CaptainHowdy.com The #1 Exorcist Fansite Since 1999
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I love the idea, Cap! Ghetto, I’m sure that she’s out there somewhere. God help us that she’s in a Planet Hollywood restaurant! 😉
My only decisive move in purchasing yet another copy of this film will depend on the extras. (Let’s face it, they always end up on youtube, so you can peruse that section to death there and determine the value).
I am hopeful that WB has a loot of goodies for us. Plus, having Blatty and Friedkin talk about the film at the various filming sites might be a plus (as long as it isn’t anything like the thing Blatty did on DVD).
Cap, I’d love to see a vote button on the opening page about which version is liked the most as you’ve done in the past for other fun or hot items. This one is a “broiler!” Is this possible?
For me, if TVYNS is the only choice, I’d prefer the same as you Ghetto. The only really quality issue was adding the spiderwalk back in provided they use the original shot without the CGI blood).
But, there’s alway a FF choice on Blu-Ray that I can take advantage of. 😉
Cap, I’m not a little disappointed … I’m a whole lot disappointed and pissed. From the news on the opening page, my two cents:
Note to William Friedkin:
Thank you, Mr. Friedkin, for screwing this up for the true fans of your original masterpiece. When I say “masterpiece,” I don’t expect the piece of trash that added 12 insipid minutes called, “The Exorcist: The Version You’ve Never Seen.” I really don’t care if you “laid upon the sword” by allowing your ego to be “crushed” by not calling it the “Director’s Cut.” [Laughs!] That’s pretty much bullshit … and you know it. TVYNS was simply a ploy to make money on one of the greatest films in cinematic history.
I am only one voice. However, your choices in editing in 1973 were supreme genius. Upon the release of TVYNS in 2000, I felt as though “your Mona Lisa” received a quick and outlandish swipe of garish lipstick and eye shadow via CGI. Perhaps you and WB enjoy CGI technology a little too much. Only crucial CGI corrections are necessary when toying with perfection. TVYNS was a smoke-and-mirrors production to update the film’s look upon its “new-century release.” Your audience is just as intelligent today as it was in 1973.
For God’s sake, just add the year “1973” to the film’s opening (those bell bottoms jeans and hairstyles are both dead giveaways); resist your temptation to add the fake CGI “shock” attempts; remove the 12 minutes of garbage; and, call the Blu-Ray version the “Director’s Cut.”
Peace!
Father Bowdern
etrigan (still love that avatar!),
You are absolutely right from the research I’ve done, too. I don’t understand how Halloran can get so mixed up on his “stories.” It doesn’t provide very much authenticity to the case when a member of the crew can’t keep his stories on track. Talk about derailing!
I thought there was a high school picture of Ronald Edwin Hunkeler on here? If not (after searching, that is), I can always upload his page and download here.
A repeat for you Ryan from the opening web page. I couldn’t agree more:
The CGI is so terribly and haphazardly done throughout the TVYNS. I am assuming that Friedkin wanted to update his film to fit (unwisely) by today’s quick and cheap shock-value standards for horror films. The Exorcist is not “Hostel” or “Saw.” The Exorcist is a masterpiece of writing, directing, acting, outstanding special effects, and sound to name a few for its era. The Exoricst cannot be “updated” to “force” a society of new viewers into believing the film is not from 1973.
I am wondering seriously if Friedkin, Blatty, or any WB executive attended at least three or more viewings of TVYNS with random audiences. The laughter coming from these audiences, regardless of their generation, should have given them a clue that what they did was a primary fuck up. 🙂
Another intriguing article (here) is a good reading. I especially like these paragraphs:
1. “R’s parents were becoming frantic. They had watched their son become unruly, even threatening to run away, and he seemed to be “on the verge of violence” (Allen 2000, 57). They sought help from a physician, who merely found the boy “somewhat high-strung,” then from a psychologist, whose opinions went unrecorded. A psychiatrist found R to be “normal,” but “declared that he did not believe the phenomena.” A Spiritualist and two Lutheran ministers were consulted (Bishop 1949, 248). One of the latter eventually advised the parents, “You have to see a Catholic priest. The Catholics know about things like this” (Allen 2000, 24).”
These series of events truly denied a disturbed teenager of psychiatric help and perhaps medications that could have solved his mental problems. However, it was 1949, and the use of psychiatric drugs (not the best at the time obviously) were probably more taboo than seeking more “professional” help from the Catholic church. The white-picket fence family in suburbia would perhaps be shamed by a mental illness in the family. However, an exorcism is shrouded tightly in secrecy.
