CaptainHowdy.com The #1 Exorcist Fansite Since 1999
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Something is definitely A Foot. Yesterday on the imdb Exorcist board, someone calling himself “Agent Sparky X” posted the following. Note the word-for-word duplication of RatBoy's post, which is rendered in italics:
“Jane Fonda turning down the role of Chris MaCeil stating “Why would I want to be involved with a capitalist rip-off piece of *beep* like this?”.
I don't think this movie no matter how well written and directed would have been well recieved with that treasonous bitch in the by Text-Enhance” href=”http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070047/board/thread/219103594″>lead role.
Jane Fonda was not allowed on my vcr nor TV screen while growing up in my house so neither me nor my family would have enjoyed and been terrified by the Exorcist while growing up.”
Yes, there is still the “treasonous bitch” calumny from the OP in this thread, but now the final sentence has been added from the imdb post. I feel obliged to post my reply to “Sparky” that I made in the imdb thread, as follows:
It would be better to critique her acting instead of writing:
“… that treasonous bitch …”
“Her political activism was a reaction to the real treason that was being perpetrated by the Johnson administration with its B.S. Gulf of Tonkin resolution, its betrayal of America and a whole generation of American youth, the by Text-Enhance” href=”http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070047/board/thread/219103594″>wholesale destruction of a country that never attacked the US (hey, that does sound familiar, doesn't it), its constant lying, its satanic “war of attrition” against the Vietnamese, its assassination of Vietnamese leaders who had “outlived their usefulness”, its support of a fascist Vietnamese regime whose only “virtue” was that it opposed Communism, continuing under the Nixon administration with its illegal invasion of Cambodia, its instigation of the Kent state tragedy, its abuse of law enforcement agency powers, and other examples of atrocious, immoral, illegal, and anti-American behavior. Contrasted with the US government, Ms. Fonda comes out looking like a super-patriot.”
Thus, something is certainly A Foot. What in the world is RatBoy/”Sparky” trying to accomplish with this rather odd and Fonda-defamatory behavior? Seemingly the poster, whoever s/he is, is not cognizant of the fact that many howdy.com readers also read the imdb Exorcist boards, and would therefore see through this ploy, if such it is. Curiouser and curiouser.
I doubt it symbolizes satanic infiltration of Catholic clergy, since this is never a theme in Blatty's material. It could, however, symbolize the hidden presence of evil lurking to destroy old friends of Damien Karras whose names begin with the letter “K”. But I doubt it.
I personally think it's a goof, as in bad filmmaking. It has nothing to do with the narrative, does not advance the story, and is a silly magic trick. There is no reason the statue (possibly St. Ignatius?) should spring to life – nothing so stupid happened in The Exorcist, novel or film. It remains a distracting wanabe jump scare with no purpose – so, okay, a statue gets animated by the demon, but then what? The statue does nothing at all, and does not figure again in the story. Just a wasted scene.
Also, the statue is not in a a sanctuary, but in the hallway of the Georgetown president's offices. It's supposed to be part of the Big Scare (not) of “Alice delivers the speech to the president” and (gasp) gives Kinderman a “nasty” shock. Imho, this scene should never have been filmed.
I would guess it's a facsimile miniature that they moved from Iraq and possibly re-used in the “Pazuzu vision” scene that occurs during the exorcism. Or, if the Iraq statue was really as large as it looks on-screen in the prologue, then they could have done up a smaller one for the exorcism scene.
Has some chilling moments. That's how I'd imagined it – “Regan” luring Burke upstairs to his deah. No question of him “molesting” Regan.
I agree, the faces were ridiculous, but there were other strong points that kept my interest, e.g., the “stair conversation” w/Merrin and Karras; Merrin's accepting Chris's offer of a brandy coffee; Karras in the language lab puzzling over the voice of the real Regan as opposed to the demon he has just encountered; Dyer telling Chris to keep Karras's St. Joseph medal … etc.
Aw, give the kid a chance. Or not 😉
I admit to getting cranky and crabby in my old age, but I think the questions I addressed to the poster were legitimate, i.e., claiming the literal existence of demons is a colossally huge claim in this age of science, materialism, and neural research. So I felt justified in asking for evidence and in stating that in lieu of said evidence, demons remain questionable if not fictitious. On the other hand, I acknowledged that if the poster could provide evidence, then that could put demons back on the reality grid. The poster's angry and dismissive replies only stoked my skepticism and my ire. If apologies are due, then I'm sorry about the medium, but not the content, of my replies.
More uncalled-for sarcasm and false superiority.
More irresponsible dodging of responsible, intelligent questioning of your bald religious assertions.
Obviously, you are either incapable of, or are unwilling to, respond responsibly and intelligently.
Afaik, CaptHowdy.Com has no Ignore function, so instead of clicking on the “Ignore” option, I will simply turn a blind eye to your bellicose, belligerent, immature posts.
