CaptainHowdy.com The #1 Exorcist Fansite Since 1999
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I agree – Blatty’s creative license allowed him to invent a truly “authentic” supernatural intelligence for his demon. Whereas “real” demons in possession cases show no signs of supernatural malevolent intelligence. That is, they are no more intelligent than their victims. Occasional esp, occasional telekinesis – sure, I don’t have a metaphysical problem with that. But paranormal phenomena alone do not a supernatural intervention make! For a really demonic personality, a Blattyesque demon is called for. Unfortunately, none of the cases I’ve read about reveal anything close to a supernatural discarnate malevolent personality. Reality doesn’t match up to Blatty’s wonderful, scary fiction. If Anneliese Michel’s “demons” had been as preternaturally sophisticated and wise as Blatty’s Pazuzu, a case could be made that Anneliese’s demons were authentic. But as Goodman shows, they are nothing but trash-talking German peasants – personalities Anneliese was quite capable of creating, albeit probably unconsciously.
Yeah, Jaws 2 traded the original terrifying dynamics for “the Brady Bunch goes to sea”. Where the original offered “Everyman/Everywoman” In Danger (the three guys on the boat, the cross-section of America represented by the bathers on the Amity beach), the sequel offered boring, spoiled Rich Kids In Danger. Who cares? The only sustaining force in 2 was Scheider and his shark fears. That, and his relationship with his wife, two nice scenes of which never made it onscreen.
I think that they should have dropped the spoiled rich kids and concentrated on the conflict in the relationship between Brody/Scheider and his oldest son. That would have beefed up the audience concern. The kid could still disobey Scheider and go to sea and get in trouble, and Brody could still set out to rescue him. But with the twist that maybe they actually end up rescuing each other, and as in the first movie, they could end up swimming to shore together, stronger for their new-found mutual respect. Corny? Sure, but warm and intimate and interesting stuff about characters we can care about. Not about the misadventures of obnoxious, uninvolving snob children of the very rich. At least the film could have had some heart.
What is mostly missing from the movie is the brain and psychological research in Felicitas Goodman’s book. Goodman explores the relationship between possesseion and shamanic ecstasy in terms of brain states. She also points out the extremely chauvanistic, “local” nature of Anneliese’s “demons” – they are hearty, Germanic peasants who use the slang and colloquialisms of that class of people.
Thanks Fr. Merrin for your comments and for posting the clip. Yeah, the trouble with possession is that there is little convincing evidence of a truly _supernatural_ event. The reading I’ve done always points to mental illness with an occasional touch of paranormal involvement (telekinesis, “reading the minds” of witnesses, etc.) – but not to the presence of a genuinely supernatural entity. The “demons” speak an all-too-human language and display no signatures of supernatural intelligence or knowledge.
Imho, that’s what makes Blatty’s work so cleverly successful: he takes existing possession reports, pushes them to the limit… and then adds-in what the reports themselves are lacking: a demonic personality which gives every impression of supernatural power, intellect, memory, experience, and wisdom. Blatty’s demon is unlike any “demon” that I’ve ever read about in possession case studies. Howdy/Pazuzu as fleshed out by Blatty’s pen is a convincingly superhuman, malevolent possessing spirit. Not so the “real case” demons.
Thanks for the footage… however:
It’s promoted by Bob Larson Ministries, which has a fundamentalist agenda. These are the type of folks who see “Satan” in the merely hysterical behavior recorded in the video. Heck, they even see “Satanic” influence in nervous habits and usage of “bad” language. Granted, the footage is a Greek rite – not evangelical Protestant – “exorcism”, but the message is the same. Where are the medical and psychiatric records on this so-called possessed person? Spastic seizure by itself doesn’t equate to demonic possession. Moreover, where is the footage of truly paranormal activity, as the old woman mentions, i.e., “levitation” and (get this!) “walking on water”? If Larson Ministries wants to prove actual supernatural or at least preternatural activity, they’ll have to do better than photograph an hysteric attack.
