CaptainHowdy.com The #1 Exorcist Fansite Since 1999
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Mel Gibson WOULD be good. Theological, and packing a punch, it’d be sure to, pending a quality script… Maybe two punches. He could do it.
And any violence, blood, gore — assuming it fit the story (fat chance, but anything’s possible), and the story was actually good — he’d actually know what he was doing. This goes for any remake of the original film, or of “the prequel” (as a singular film)… or A prequel-sequel, conceivably taking place between *the prequel of your choice* and the Friedkin film. Just give Gibson an Exorcist film.
Let’s see now, looking at history: Blatty dug The Passion of the Christ… Paul Schrader’s Exorcist prequel was filmed concurrent with Gibson’s film at Cinecitta… kind of makes ya wonder of Blatty and Gibson have ever spoken. I mean, really… COINCIDENCE?! Such a film would give Gibson another “Catholic”/Christian story, and a chance to chart new cinematic territory for himself.
Anyway, his depiction of Satan in the finest film on Jesus Christ to date (considering his portraying Christ as masculine yet deeply loving toward humanity as a whole and to individuals; not a crowd-pleasing idea for many folks, but, he more or less stuck to the Gospels)…
So… where was I…? Oh yes, Satan coming up the hill with the frolicking demon kids, after the pitiful Judas Iscariot, pause it just right in a few spots and you can see a Satan looking rather iconic and creepy, like a close cousin of a one Captain Howdy. No exaggeration. Similar, no question in my mind. Go watch, and believe my words. 🙂
My 2.29 cents.
M.I.K.E.
Gang, thanks for your enthusiasm. It’s appreciated.
This is a new frontier for me, writing non-fiction. I can tell you this, though:
Yours and others’ enthusiasm has been met by the likes of Paul Schrader, Tim Silano, Clara Bellar, Julian Wadham, Ralph Brown, Eddie Osei, Ilario Bisi-Pedro, Caleb Carr, Sam Schrader, Dog Fashion Disco, and Morgan Creek… just to name a few of the Dominion camp.
Of course, a couple of those folks participated in both films. That said, I’m hoping more members of Renny Harlin’s camp see the light of this golden opportunity of mine to present the facts about both films, objectively — without vilifying a soul — and not just offer up the predictable, over-reported negative aspects, if I can possible help it. And accordingly, report on, rather, the very real and present positives both prequels do in fact possess (no pun intended).
Fortunately, even if not all of the “Beginning” key players — or very few of them — wish to chime in, there’s a veritable cornucopia of cast and crew commentary I’ve harvested from web and print articles, guaranteeing a balance of content to this book; there just may be a noticeable excess of new and fresh “Schrader/Dominion” material in comparison to “Harlin/Beginning”. Such is life sometimes, so I make due, right? RIGHT? Right.
But ultimately, folks will find oodles upon oodles of insight and facts to read and ponder, about either film they desire to study. Trivia buffs will, predictably, also find triva. Something for everyone, whether you admire or despise one or both dueling prequels to The Exorcist.
Accept no substitutes. Ego te provoco.
Yours (until my body rots and lies stinking in the earth),
MG
RatBoy, I should have specified, that’s the trailer. Heh. 😉
Anyhoo, thank you for your enthusiasm for the book.
Best,
M.I.K.E.
Good stuff, Ryan. Thanks for sharing. Better late than never. Quite literally — BETTER. It’s good editorial. Great to get a fresh perspective from someone who’d never seen it. 🙂
M.I.K.E.
Happy viewing, Ryan! 😉 3 years, and both of ’em? Unthinkable…! 😛
Looking forward to your weigh-ins on those two flicks.
M.I.K.E.
Thanks, Erik. DITTO!
SC, I’ll be covering all these mysteries/mistakes in different ways in EAE, so I’m optimistic you will find some satisfaction. I, too, am somewhat mystified by some of the same things.
But regarding the dream sequence, not every dream human beings have means or features elements that mean much of anything; it’s half the time, at least, a mixed-upside-down bag, not always the straightforward dream narrative Friedkin and Blatty craft for expoisitional effect.
Incidentally, Schrader and co. really went out of their way to be different from the Friedkin and Blatty films of the series, making a dream sequence that he even admits means little. However, he would be quite wrong; the bandaged guy turns out to be Merrin himself, and the woman with the bloody hand and bullet-holed neck, by virtue of their reprises in the final act of the film thanks to Merrin getting to “time travel for a shot at freedom”, it is then that they are assigned meaning; just by virtue of juxtaposition. The demon appearing in the dream, it should be self-explanatory, and thus has meaning by default. The dream was foreshadow, through and through.
Then, aside from all of this, if we consider that dreams are open to interpretation, some filmmakers like to go completely all-out. Schrader, though, only somewhat, here. Who hasn’t had really strange dreams? Who hasn’t had really straight-forward, true-to-life dreams?
It could be argued that Schrader was being realistic and true to life, after all, that Friedkin and Blatty with their fairly straightforward dream narratives were writing their audiences off as having no imagination. Even the dream sequence in The Heretic is vaild, arguably; or invalid, arguably. Jut like these other discussed dream sequences,
Now a photograph, it doesn’t lie. But a human brain in dream mode…? Anything goes.
Two cents.
MG
I think I heard that, EKM. Incidentally, del Toro ought to be the one to remake The Exorcist. Great choice, anyway.
M.I.K.E.
Hello, Scrupulous Conscience. Thank you for your interest. Here’s my take, as requested. 🙂
Unique stories deserve case studies. That’s how observers or employers of a given subject matter can learn and grow, arguably the only way; books teach, and it’s an amazing thing to have so many to choose from — the more unique ones also tend to be more compelling.
Two dueling Exorcist prequel films. One greenlit, shot, and promptly shelved and replaced with a veritable instant-remake with the same star, select supporting actors, the same sets, same composer, same cinematographer… and months after that film’s DVD hit, the Schrader’s version got a theatrical release and eventual DVD immortalization.
This just doesn’t happen every day. 🙂
When people spend $100 million and end up with two films of virtually the same story, and neither does particularly well to make one or both worth all the time, energy and money spent, it’s too good to leave the story confined to a finite, minimal presentation in movie mags that eventually are only ever read by film fans, or skimpy online articles that can go MIA when the subject is no longer genuinely “news”. No. For a couple of such ugly, bad, and GOOD movies, they deserve better; a definitive book as EVIL AGAINT EVIL: THE PREQUELS TO THE EXORCIST will be of great value, looking for the known and unknown story, all 360 degrees of it without hundreds of dollars spent on magazine back issues with only a fraction of the overall story and no further, unearthed genuine, substantial news/insights direct from the testimonies of key players. Anything I can do to indirectly or directly promote the film that started it all, William Friedkin and William Peter Blatty’s THE EXORCIST, the original classic, the better.
This is a unique episode in the history of cinema, let alone horror cinema. I don’t blame you nor others for not being fans of the finished products — rather, end results — Schrader and Harlin served up. But it’s a compelling case that growing mountains of ongoing research and interviews are proving that the work and intentions by all involved tell a story long overshadowed by the controversy and unintended mediocrity the two films have to present.
Thank you for your honest and respectful skepticism, Scrupulous Conscience. It keeps us writers walking the fine line, doing our job as it should be done. 😉
Yours,
