CaptainHowdy.com The #1 Exorcist Fansite Since 1999
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Cap’n, I’ve run across it a couple of times on the Net but never bookmarked it. If I run into it again, I’ll send it to the Forums.
No, Blizzi, I didn’t think you said that Merrin let P loose. I was replying to that question as raised by wolfboyspike. I’m glad you think I know about this stuff – but it’s nice to be around a lot of knowledgable folks here. I learn something new at CH all the time.
Just a joke idea. Heretic might be less confusing if somebody added-in a laugh track – to provide audience guidance as to when to laugh loudest.
That “joke” means no disrespect to Fr Lamont: if he can spice up and refine Heretic, more power to him.
Yes, also there is rumoured to be a scene on the Hitchcock steps where Damien Karras suffers a crisis of faith – which was deleted. Don’t know if that’s true, but what a hugely important scene for us to enjoy…
I know you were talking to Vess, but I’ll stick my big nose in, if you don’t mind. Having read a little about possession, I have never come across a case that matches Blatty’s depiction. Even in his portrait of possession, there was still enough doubt that Karras doesn’t think it is genuine, although it meets the rules set down in the Roman Ritual.
I relaly don’t know what “possessed” the church authorities to permit an exorcism of the “Exorcist Boy”, since according to stuff I’ve read, there were not very strong indicators of the presence of a truly alien, external, nonmaterial, malevolent spirit entity.
Vess and I differ slightly here: Vess thinks the whole thing was a case of a prank played on naive people, whereas I don’t dismiss the multiple-witness accounts of paranormal activity.
But even with paranormal activity, the “demon” who “possessed” the boy is, to me, unconvincing. Of course, “the demon is a liar”, so if there was indeed a possessing spirit, it could have been playing dumb. Dumb in the sense that it can’t survive comparison to the relatively preturnatural sophistication of Blatty’s novelistic demon.
Felicitas Goodman’s book “The Exorcism of Anneliese Michel” is the best I have read on modern possession. She explains the “demon” as a series of neurological problems combined with mis-prescription, and mis-diagnosis, plus clerical naivete’.
So I tend to regard the case as some mental illness, some deception, and some paranormalia. But I, for one, just don’t see any strong evidence of a truly supernatural event or personage.
How ’bout:
Was he a practicing Catholic before during and after the filming? If so did he have bull sessions with Blatty about Catholic issues, including possession and exorcism?
How exactly did he audition for the part, and how did he learn that Keach had been bounced from the role?
Was he shocked and saddened at the death of the woman who played Mary Karras (I believe she died shortly before or after the film opened)?
How did he like acting with Von Sydow?
How did he get along with Fr. O’Malley, and what was it like to learn from him “how to act like a priest”?
As a creative writer, did he ever entertain thoughts about tackling the supernatural in his plays, etc.?
Piggy-backing on Ryan: lots of Legion questions. What were his thoughts on coming back as Damien Karras/Gemini-Damien Karras/imprisoned Damien Karras? His evaluation of Dourif’s performance? His experience of Blatty’s direction as opposed to Friedkin’s?
That’s it for now…
If they could entice WPB to do it and have him insert some of the dropped themes, if not the scenes from Legion… nah, they’d probably still goof it up.
I don’t think Merrin’s digging let Pazuzu loose. If demons were so easily imprisoned they probably would not have gained their reputations as bad-ass “traveling men”.
Also, it was not, strictly speaking, Merrin who opened Pazuzu’s “tomb” – it was the archeological team. Merrin is in another part of the dig, and has to be alerted to the new finds by the Arab messenger boy.
I think that the Pazuzu amulet that Merrin finds is coincidence – however, it’s a meaningful coincidence. Blatty describes Merrin’s reaction as a premonition – not a literal unleashing of Pazuzu. Probably a case of Merrin’s unconscious dread being triggered by unearthing the amulet.
Merrin already knows that he has “an ancient enemy”. The amulet serves as a trigger for him to intuit – to make his unconscious dread conscious – that “soon” he will need to face that enemy again.
He has combatted a demon before in Africa. Therefore that demon was probably not the Middle-Eastern demon Pazuzu – at least in name. Perhaps the African demon and Pazuzu are (is?) the same demonic personality manifesting under different cultural forms.
The film implies that Merrin discovers the amulet before he “visits” the large statue. Recall how he swallows/gulps in dread when examining the amulet. When he returns from the dig from the chaykhana, it is as if he is still “sifting” his impressions.
He apparently does not know about the large statue (someone should have told him!) until a gust of (southwest?) wind tugs at his hat and he turns – and then sees the statue. Only then does he make his way up the hill to confront the statue in the famous face-to-face “sunset silhouette shot”.
I agree with Blizzi that calling himself “THE” Devil/Satan is just the demon’s ploy to “keep things interesting” for Karras. Merrin, on the other hand, knows that “there is only one” possessing personality. That personality is not Satan or the Devil – Merrin, from experience, calls it merely a demon.
Blizzi, you’re very kind. Thank you for thinking of me. Don’t stress about it… right now I’m so busy I doubt I would be able to view it right away…
Congrats, Blizzi. I have confidence you’ll ask pertinent questions. Like Justin I can’t think of anything right now…
