[Good Mourning]

On ETonline, I found an article with director William Friedkin talking about his thoughts on an sequel or remake for The Exorcist:

“[I've been asked often], and I won't. … I've said everything that could be said about demonic possession and exorcism. I have not even seen any of the sequels, not even [William Peter] Blatty's [Exorcist III]. I would not do a prequel or a sequel, absolutely not, under no circumstances and for no amount of money. But if I could find something new to say about demonic possession, I would do a film about that. I believe, for example, the only thing that explains this kid in Connecticut is demonic possession. … “You can go and look for every goddamn reason on Earth – [James] Holmes, the kid in Colorado [that opened fire during The Dark Knight Rises screening], all of these people, Charles Whitman [the 1966 University of Texas tower sniper] – it's the devil, man. Whatever that means to you. There is a force of evil in the world.”

So obviously–it seems as though Friedkin's not all in for a remake—I'm not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing.

[granville1]

I hope he doesn’t. He seems to have lost his taste for supernatural evil in that he apparently invests perfectly explicable, earthly evil(s) with a thin veil of supernatural evil – “a force of evil in the world … the devil…whatever that means to you.”

But see: he won’t commit. “Whatever it means to you” immediately subjectifies this supposed Evil Force In The World, leaving it open to any interpretation whatsoever. It seems he does, and at the same time does not, want to face the fact that our troubles lie not in the stars or in demons, but in ourselves, with assistance, of course, from all kinds of natural slings and arrows.

There is no evil, whether it be psychological, neurological, or natural, that cannot be explained by naturalistic means. What made The Exorcist such a great novel is that it suspended, then eliminated, those natural means, thereby leading the reader to conclude that “something Other” was indeed involved in Regan’s possession. But The Exorcist is a work of fiction. No possession ever presented itself with the supernatural elements that Blatty worked into the text of his novel. There is no evidence for supernatural possession, at least as of now; in the future perhaps a “real” case of possession will occur and will be scientifically documented.  That is possible, if not too plausible. But until that happens, we are left with the fact that possession, like every other evil, is explicable by natural means. Friedkin seems to realize this, and the demon wind that filled the sails of his film has exhausted itself, leaving Friedkin, as a potential returning auteur of evil, in the doldrums.

Thus, Friedkin would probably be a good choice for directing a film about the limits of purely human-cum-natural evil, because for him, “it’s the devil, man”. He should probably stay away from any new films dealing with supernatural evil, since it is plain that his heart’s compass no longer points in that direction.

[ReganMacNeilfan]

I sure don’t want a remake. Meh. Remakes ruin films.

[Ryan]

Out of respect for Bill I thought he would have at least watched Legion once. They're close friends.

[Good Mourning]

Ryan said:

Out of respect for Bill I thought he would have at least watched Legion once. They're close friends.

I found that strange myself–even if he didn't support anyone making a sequel to The Exorcist, it seems like he would have gone to see III, it was made by Blatty himself, after all.

[Good Mourning]

While I didn't want a remake, I thought that if Friedkin made it–it would turn out nice (most likely not better than the original, but at least be a film that's amusing to some degree.) Although, if someone is truly going forward with an Exorcist remake, I solemnly hope that they don't ruin it.

[melisa08]

if I understand correctly, there will be a remake with others person ?

[Good Mourning]

melisa08 said:

if I understand correctly, there will be a remake with others person ?

I believe so–I keep hearing really vague information on a remake so no one really knows. From the interview above, it's most likely not going to have the same director. I think that if Friedkin isn't in on a remake, then Blatty won't be in on it without him. So if we do get a remake like people keep telling us we are, then it probably won't be with the original creators (and the actors are all either too old or dead.)

[melisa08]

damage, it's not Friedkin ! after it's not sure there will be a remake, if you have more information, tell us !

[ReganMacNeilfan]

melisa08 said:

damage, it's not Friedkin ! after it's not sure there will be a remake, if you have more information, tell us !

 

yes  I agree. 🙂

[melisa08]

but on one side there I want to see a remake with a new characters,the places in which they turn the movie and how will be the makeup of the girl

[ReganMacNeilfan]

I want to see a new version of the film kinda of an extra if you will. Not a word by word remake. Maybe by the book? But that would Blatty to say yes or no. 😉

[melisa08]

it was for him to decide

[ReganMacNeilfan]

It’s his book and his choice. 🙂 All we can do is wait.

[melisa08]

yes I'm agree

[Author]

Posts