But thanks for teaching me a valuable albeit trivial lesson in practicing avoidance of just one more web-jerk.
<<< Yawns … Guess somebody woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning. Take some midol. It will help with the bloating, cramps & mood swings. === Typical fundamentalist tripe – arrogant, caustic, and irrelevant to the topic at hand. As well as an example of inappropriately feisty behavior from the new kid on the block. Either address the issues I raised, provide your evidence, or just keep silent. I don't suffer irresponsible, angry, petty clods gladly, in this or any other web forum. It is clearly you, not me, who “woke up on the wrong side of the bed”, and posted an irrational, unproven, parochial appeal to fundamentalism. When I asked for evidence, you went all Annoyed Surly Adolescent. So I am still waiting for an intelligent, worthwhile reply. Am I waiting in vain?
Please exchange your vitriol for fact, reasoned argument, and documentation. Drop your defensive mockery and post seriously – you know, as if you mean it.
“Do wars, crime, murder, hate & diease thrive in this world we live in? Of course there are demons. Dark, disturbed spiritual beings that bring chaos”
Non sequitur: demon-belief is not a logical consequence of observing the world's ills.
Demons are a supernatural explanation. Unfortunately, the world's ills do not require a supernatural explanation. All of them have their observable origin in completely explainable natural and psychological causes. Bringing in ancient superstitions to explain the world's ills is to discredit both science and responsible, enlightened religion.
“We all have light & dark energy within us which is to say we have the creator & demon forces flowing through us.”
Evidence, please. Demonstrate that human good and evil are anything but the products of nature and human psychology. If you can, then the door is open to demons. If you cannot, then demons remain firmly ensconced in the world of superstition, folklore, and literary fiction.
Not to be the skunk at the garden party, and with respect: How do you expect others to believe as you do?
Claiming the literal existence of demons is a huge claim. Especially in this age of science, neuroscience, and psychiatry. It is a huge claim because it says that the supernatural – in this case, in the form of demons – exists.
( FWIW: The supernatural, to me, is not an extraordinary claim, but I prefer to use the term, “transcendence” or “transcendent realm/being(s)”. Having said that, I balk at literal demons, for simple lack of proof. In no case that I've read about is a truly supernatural explanation required. )
A rare mental illness sometimes accompanied by telekinesis and increased intuitive abilities? Sure, why not.
But a supernatural, nonmaterial malevolent entity? Wait a minute. Proof of such would genuinely rock Western civilization because it would destroy the consensus view that the supernatural is a deluded concept; it would destroy scientific materialism and scientism; it would open the way (per Blatty) for God's existence.
But it must require proof – psychiatrically verified and peer-reviewed. No such proof has ever been demonstrated. You can't expect non-fundamentalist, liberal and/or “progressive” Christians and educated non-Christians to accept demons as real, without real proof. To date, there is none, and anecdotal evidence is far from scientific proof.
Your faith in Christ is A-okay with me, but your claim that Christ exists and we must look to him every day at the risk of “full infestation” goes beyond any situation I've ever encountered. I mean, where is Christ in the first place when people (supposedly) get possessed? Where is he when, say, a child contracts brain cancer? Etc.
And if you are “seeing demons” when you go to the grocery store, it might be asked of you, without intending insult, if you've had your eyes checked lately, or if you are suffering from some degree of paranoia. Not even Jesus and his disciples were seeing demons everywhere. Occasionally they'd run into one, or have one brought to them for cure, but in the Gospels they are nowhere near as prevalent as they seem to be in your vicinity.
Moreover, in most cases, Jesus was not expelling literal demons, but rather what his culture called “unclean spirits”. These “beings” are obviously medical and psychiatric conditions, probably healed by the victim him/herself, as when Jesus says, “Go your way: your faith has saved you”. A medical condition can't talk to you, and most of these “spirits” are indeed appropriately mute. Granted, in the Gospels, Jesus is depicted as encountering some “real” demons, as in the famous “I am Legion, for we are many” incident and other cases. But these types of cases are few and far between in the New Testament.
Sadly, your notion that, “without Christ” and without people “looking to Christ”, then we risk “full infestation” (I presume you mean full possession?), seems to be an implied insult to all non-Christians, and even to non-fundamentalist Christians. It's another point you must prove – if you want others to believe it. E.g., what is the incidence of demon possession among Buddhists, Episcopalians, Catholics, Methodists, secularists, agnostics, atheists, Unitarians, and a host of other non-fundamentalist individuals and groups? Is it higher in those groups than it is among conservative Christian denominations that believe in frequent “possession” and regularly practice “exorcism”? Statistics, please, in the name of evidence and proof.
Although I am no longer a Catholic-Christian, still, the examples you cite make me grateful for the intellectual-scholarly traditions of Catholicism. Case in point – the extreme reluctance with which the Church directs its clergy to judge a possession case as “genuine”.
