes to show how little difference there actually is between Islam and Christianity in the sense that the story could be “converted” so easily in a nearly scene-for-scene identical form.
Now I see what ColombiaExorcist meant by the scene where her throat swells up like a frog. I never even noticed this before. They do a real super exaggerated version of it in Seytan for dummies like me I guess. I this actually described in the book?
