[granville1]

In the original novel, Blatty gives the impression that Kinderman indeed is lonely for outside companionship, as you mentioned – outside, adult companionship that ideally would, like Kinderman himself, extol the value of well-made films. This is one reason why he tries to lure Karras and later Dyer to the movies. IDR whether the original novel mentions Julie, Kinderman's daughter, who has some prominence in the Legion novel and screenplay. But Blatty in The Exorcist definitely portrays Kinderman as hungering for intellectual friendship and perhaps something more.

[granville1]

But the written material is not clear. That's the cleverness and subtlety of Blatty's skilled writing.

Merrin never names the demon, never “calls it out” it by name during the exorcism (which is a crucial bit of manipulative data extremely helpful in the ritual), and always calls it “the demon” – never “Pazuzu”. Merrin thinks of it only as “that Other who ravished his dreams”.

And this is after he has held the Pazuzu amulet in his hands and gazed at a Pazuzu statue. If Blatty was really imagining that the demon was  Pazuzu,  he missed the literary boat, and in the process made Merrin such a dullard that the senescent priest doesn't recognize this “ancient enemy” even while consciously handling a charm and viewing a statue that he knows are representations of Pazuzu. Moreover, archeologist and exorcist Merrin would not be likely to mistake a defunct mythical Iraqi god for the very real personality he had combatted twelve years earlier. And, in fact, Merrin does not commit this error.

The novel's references to Pazuzu are representational, not literal. After all, Pazuzu is not the only “demonic/premonitory” symbol in the Prologue: there are also “the bones of man”, a highway that “flung itself headlong into dread”, a speeding droshky that nearly collides with Merrin … not to mention ancient gods besides Pazuzu, namely, Nabu and Ishtar. Pazuzu – together with all these other brushstrokes of the demonic – are what make Merrin intuit that his ancient enemy is stirring again.

Unfortunately, the film muddies the water by its plastering Pazuzu on Regan's bedroom wall (extended version) and projecting it as a vision during the exorcism. But the novel is sophisticated enough not to stoop to such literalism.

[granville1]

Hey, Justin. Imagine my surprise and delight to find that you posted from my blog, http://rennyo01.wordpress.com/ – having been away from here for such a long time I just had to comment 🙂

Yes, Blatty “guessed” that the demon might be Pazuzu, but ultimately he “doesn't know”… to me that perfectly preserves the aura of mystery that the novel conveys. I suppose we'll never know, but it's fun and scary to speculate…

[granville1]

Justin said:

I found this blog post interesting:

This is wrong for several reasons. First, Pazuzu is not a demon at

all, but rather an ancient Neo-Assyrian deity. His functions are to

bring pestilence and to control the southwest wind. His most famous act

was to vanquish the evil goddess, Lamashtu, who was considered to be the

cause of miscarriage and childhood illness. Hence the Iraqi museum

curator’s comment on seeing Merrin handling the Pazuzu amulet he has

uncovered from the dig, “Evil against evil.”  Neither author Blatty nor

director Friedkin suggest that Pazuzu is a demon or is any way involved

in the MacNeil possession.

Second, the Pazuzu amulet and later the large Pazuzu statue, figure

in the Prologue as projection carriers for Merrin’s mounting sense of

dread. Merrin’s unconscious mind seizes on these ancient pagan symbols,

which begin to trigger premonitions and feelings of dread within the old

priest. They are the stimuli, not the causes, of his apprehensions. The

Iraq dig becomes for Merrin an omen, a foreshadowing that he must soon

“face an ancient enemy”. This enemy is not Pazuzu, but a nameless demon

that Merrin confronted and defeated in Africa some twelve years

previously. Nowhere in the novel or the film is the demon named.

Certainly if Merrin thought the demon was Pazuzu, he would have called

it by that name. Instead, Merrin c0nsistently refers minimally, curtly,

to the possessing entity merely as “the demon”.

I've never really looked at it that way. They have very good points. Has Blatty ever blatantly referred to the demon inside Regan being Pazuzu? I think Friedkin has – but I'd say the official word comes from Blatty.

---

[granville1]

Hi, Magus. Thanks for asking. I’m still around but got burned out. I’ve been occasionally posting to the Exorcist/Exorcist III and Passion of the Christ boards on imdb as bastasch8647.

Looks like from the Cap’s message that this forum will be down starting December 08… guess we’ll just wait and see what’s up as time goes along.

Again, thanks for asking.

[granville1]

Yes, the acting was superb – including a strong performance from Roddy MacDowell, who turns out to be something of a hero. I think this film came out the same year as The Exorcist, which distracted viewers from this excellent horror film.

I found Matheson’s script-discussion of different kinds of mediumship (mental vs. physical) literate and fascinating. The effects were good for their time – Dr. Barrett’s exploding coffee cup is a classic in nerve-jolts.

[granville1]

Up your tight condemnatory petulant little ass, bowdern. Consider yourself plonked.

[granville1]

fatherbowdern wrote, “these posts just wreak of intelligence.” Indeed, they do, in the context of trying to analyze Merrin’s apparent non-payment of his cab fare. Jguthrie supplied an explanation based on his actual experience with cab driving. If fatherbowdern has counter-evidence, namely, that vouchers are never issued as payment for cab fare, he is welcome to post it here. But his petulant sarcasm, aimed at two fellow fans, is as unseemly as it is ludicrous.

[granville1]

Thanks, Fr Bowdern. Yes, the cabbie may have declined payment – or maybe the bishop gave Merrin a substantial overpayment to guarantee the ride – it was an emergency trip. Maybe Merrin just handed over the lump sum when he entered the cab, the cabbie has already been paid – that’s why we don’t see it…

[granville1]

dseabroo, thanks for the input- yeah, a contract with the cab company would also explain Merrin’s “non-payment.”

[granville1]

Thanks for the factual input, jguthrie. A voucher would explain it…

[granville1]

Sorry, I never noticed this, but will look next time I view the film.

What has always bothered me about this scene is that it appears that Merrin never pays the cabbie. I’ve looked and just don’t see Merrin’s hand reaching over the front seat to pay the cab driver.

[granville1]

Ain’t she cute! Thanks Justin for the photo.

[granville1]

Boorman.
Harlin.
Shamalyan.
Gibson.

[granville1]

There isn’t any certain evidence. Karras comes across what he thinks is evidence, but then that gets ruled out by alternative naturalistic, psychiatric and/or scientific explanations. That’s the cat and mouse game Pazuzu plays with Karras – and Blatty plays with the reader.

[Author]

Posts