granville1

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 181 through 195 (of 961 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Two Strange things #26657
    granville1
    Participant

    I'd like to second Fr. Bowdern's statement that the Michel case did not exhibit any parnormalia, and if it had, parapsychology has naturalistic, rather than supernaturalistic, methods of explanation. This is what tormented Karras in the novel – every time he was presented with a seemingly supernatural event, his research kept throwing him back into naturalistic explanations. Further, the content of the Michel “demon's” speech did not exhibit any preternatural wisdom of the kind that Blatty was careful to impute to the demon of his novel. The Michel case was mental illness, and the symptoms, such as the deep, booming voice, are naturalistically explainable. Michel's doctors and priests unconsciously acted in collusion to make her sicker, and sealed her fate.

    in reply to: exorcist 3 much better than exorcist 2…your views yes/no #26637
    granville1
    Participant

    รขโ‚ฌยฆ so long as you can control your projectile vomiting, you’ll probably be just fine, and socially acceptable ๐Ÿ˜‰

    in reply to: exorcist 3 much better than exorcist 2…your views yes/no #26635
    granville1
    Participant

    Yep. A nice, brief but atmospheric return to the first film. But then came the horrific, imo, DeVorzon score with its over the top stabs of “scream music” … and also those horrible “Lion Demon Growls” in the opening night scenes in Georgetown, which to me were just a cheap horror cliche, not at all scary, as if Blatty was worried the film wasn't scary enough, so he decided to dump cheap, ineffectual sound effects into the soundtrack…

    in reply to: exorcist 3 much better than exorcist 2…your views yes/no #26631
    granville1
    Participant

    Plus it brought the viewer back to the Georgetown we loved in the first film. Heretic only featured a fake back-lot Georgetown, but Blatty brings us back to the real deal in the first frames of Legion (even though a few scenes were shot elsewhere). The long shot for the opening credits takes us slowly down the street, where on the right the MacNeill house begins to loom and in the center of the shot is the top of the Hitchcock Steps. So the film immediately, from its first visuals,ร‚ย  places us in “good old Exorcist” territory…

    in reply to: Little Girls in Horror? #26616
    granville1
    Participant

    Thanks for Asia's name. I'd also forgotten about Jodie Foster's pitiless character in Down the Lane ๐Ÿ™‚

    in reply to: Little Girls in Horror? #26613
    granville1
    Participant

    Pamela Franklin in the Deborah Kerr version of The Innocents.

    June Cowell (Simon Cowell's sister) as one of the alien glowing-eyed children in The Village of the Damned (George Saunders version, not the Chris Reeve version).

    The kid from the dreadful Omen IV.

    Kirsten Dunst in Interview with a Vampire.

    in reply to: REGAN AT THE BERINGER CLINIC #26612
    granville1
    Participant

    “Somnambulaform possession” if memory serves. The Dr's recommended the modern version of an asylum, but Chris wouldn't “put her in one of those places”. Then they recommended exorcism as a potential last-ditch effort at effecting a cure, which to Chris was equivalent to taking Regan to a witch doctor. So she elected to care for Regan at home.

    granville1
    Participant

    “the crucifix masturbation scene was twice in the book.”

    Sorry, but I don't recall the crucifix abuse scene occurring twice in the book. All I recall is it happens once, and it's the factor that drives Chris to seek Karras' help…

    in reply to: Madallion and part of Pazuzu statue #26543
    granville1
    Participant

    Hope you enjoy it. It's somewhat different from the original theatrical release, of course, but I enjoyed most of it.

    in reply to: Madallion and part of Pazuzu statue #26541
    granville1
    Participant

    A lot of people do, since audiences have been set up with “the demonic” as expressed in amulets and statuary. But if you look closely and freeze frame the film, you can see that the figurine that Kinderman turns over in his hands looks something like a turtle.

    in reply to: Madallion and part of Pazuzu statue #26539
    granville1
    Participant

    No, it was just part of one of Regan's clay toy sculptures. Presumably it got knocked off her window sill when she threw Dennings out her window. In the novel, Kinderman scrapes paint from Regan's sculptures and lab analysis shows that it matches the paint used in the church desecrations, thus indicating Regan as the culprit. Regan made a lot of sculptures and other artwork, but she never drew, painted, or sculpted Pazuzu.

    in reply to: Madallion and part of Pazuzu statue #26537
    granville1
    Participant

    You're welcome

    ๐Ÿ™‚

    in reply to: Do you like the book or the movie better? #26535
    granville1
    Participant

    Without doubt: the book. Much deeper, complex and revelatory of the characters' inner lives, especially Damien Karras.

    in reply to: Madallion and part of Pazuzu statue #26534
    granville1
    Participant

    The medallion is not the Pazuzu amulet. It is a St. Joseph medal.

    A St. Joseph medal was found at the Iraq dig, probably deposited there by some devout Christian to dampen the “pagan power” of the religious artifacts that were being unearthed.

    ร‚ย 

    In their struggle, Regan tears a St. Joseph medal off Karras' neck. Of course, this is not the Iraqi St. Joseph medal, but just a personal medal belonging to Karras for who knows how many years. Perhaps his mother gave it to him. The symbolism, some say, is that the demon will not “come into” Karras until the “protection” of the holy medal is removed first.

    granville1
    Participant

    You're welcome, Sof, glad you enjoyed it ๐Ÿ™‚

Viewing 15 posts - 181 through 195 (of 961 total)