Sideline: In The Exorcist (novel), Blatty does a bang up job of letting us know the medications are not helping Regan. The jolt that Blatty delivers is that Regan is heavily sedated just prior to the crucifix masturbation. Blatty lets the reader know more about Regan’s medical therapy and lets the reader deduce the obvious. As for the film, editing was of the essence (both pre- and working script), and we didn’t get enough lead up (IMHO) regarding Regan’s medical treatments.
2. “Was R possessed? Or did superstition mask a troubled youth’s problems and invite elaborate role-playing? Interestingly, Archbishop Ritter appointed a Jesuit philosophy professor to investigate the matter. According to a reportedly informed source, the investigator concluded that R “was not the victim of diabolical possession” (Allen 2000, 234). Without wishing to make a categorical judgment, Halloran states that R did not exhibit prodigious strength, showing nothing more than what could be summoned by an agitated teenager. As to speaking in Latin, Halloran thought that was nothing more than the boy’s having heard repetitious Latin phrases from the exorcising priest. (Or one occasion “the devil reportedly spoke school kids’ ‘pig Latin'”!)”
This is an interesting contrast on the level that Halloran did not believe R was truly possessed, yet he passes on the “diary” to Allen. Allen then follows up in his 2000 edition of Possessed with, “R was not the victim of diabolical possession” (Allen 2000, 234). WHAT? By updating his own original work, Allen is now complicating things more by including the confirming “diary’ while denouncing the possession. WHY? $$$ … maybe a, “How can I make Possessed more like The Exorcist?” Money is the root of all evil and the pun is intended. 🙂
Just my humble thoughts. “It’s all very remote.”
If anything, Bowdern or Halloran should have caught the name “Ronald” being divulged by Bishop after he typed his notes onto carbon-copy paper. Bishop would have done the typing in his room at the rectory or wherever … away from the chaos. It’s just too important to not correct that somewhere along the historical line after all these years.
A typed document can be forged easily utilizing carbon-copy paper from the 1949 era along with a typewriter during that same period. I’d like to see the actual handwritten notes taken by anyone on board … handwriting is more forensic for examination than a typewritten carbon copy.
etrigan (I’m still loving your avatar, BTW), I think there are so many stories that have been told, including the one about the diary being burned, that no one really knows anything for sure at this stage regarding authenticity.
If Halloran “provided” Allen with an authentic copy of one of the three real carbon copies (article here) of Bishop’s diary, and then Bowdern approved it, I’m lost on its release to Allen in 2000. What happened? It’s like a clash of religion over $$$ —> Halloran/Bowdern would have a “who cares now” attitude regarding Bishop (not to mention the archbishop’s request for secrecy), while Allen would be cashing in on the diary by releasing an updated version of his book, “Possessed,” in 2000 … a few years after the lousy movie with the same title came out.
I’ve envision the commercial during Saturday-morning cartoons:
“Pazuzu Bitz cereal is finally here! That’s right boys and girls, Pazuzu Bitz cereal includes a free genuine stone phallus in each and every box in three terrific neon colors! Think of how proud you’ll feel when you present your phallus collection during show-and-tell time for your grade school teacher and classmates! They’re Gr-r-reat!
[Very low-tone, almost subliminal voice-over]: “Get your parents to buy Pazuzu Bitz, Pazuzu Bitz, Pazuzu Bitz NOW, or the Devil will beat your ass with a red-hot poker to an inch of your life, you little bastard.”
[Very fast, low-tone voice-over]: “Past is not responsible for any human physical damage to the vagina, anus, or teeth due to misuse of the stone phallus. The purchaser agrees to these terms upon purchase of product at checkout.”
howdy, the diary of the exorcism of “Robbie,” “Rob Doe,” “R,” (Ronald Hunkeler) is located here. However, I personally have my doubts about the authenticity because of the grammatical mistakes throughout; i.e., forgetting to replace “Ronald” with the letter “R” in every instance (Frs. Bishop and/or Bowdern probably would not have goofed on this important detail).
This version by Thomas B. Allen supposedly includes an actual carbon copy of the “original 26-page, single-spaced typescript and three carbon copies.” I, for one, cannot find the copyrighted material online. Perhaps someone would like to share or Google it. 😉