Don’t get me wrong, it was fine to post the footage. But its content is unrevealing at best.
In the novel, Karras dies on or around Mothers’ Day, in May… the Fall scenes in Georgetown, though, definitely add an element of spookiness…
There is one good thing about the “you want to shove your c–k up her juicy…” is that it’s not the demonic personality saying it, but – like the manifestations of the Dennings personality in the original – it was the personality of the scumball British alcoholic with the scabby face (can’t recall the character’s name). At least they tried to emulate the “different personality manifestations” from the original…
National Public Radio – for news commentary. If I was listening to music, it would probably be movie soundtracks.
Seems foreshadowing (Capt. Howdy demon face whom he will soon encounter; he will encounter his “mother”-manifestation in Regan; the dogs show he will participate in Merrin’s ancient battle) – coupled with his personal concerns (guilt over his mother, “losing” his mother in the subway system)…
I’m afraid I have to say… yes, it’s really that bad. A total prostitution of Blatty’s characters and ideas, substituted with Boorman’s wacko theological notions.
he “feel” was all wrong, especially in view of that established in the original film. E.g., Lamont’s relationship with The Cardinal is simply unreal as contrasted to the priests in The Exorcist, from Dyer’s and Karras’ realistic friendship to the brief but quite realistic scene with Karras and the Bishop and the scene with the Bishop and “Tom” the University president as they discuss who to get for the exorcism.
Karras’ self-sacrifice which saved Regan is not even mentioned, except to imply that it was a waste since the demon is dormant inside of her.
The use of bugs. Not scary and reminiscent of the Peter Graves cheapo sci-fi giant grasshopper “thriller” The Beginning of the End.
Merrin is a mere cypher: we don’t find out anything about Blatty’s characterization of Merrin as “the towering intellect… whose view caused ferment in the Church”. We are not given a sound theological reason why Merrin is suspected of heresy. Instead, we are only told that he believes that a new generation of holy kids has appeared, Regan among them, who will usher in a new world of sanctity. Nothing especially heretical there at all. Blatty’s Merrin is based on Teilhard de Chardin and Carl Jung/Spinoza. Boorman’s Merrin is based on weak speculation.
Blatty’s/Friedkin’s Karras was obviously an intense, honest seeker after sanctity, hoping against hope for a resolution to his faith crisis. Boorman’s Lamont is a fanatical, unlikable kook from whom a sane person wouldn’t buy a used car or anything else.
Blatty’s/Friedkin’s Sharon was a sweet, smart ally to Chris and Regan. Boorman’s Sharon is a sinister, cynical proto-witch whom Boorman clothes in an appropriately weird, black rain slicker. She is supposed to have been scarred by Regan’s possession, but Boorman renders her strange and unsympathetic. Boorman’s utter disrespect for his re-make of Sharon is fittingly resolved by his turning her into a human torch.
Let’s not get down to Boorman’s level in praise of Blair’s tits, either – that’s just what he wants – to distract the viewer from the fact that he’s made a ripe piece of shit. Don’t forget his other boob-references: Sharon’s see-thru gown after her shower and the African girl Lamont encouters. When in doubt, appeal to male chauvinism. Great respect for the viewer there, huh.
Yes, Lamont stepping on spikes makes us cringe, but what does it have to do with the gritty realism we expect of an Exorcist sequel? It’s just another newage-sewage throw-away dream sequence with no consequences for Lamont either in the dream or the real world.
Ennio Morricone’s score is fittingly sucky as well, with its screaming “African Mass” choral “music”. He composed a lovely theme for Regan but its very beauty is only obtrusive and reminds us that it really belongs in a much better film.
Based on the original film’s runaway success, the studio gave Boorman a huge production budget, which he proceded to abuse with bloated production values. E.g., the exorcism flashback in Regan’s bedroom: the Georgetown bridge is distractingly evident thru her window, which is completely gratuitous because we don’t need to see the bridge, and worse, it was not visible in the first film because Regan’s windows had been boarded shut and the curtains pulled. Another waste of filming money was that ridiculous sci-fi bullshit headgear which looked like a throw-back to B-films of the 1930’s.
