[granville1]

I just wish we could have a time machine we could send back to retrieve everything Exorcist-related from pre-production thru film-release thru shocked reaction…

Although it dates me mercilessly, I remember Exorcist stuff being all over the place, on Johnny Carson, Mike Douglas (and a multitude of other TV talk shows), radio, newspapers, news magazines, Sunday supplements, serious Catholic magazines like Commonweal, in all kinds of sleazy Hollywood gossip magazines, etc. A treasure trove of data, photos, discussion, humor, rumor… nibbled away by the tides of time…

[granville1]

The Exorcist is compelling viewing which does not require an “obsession” to spawn interest. Ditto “the series”. So why should anyone care if it annoys this person? The poster/complainer seems to want to say something but has little to communicate.

In any case, “William Bowden The Real Exorcist” is not recognizable in/as Blatty’s priestly characters, except for the fact that all concerned _are_ priests, so it’s a bit too cute to advertise Bowden as a member of the complainer’s family. It’s as if the poster is saying, “Hey, the Exorcist priest is based on my relative! And by the way… the whole series draws obsessives, which really irritates me.”

Instead of saying something interesting about Bowden – if in fact the poster really has anything to say – s/he attacks certain people whom s/he thinks are obsessed with the Exorcist series. This ploy is rather lacking in substance, to say the least.

[granville1]

Thanks lunuso and Blizzi. I remember loving the book, having read the Bantam paperback in (I think)1971 or ’72, and waiting breathlessly for the movie to come out.

Living as I was in a backwater, imagine my frustration… the movie opened in December 1973, but it didn’t come to my town until August 1974! (In ’75, Jaws opened – I think it was in June – but didn’t get to my town until mid-October).

In the meantime I bought the “Exorcist screenplay to screen” paperback which had the original Blatty screenplay, an explanation of the re-writes, followed by the film screenplay. With a middle section of B&W stills from the film. Needless to say, I devoured it.

Then, when the movie finally came to town, I saw it probably three or four times before it left. The theater was small, with excruciatingly bad sound, but the film’s impact was powerful nonetheless… anyway, I did see it in ’74 – although several months later than optimal.

[granville1]

Thanks for the review. Some of the backstory seems as excruciatingly boring and overstated as Lecter’s early life as depicted in the movie Hannibal Rising…

[granville1]

Thanks, Howdy.

[granville1]

Thanks for sharing. I still have my battered copy of Travers, but I’m sure others would enjoy such tidbits.

[granville1]

Great finds, Blizzi.

[granville1]

Funny, to me this shot seems to be the best of Heretic’s attempts to duplicate the possessed Blair. Oddly, I can imagine a bit of Blair and Dietz in this face, tho’ neither was used in Heretic…

[granville1]

You’re welcome… you and a few others really keep this place hopping with new, interesting stuff…

[granville1]

Yikes, you guys, now I’m really confused… maybe Blair’s face was imposed or otherwise merged… now I can’t tell!

[granville1]

Great catch, Blizzi. Roman numerals “2” for the twin themes is very appropriate. Also – and this is stretching the point terribly – maybe it could also refer to the fact that Legion was the second, “number two” sequel – officially-from-Blatty – to the original novel. (As I say, it’s a stretch.)

[granville1]

Thanks for letting us know, Captain Howdy. I noticed that your post is not listed chronologically. As the newest post in this section, shoudn’t it be at the top of the list as “most recent post”?

[granville1]

Thanks.

[granville1]

Okay – thanks for the clarification.

[granville1]

Thanks, Blizzi! Nice to hear from you.

[Author]

Posts