[granville1]

Regan88 said:

what was with Pazuzu looking odd in Dominion?

Supposedly it was The Exorcist's demon in local (African) imagery. It has a more “African” than “Middle Eastern” look because of the differences between the two cultures attempting to represent it.

[granville1]

Yep

[granville1]

Same to you. Now that 2013 is Regan's Year of the Demon, we are forewarned about … what to expect 😉

[granville1]

There have been some word modifications over the years, e.g., for years Blatty had misattributed “God is love” to St. Paul, whereas it's from John's Gospel – newer editions corrected that.

One grammatical error always bothered me: when Karras finds a natural explanation for one of Regan's manifestations, Blatty notes Karras' disappointment: “…as he slowly watched wine turn back into water”. Actually Karras wasn't watching “slowly”. Blatty means to say that the wine is slowly turning back into water. So it should read, “…as he watched wine turn slowly back into water”. Small gripe, I hope it's fixed in newer editions.

[granville1]

Had some cute bits, Merrin stomping on the cigarette, etc …

 

🙂

[granville1]

Blatty could do another novel. Lt. Kinderman is involved with the demonic in Georgetown. Only it's his daughter, Julie, who gave up ballet to follow in her father's footsteps to become a police detective. I think a female Lt. Kinderman would be a kick, and it would be cute to see some of Dad's ideas and mannerisms cropping up in Ms. Kinderman 🙂

[granville1]

RatBoy said:

Thanks for the insight gran.

 

You're welcome 🙂

 

I will never understand why the studio would want to hire Boorman  for the sequel if he hated the original or why someone that hated the original want to take on the task of doing the sequel.

 

I guess they hired him on his previous laurels, e.g. Deliverance…

 

As for Reagen's memories, I always thought the scene in the original when she looked at Father Dyer's color and kissed him hinted that she was starting to remember being possesed.

 

I've always thought she had some vague fever-dream type feelings that were then associated with relief. I can imagine the real Regan in a few nano-moments of clarity (like when she produced the stomach writing) noticed the Roman collars and associated them with being helped. But I take Blatty at his word that she didn't remember the entire possession. Otherwise, there would be a lot of unanswerable questions for Chris to try to explain to Regna,, and Regan's recovery would have been very problematic, had she had any lengthy, specific memories of being possessed.

[granville1]

Father Bowdern said:

Superior points, granville!

Father B

Thanks Fr. B 🙂

[granville1]

Boorman went on public record as despising the Friedkin film and Blatty's ideas. He set out to prove this by trashing Blattian motifs, and distorting characters beyond recognition – suddenly, against what the Blatty novel and screenplay made clear, Regan does remember “all of it”; Sharon becomes a creepy, witch-like Regan-hater; Chris is dropped entirely (as if Regan's Mom would permit her to live apart from her in NYC); the anonymous demon stupidly identifies its name to Merrin (something a demon would never do, and never did, in the novel); Merrin becomes the sole hero, even though it was Karras whose heroic self-sacrifice actually expelled the demon and saved Regan.

Ellen Burstyn was not available to be in the film (thank God). Karras was dead, so he could only appeared in the film – like Merrin does – through flashbacks. But Boorman probably never thought about that, in his haste to leave the eariler, far superior, film, behind. The Exorcist's chief hero and Christ-figure … figures not at all in Boorman's arrogant attempt to top the Friedkin-Blatty collaboration.

I think that your instincts are quite correct. Karras should at least have received honorable mention in this film. That the Saved Victim – Regan herself – never once mentions her savior Karras, but only Merrin, is a cinematic crime of the lowest order. Blame it all on the several failed Heretic screenplays , but especially on goofball director Boorman.

[granville1]

I hope he doesn’t. He seems to have lost his taste for supernatural evil in that he apparently invests perfectly explicable, earthly evil(s) with a thin veil of supernatural evil – “a force of evil in the world … the devil…whatever that means to you.”

