CaptainHowdy.com The #1 Exorcist Fansite Since 1999
- This topic has 14 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Justy, at least I don’t like THE NINTH CONFIGURATION. 😛 😉
(to all who do, I’m glad you do; I just don’t understand it, and hence, why people like it as much as they seem to. Waitaminute. This sort of thing sounds mighty familiar. 😮 )
Incidentally, WHAT an ARC of a story, his life. The writers did their job, and then some.
Priest, author, ARCHaologist.
1944. Parish priest; leaves the Church, after tragic events in which he was forced to participate; believing God abandoned him, his faith is lost.
1947. In Kenya, witnesses atrocities brought on by the unleashing of the Devil Himself from beneath an unexpected Byzantine church. Regains his faith, and faces the Devil face-to-face in the form of Cheche, an afflicted outcast turned possessed.
Post-1947, pre-1973.
X exorcisms performed, excavations overseen, and books written.
1973. Having shortly returned from a dig in Iraq, is summoned to exorcise the daughter of film star Chris MacNeil, where he ultimately gives his life to save the little girl. The Devil has neither won nor lost. And Merrin passes into legend.
1973 “the Devil has neither won nor lost” I always thought he lost: He failed in his aim to clinch Karras’ loss of faith, he failed to force Willie to realize that Elvira still alive as a drug addict, he failed to make the witnesses of the possession succumb to self-loathing, he failed to make Regan MacNeil die while possessed, he failed in his attempt to possess Karras. As Karras said, he’s a big-time loser.
The Devil DID lose, on a number of ocasions, but not in the grand scheme; he also won in different ways. Merrin was killed; Karras, too. And what are we left with? One believer (Dyer), a non-Christian (the Jewish Detective Kinderman), and agnostics (the MacNeils and Sharon). So, technically, if the theology of Catholic Christianity is THE truth (in the reality this film presents), of the main characters it is just Fr. Dyer who “lives”; his soul isn’t condemned for rejecting the divinity of Christ. Note: Agnostics must ultimately choose a side — for or against the divinity of Christ. If they don’t, Jesus has chosen for them: “If you’re not for me, you are against me.” (I think that quote is correct.) I forget the passage in the Bible, but basically, being an agnostic doesn’t cut it; if one is “warm” (a believer and liver of Christianity as prescribed by Christ), he or she is accepted and truly saved. “Cold” people, non-believers (of whatevever strength) are ULTIMATELY rejected outright. And so, too, is the fate of those who are neither hot nor cold, but luke-warm; agnostics.
In conclusion, assuming the agnostics (and non-Christians) presented in the film would go on in their ways, their fates are sealed and the Devil has won (not their physical bodies, but their souls, forfeited to him out of passive rebellion. “You’re for me, or you’re against me.” (to that effect)).
M.I.K.E.
Except that the “agnostic” Chris MacNeil ends up believing in the Devil, who “does commercials”, and when Dyer asks her if all the world’s evil makes her think the Devil exists, then how, consistently, would she account for all the world’s goodness, Blatty has Chris take the point to heart. Doesn’t mean she converts to religion, or to Christianity, but clearly Dyer has scored a point for belief, and Blatty does not leave us thinking that Chris is still the same “agnostic” she was before witnessing Karras’ faith, of whom she says that she’s never in her life seen such faith.
So I think Blatty is leading us toward thinking that Chris will consider religion with an open mind, and possibly accept it. I don’t think he wants us to think of her as a mere agnostic any more.
And while your analysis of “living” and “dying” may work in a mainstream Christian context, I don’t think it applies to Blatty’s own theology. Not once does he appeal to your presentation of “either-or” acceptance of Christ’s divinity as a salvific issue. Instead, for Blatty salvation is a matter of love, especially love of self as creature of God. Divine intervention was noticably absent in expelling demons from Regan: instead, it was Karras’ Christ-like self-sacrifice that accomplished the “demonicide”.
Nor is Blatty’s theology mainstream or orthodox, as is clearly delineated in Merrin’s Teilhard-like musings in the original novel, and particularly in Legion, which resembles nothing so much as a Gnostic myth, with a split-off part of God willing itself to “become” the created universe, and then struggle back to union with the transcendent deity.
So while your “either-or” salvific construct of redemption via acknowledgment of Christ’s deity may be correct in an orthodox sense, I don’t think that Blatty had it in mind at all – quite the conrary, from his admiring treatment of Teilhardian and Gnostic material, it is clear that Blatty’s notion of redemption is not orthodox.
(You’re welcome, Granny.). 🙂
Say, GHETTO, what’s your opinion on the subject of this thread? Curious. 🙂
And any word on your Dominion commentary? Oh, what…? You didn’t get the memo? Yep, you’re doing one! 😛 Pleeeeease…? 😉
M.I.K.E.
Yeah I thnk you are looking into things too much….how many time shave you watched the Exorcist anyway?
The Exorcist, 20 times, surely.
Anyway, look, buddy, I’ve already got a psychitrist; you’re not squeezin’ any money outta me! 😀
Besides, I look deeply into things, or not at all; sometimes there’s nothing to find or learn, sure, but many times there is, and it’s things which would not have otherwise possibly (nay, probably) come to be revealed and discussed, whether we like ’em or not. Ya gotta look beyond the obvious sometimes, and one way to do that is to look deeper, speculate, and use one’s brain. On the other hand, if you’re Superman, don’t look too deep; you could
start a fire. Fires are bad news. 🙁Sincherely,
M.I.K.E.
I agree that looking into stuff is good…and interesting. Guess what I look deepy into? (if you need a hint you are not looking deeply enough…lol)
Look at him here: Just before the 6th minute of the EXORCIST: TVYNS:
Now what on earth, besides the white-eyed chap with the hammer — okay, and his being old — could have prompted this reaction? Well, if we hit REWIND for a few seconds we get this, and it almost looks like the domed church from a couple of Exorcist prequels (you might need to squint, fair enough):
So again, Merrin glimpsed the guy with the white eye. Of course, maybe he was thinking of “Eye Patch” from that episode in the cantina back in 1949 Cairo — JOKE!). But seriously, maybe he was pondering and experiencing deja vu… afterall, behind the “white eye” blacksmith, plain as day, is a specter from the past for Merrin; that certain style of ARCHitecture:
Therefore, DEJA VU. Yeah, that many archs, not just in 1947, but who knows how many since and up until 1973. In any event, I think — if not way-back-when, then certainly now with Blatty (and Friedkin) endorsing DOMINION, that this is certainly an unofficial, but very authentic case of retroactive reverse-foreshadow; something once inconsequential, but given new meaning, if one considers DOMINION to be the prequel to the Blatty/Friedkin masterwork, THE EXORCIST.
Okay, flame away, friends AND enemies. 😛
M.I.K.E.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.