In short: E-2 The Heretic is everything The Exorcist wasn’t. That fact alone marks it as an abysmal failure.
I agree on Mann’s performance – it was like he was trying too hard or something. His performance iseffeminate, to say the least, especially when he is hovering over CheChe’s cot and calling him “child”. He seems on the verge of tears much of the time. I wanted to take him by his cassock and shake some virility into him. His recessiveness was all the more obvious when placed next to Skarsgard’s unimpeded masculinity. It was hard to feel much for him, even when he was found lanced in the desert. The screen play didn’t even give him an on-screen death scene – but I doubt even a death scene would have beefed up his performance. Apparently, he’s one of those actors who can’t play sanctity without identifying it with wimpiness.
St. Michael, again, thanks for your perceptive remarks – I think you’ve identified a dormant factor, namely, that an all-star cast drains a film of true horror (unless the stars are already known for horror work such as Chris Lee, Andrew Keir and many more). But… Gregory Peck??? There are some exceptions, like Kidman in The Others, Willis in The Sixth Sense, Gibson in Signs, but they seem few and far between… Of course, many stars wanted the Karras role – I’ve heard that Jon Voight, Marlon Brando and others wanted the part – but Friedkin made the sharp decision to put Miller in the part… Again,thanks for your intelligent commentary.
Depends on whether you’re working from the novel or from the movie. In most of the novel, the Gemini is inhabiting Karras’ re-animated body, pure and simple. Karras’ body is there, but not Karras himself. Then, toward the end, the soul of the Gemini’s dead brother has a brief appearance. He’s there trying to convince the Gemini to convince the Gemini to stop his killing spree and to “move on” in the afterlife.
but in the movie, the Gemini, Karras, and the “Master”/demon all inhabit Karras’ re-animated body. The Gemini is the dominant personality, with the “imprisoned” Karras only peeking out in rare moments when the Gemini is weak or somnolent (“Bill”… “Save your servant”). And in the exorcistic climax, the demon itself takes over and speaks to Morning and Kinderman.
So, in the film the guy in the padded cell was three personalities inside Karras’ re-animated body: Karras, the Gemini, and the demon. In the novel, the guy in the cell is not Karras, but is Karras’ body hosting the Gemini and the Gemini’s dead brother.
Yeah, Miller vividly expressed Karras’ feelings of guilt and his agony of soul, and Friedkin photographed him in a “craggy” manner to give him Karras’ “sad, chipped” face.
I do wish Miller had been a taller person, as in the novel. It took me a few viewings of The Exorcist to realize the almost comical difference in height between Miller and Von Sydow. Seems Friedkin “shot around” this, as when Merrin arrives at the MacNeil house. There’s a brief handshake between Miller and Von Sydow but immediately after, Von Sydow sits down and asks Miller to bring vestments for the exorcism – sitting down immediately makes Miller “taller” than Von Sydow. When they ascend the stairs together, the height difference is hardly noticeable. During the exorcism, they are usually separated by several feet, doing different things (Von Sydow is attending directly to Blair while Miller remains at the foot of the bed). There are only a few breif shots in which the height difference is glaring.
None of this is a big deal, and I think Miller was the best choice for the role. It’s just that sometimes I notice the height difference and it amuses me…
Good points, Mike. Re #1, I have a tendency to excuse it because the man who told Karras that the tapes were English in reverse could be the head of the Language Department. If that’s the case, the actual analysis could have been done by one of his underlings, e.g., Kintry’s mother, and the Language Lab head could have merely been relaying that discovery to Karras. This works for the two films as screened. Not so well for the novel in which Karras asks the Language Lab guy to do it himself, immediately.
The other two points of contradiction, however, do seem logically insurmountable.