But see: he won’t commit. “Whatever it means to you” immediately subjectifies this supposed Evil Force In The World, leaving it open to any interpretation whatsoever. It seems he does, and at the same time does not, want to face the fact that our troubles lie not in the stars or in demons, but in ourselves, with assistance, of course, from all kinds of natural slings and arrows.

There is no evil, whether it be psychological, neurological, or natural, that cannot be explained by naturalistic means. What made The Exorcist such a great novel is that it suspended, then eliminated, those natural means, thereby leading the reader to conclude that “something Other” was indeed involved in Regan’s possession. But The Exorcist is a work of fiction. No possession ever presented itself with the supernatural elements that Blatty worked into the text of his novel. There is no evidence for supernatural possession, at least as of now; in the future perhaps a “real” case of possession will occur and will be scientifically documented.  That is possible, if not too plausible. But until that happens, we are left with the fact that possession, like every other evil, is explicable by natural means. Friedkin seems to realize this, and the demon wind that filled the sails of his film has exhausted itself, leaving Friedkin, as a potential returning auteur of evil, in the doldrums.

Thus, Friedkin would probably be a good choice for directing a film about the limits of purely human-cum-natural evil, because for him, “it’s the devil, man”. He should probably stay away from any new films dealing with supernatural evil, since it is plain that his heart’s compass no longer points in that direction.

[granville1]

Thanks, Fr. – and Happy Holidays to you 🙂

[granville1]

You're welcome – hope you enjoy your purchases 🙂

[granville1]

Dominion is the first film, directed by Paul Schrader. Morgan Creek axed it for not being scary enough, then hired Renny Harlin to direct The Beginning. Thus, The Beginning, the second film to be shot, came out in theaters before the earlier-shot Dominion. Later, Dominion was permitted a brief theatrical showing, then went to DVD.

 

SPOILERS

 

In Dominion, Merrin is excavating a church in North Africa and discovers a crypt devoted to Satanism and human sacrifice. In ancient times, when Christians found out about this blasphemous temple, they built a church over it to consecrate it and guard the site. Meantime, a deformed native boy, Che Che, comes under Merrin's care and with surgery begins to transform into a more than perfect human being. This is due to the fact, gradually discovered, that Che Che has been possessed by a demon. The better his health, ironically, the stronger the possession.

 

In The Beginning, same deal with the Satanic crypt and the church, but this time the possession begins with a little black boy, Joseph, but then transfers into a female nurse working in the area. Thus The Beginning features, like The Exorcist, a possessed female, while Dominion features a possessed male. The premise in The Beginning is that the crypt marks the place where Satan fell to earth after being cast out of Heaven.

 

Both flms feature a scene where Merrin is forced to make a brutal choice in Nazi-occupied Holland, a choice that destroys his faith. Both films feature a young priestly assistant and watchdog to Merrin. They both come to a bad end. Both films feature a female nurse, who in Dominion remains unpossessed (except for one sequence of mass posssession); and who in The Beginning, as mentioned, herself becomes possessed.

 

Both films end with Merrin having rediscovered his faith.

[granville1]

Blatty leaves it to our imagination. My guess is that Regan scoped out the church and knew what times had the least traffic. Used to be that Catholic churches were open very late, before vandalism became a problem. I picture her going into the church, wearing a backpack out of which she took plastic bags, one full of her own feces, another clay, and then she brought out some paints. The phallus would not have been pre-made, it would have been a hurry-up job slapped together in the vague shape of a penis, then daubed with paint which also went on the main body of the statue to give it a whorish, dissolute appearance. Regan had to work fast and quietly, of course. After emptying her fecal bag on the altar, she also placed the blasphemous Latin text into the altar card sleeve. She then packed everything up and snuck out of the church.

[granville1]

Thank you, Fr. Bowdern. The whole thing was just a travesty. She had no Dr's Klein and Tanney, nor did she have the sharp, cutting intellect and complete honesty of a Fr. Karras.  I'm somewhat agnostic on the question of the afterlife, but if it exists, I hope she is resting among the Blessed.

[Author]

Posts