CaptainHowdy.com The #1 Exorcist Fansite Since 1999
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
It had the germs of a potentially decent flick, but Boorman and Pallenberg (sp?) blew it. My ears pricked up when Merrin in Africa wonders if great goodness draws evil to itself. Nice, Blattyesque idea – but the execution was laughable…
Yeah, it would have been nice to have the Blatty-Friedkin duo again on Ex3 Legion. Friedkin could have refined and expanded his terrifying techniques for E3 Legion. He could have made it an extremely jarring film, trimmed away the show-stopping grotesqueries, and made it a truly worthy sequel to the first movie. Sure, as you say, the original film is unmatchable, but with Blatty-Friedkin at the helm of E3 Legion, an at least comparable film could have been made.
Do you recall the specifics re: why Friedkin wasn’t keen to work on E3 Legion? Did he think that he had exhausted his horror armamentarium on The Exorcist…?
Well, Fr Lamont, thank you for your comments. If I were a creative writer and could invent realistic dialogue and supply documentary-like forensics, I might give it a try, but my skills don’t match the challenge.
I had one more thought… there might be a way to establish a connection between Merrin and Paul Morning. Morning might be one of those “locusts” who Merrin (reluctantly) suspects is drawn to great goodness – i.e., Merrin suspects – but cannot prove – that Morning may be very different than one would suppose from his reputation as a successful exorcist.
My reason for inserting Morning: it would fit into my other story idea for a Legion sequel where Morning might be demonically-connected.
In that scenario, Kinderman, quite without meaning to, would then be carrying on the dead Merrin’s work of elucidating the “good” from the “bad” “locusts” – in discovering that Morning, shockingly, may be one of the worst of them.
A theological discussion might then be had re: the NT’s claim that, since Jesus was exorcising demons, he could not be “of” Satan, since Satan does not cast out Satan, the motto being “a house divided against itself cannot stand”. Yet here is Morning, famed as successful driver-out of demons, seemingly “working” for Satan. Then introduce Blatty’s theme of Satan, as a liar, who might in some cases actually “act against himself” to “insure the outcome”…
Redemption for all, no cheap-shot deaths of characters like Sharon. No statutory rape by Lamont on Regan’s bed.
Keep the locusts if need be, but show how they actually effect Washington, DC inhabitants, traffic – no lingering scenes, but just enough to show the havoc that such a bug invasion would really cause.
Or, find a way of metaphorizing the locusts – make them a visionary symbol of evil.
Don’t incinerate Sharon, don’t demolish the old MacNeil house. Humanize Lamont and show him to be the one thing he has not been thru the entire film, namely, a sympathetic human being.
In most religions light represents spiritual goodness. The absence of light or the dying of light or the interruption of light can be a religious metaphor for loss of goodness and presence of evil.
Also there are some paranormal reports of lights that blow out in the presence of certain people. So the flickering lights combine those paranormal reports (recall the “poltergeist” activity associated with the infestation/obsession stage of Regan’s possession, as well as the shaking and levitation of the bed) with the religious symbolism of the absence of light.
Also the demon in the novel and the first film says that “we are quite a little family in here” or words to that effect. Also the demon takes on the persona of the dead Burke Dennings. Merrin says that there is only one invading personality, but that doesn’t stop the demon from pretending to be “legion”. “The parties” expelled “from the body of a child” are the Gemini’s continuation of the demon’s deception that there are multiple possessing personalities.
Pazrags, again, thank you for your kindly comments. I would LOVE to see Blatty do another Exorcist novel, whether it’s a Legion sequel or something else in the Exorcist tradition. We would then have an Exorcist Trilogy straight from the Master. Depends, I suppose, if Blatty thinks he has exhausted the subject. But his characters and plots and humor are so rich, one would hope that he has at least one more Exorcist novel to give us.
Have to tinker with the beginning, with Lamont’s zany, unrealistic relationship with “The Cardinal”. Drop the silliness that Merrin is suspected of Satanism and return to Blatty’s characterization of Merrin as a cross between Teilhard de Chardin and C.G. Jung. Establish Lamont as a feeling, sane human being rather than the sweating, fanatic self-absorbed asshole he is in Boorman’s film. Show how Merrin’s death _hurt_ Lamont: show him grieving the death of his mentor; use voice-over narration if need be.
Use his dialogue with Fletcher to establish the anomalous nature of Regan’s condition and to acknowledge the sacrifice of both Merrin and Karras, instead of trivializing the whole incident as Fletcher does. Keep Blatty’s and Friedkin’s insistence that Regan remembers nothing of the possession/exorcism. If the goofy headset-ESP machine idea is retained, have the truth come back to Regan during those tests, and let it hit her like a truck. For that matter, tone down Fletcher and bring back Burstyn to support Regan and if necessary take up arms against the demonic for a second time.
Devote much more time to Merrin in Africa. More interaction with the indigenous people like Skarsgaard in Dominion. Develope a friendship between Merrin and Kokumo like Skarsgaard with CheChe in Dominion.
Make the exorcism “last for months” and “damn near kill him”. Have Merrin write some letters from Africa to Lamont via narration voice-over thereby more deeply establishing their connection and friendship.
Metaphorizing the locusts – easy. Just handle it like Blatty handled Karras’s internal monologue at the start of the Legion film and the way he handled all the visionary stuff during Morning’s exorcism scene (the metaphorical flames, poisonous snakes, lightning bolts, the floor cracking open, Karras nailed to the rowing oars, etc.) – or get rid of the damn bugs altogether. They are not evil and they are not frightening.
Sharon: simply revert to the Blatty-Friedkin script. Show her as the sweet, concerned person she was the first time around, not the Regan-mistrusting paranoid Boorman makes of her.
Finale: why incinerate people and collapse a house? That’s the last resort of dickhead schlock horror-pimps.
Show that although “great goodness draws evil to itself” is is possible for goodness to win without slaughter and mayhem.Since they persuaded Von Sydow to return in the role, they should have used more of him in this film. More Merrin, less Lamont. Probably the African scenes are the only ones approaching watchability, but even they suffer from Boorman’s disastrous direction and the abysmal screenplay.
Blatty’s novel and the first film established that the demon is a liar, and that the multiple entities housed in a possession victim may be the demon’s “cover”. As Merrin said, “There is only one.” To ferret out the demon’s true identity is a crucial point in exorcism.
But in the Boorman film, the demon conveniently hands Merrin his name: “I am Pazuzu!” before Merrin even realizes that the kid is possessed. Demons customarily don’t like to identify themselves, because, according to legend, this will give the exorcist power over them.
I found the climb up the cliff face utterly hysterical, Merrin’s voice cracking, the porter falling off the cliff, lugging the kid up with ropes, etc. And the exorcism, which in Blatty’s book took months and damn near killed Merrin, seems accomplished in about five minutes. Moreover, the ritual works. In Blatty’s novel and the first film, the ritual is ineffective, and the only thing that saves the possession victim is Karras’ self-sacrifice. It’s as if Boorman’s stated contempt for Blatty’s novel and Blatty’s and Friedkin’s film compelled him to get rid of Merrin and the exorcism ASAP.
So much more could have been done with a director who respected Blatty’s ideas.