All of the stringently delineated and researched “marks” of possession written about by Blatty and hinted at by Freidkin make the Church's “take” on possession the most enlightened of all (granting, that is, the reality of demonic possession).
Thus, you don't find normative Catholics finding the Devil and demons behind bad habits, involuntary blinks or twitches, TV, news media, Hollywood, smoking, movies, dancing, rude speech, and all the host of other negative public flaws and personal idiosyncrosies which uneducated fundamentalist churches label as “satanic” or “possession”. In those denominations, everyone is a potential case of possession, and every congregation has the power of “exorcism” over such household “demons”. What a joke.
A truly supernatural possession would by nature be a Big Deal, because, if verified in this materialist, “scientific” age, we would at last have proof that the supernatural is real, and – per Blatty – if the supernatural is real, then it's possible for God to be real.
And … a truly supernatural possession cannnot – and must not – ever be confused with all-too-well understood psychological/neurotic/neurological conditions. Whatever a “genuine” possession is, it is almost certainly not the cause of of the so-called “satanic symptoms” that all too many fundamentalist congregations mistakenly first, concoct and then (self-fulfilling prophecy) perceive.
Thanks for the vid … Oh, that guy is such a fake. Iirc, I saw Louis Theroux getting “exorcised” by this scheister. Larson seems to be a hypnotist: first he plants in innocent minds the idea that they have been occultly endangered by their current or prior beliefs/involvement in non-Christian religions. Of course, exposure to neopaganism and Wicca are the most dire of “warning signs”. By the time Larson hypnotically inducts the victim, the poor schmuck actually thinks s/he needs an exorcism. Thus does Larson implant a Devil of his own imagination, subject, of course, to exorcism by the one and only Larson himself. Sheesh…
Actually I'm with you on the guilty pleasures of enjoying the re-visioned film, Fr. Morning, exorcism and all.
A screenplay based solely on the Legion novel could have worked … except for that terribly weak, anti-climactic ending. The whole novel was speeding toward an explosive climax, but then sputtered out, with
SPOILERS
… Vennamun/the Gemini simply losing steam and dropping dead once he hears that his despised father – the entire reason for his killing career to begin with – has died. Sorry to say, the end cries out for high drama, and the film delivers it. Sure, venemous snakes, lightning-induced earthquakes, hell-flames, Karras crucified – although clearly meant to be visionary – are all over-the-top. However, the Legion film devlivers:
1. Our beloved Damien Karras, who returns not only as a reanimated corpse, but as himself – captured and tormented by the vengeful demon of the original story, but also by the minions of Hell … and worst of all, by witnessing his body as it kills and rips and mutilates his old friends and other innocents.
2. Our old friends, Fr. Dyer and police detective William Kinderman.
3. Our beloved Georgetown locations.
4. Kinderman as the “new Karras”, a role he shares with Morning. Together, they become this story's “exorcists”. Only this time, it is the former exorcist Damien Karras who is tormented by demons and who must be liberated from their grasp by a joint effort by Morning and Kinderman.
5. An exorcism. Yay. Over-the-top, as mentioned, but still a vast improvement over the novel's “climax”.
6. An exorcist. Yay. Fr. Paul Morning, in a mostly poetically silent role, re-caps Merrin, and Blatty's photography of Morning in his room – which overlooks the Dahlgren Chapel, fountain (where Karras and Kinderman had their “going to the movies/sick priest” talk, and Damien Karras' former campus residence (“You look like Sal Mineo”) – gives several respectful nods to Friedkin's photography of Merrin in Iraq. as well as to familiar campus locales.
7. A return of the original demon at the climax. In the novel the demon is only in the background, supernaturally supporting the Vennamun's crimes and continuation in Karras' body. But in the film, the demon itself emerges as a character, to confront both Morning and Kinderman, and to save “my son, the Gemini” for further killing.
8. A beautifully sketched rehash of “that MacNeil kid's” case between Kinderman and the university president, complete with a reference to the Friedkin film in the form of a stopped clock pendulum.
9. Finally – unheard of in any Blatty material thus far – a direct intervention by God himself. God's absence was a major theme in the original novel and film.
This theme continues in the Legion film … until the climax, when both Morning and Kinderman have failed to liberate Karras. At the last moment, God manifests as a beam of holy light which revives Morning, allowing him to “get through” to the trapped Karras just long enough for Karras to resist the demon. In that moment, the demon loses his grip on Kinderman, who is able to answer Karras' cry: “Shoot now, Bill – kill me now” … Kinderman complies; and then Karras assures the detective – and the viewer – that “We've one … now set me free …” A final gunshot at last sends Damien Karras to the ultimate, Heavenly reward out of which he had been cheated that night twelve years earlier at the bottom of the Hitchcock Steps.
For these and several other reasons, I do prefer the film to the novel version, especially the return of Damien Karras and the return to the demonic, exorcistic materials, and the Blattian themes of the original novel and film.
