The Exorcist Thread

[Silver Nemesis]

I admire William Friedkin's The Exorcist (1973) tremendously. I think it's a masterpiece, and while it isn't my favourite horror film ever made I think it is objectively the greatest (that's an unoriginal perspective, I know, but it's one I happen to agree with). I own the original novel and a copy of the screenplay, and I visited many of the locations where the film was shot in Georgetown, Washington D.C. back in August 2008. I even got to walk up and down the famous Exorcist steps and visit the chapel at Georgetown University. I know a lot of people prefer the theatrical cut, but I tend to favour the 2000 director's cut by a slight margin. They're both excellent though.

The film's supernatural horror predicates on the unsettling notion of transcendent evil – of malevolence that goes beyond any rational human motive and seeks to inflict suffering for the sake of provoking despair and eradicating hope. The effect of this horror is best seen on the character of Father Damien Karras, whose fragile faith is the battleground upon which the story's theological conflict is waged. On a more secular level, the movie confronts the viewer with the anguish of a mother who is forced to watch her child suffer while being powerless to help her. What's more frightening than being ill and not knowing what's wrong with you? How about if someone close to you, your own child, is sick and you don't know how to help her? What's more terrifying than the idea of a monster wanting to molest your child? How about if that monster is literally in control of your child's body and is forcing her to torment herself? These ideas prey on our darkest fears to harrowing effect, and the film's impact, for me at least, doesn't diminish on repeated viewing. If anything, its power increases the more times I watch it. That's a rare thing.

The Exorcist is superb filmmaking on a technical level, and the clever use of lighting and cinematography contributes to the mounting sense of dread that intensifies as the story progresses. The movie takes place in October, and the early sequences are coloured by a cosy autumnal atmosphere bathed in the warm reds and browns of the Halloween season. The colour temperature gradually lowers as the horror intensifies, until by the final act we're immersed in an unnatural shade of purple and the actors' breaths can be seen fogging the cold air. The growing intensity is also reflected in the performances, and you can feel the protagonists' physical and spiritual reserves depleting as they endure the onslaught of Pazuzu's torments. By the end of the film the viewer feels almost as exhausted as the characters they're watching, and the final scene brings with it a cathartic sense of relief that the nightmare is finally over.

The editing is top notch as well. One of the most haunting moments in the director's cut occurs when the screen cuts to black following the spider-walk scene. We have the shock image of the blood issuing from Regan's mouth, then we quickly cut to black and are left in darkness for several seconds while the disturbing afterimage lingers in our minds. It's far more effective than if the camera had dwelt on the image of the blood, or if Friedkin had just transitioned straight to the next scene. Instead, that little pause makes us contemplate what we've just witnessed. It also gives the viewer a brief window in which to calm down before the next scene begins. There are other moments of respite elsewhere in the movie, where we're taken away from the horror and allowed to relax for a short while. These scenes function like a pressure release valve, lulling us into calm before Friedkin hits us with the next horrifying scene. That way we never become inured to the horror, and each time we return to it there's a sense of escalation; of each disturbing set piece being more shocking than the last. Needless to say the makeup and special effects are outstanding.

A response I've observed many times, particularly on the internet, is when someone sees The Exorcist for the first time and remarks on how overrated it is. "Is that it? That's supposed to be the scariest movie ever made? That's what the hype was all about?" This response is especially common in youngsters, and indeed my own reaction upon first seeing the film as a teenager was exactly this. I genuinely didn't find it frightening and couldn't see what all the fuss was about. I saw it several more times as a teen and reacted the same way. It wasn't until I watched the film again in my early twenties that I started to see it differently. Then I started to appreciate how well made it was, and then it started to disturb me on a profound level. Even if someone doesn't find The Exorcist frightening (fear is, after all, subjective), they should at least be able to appreciate how well written, acted, shot and edited it is.

Then there are the sequels...

In general, I don't think The Exorcist works as a franchise. It does however succeed as a trilogy. And as a trilogy, I view it as a serious artistic work and the magnum opus of writer William Peter Blatty. According to Mark Kermode, who is the number one expert on the subject of The Exorcist (he's produced several books and documentaries about it and frequently argues that the 1973 film is the greatest movie ever made), Blatty considered The Ninth Configuration (1980) to be the true sequel to The Exorcist. Blatty wrote and directed The Ninth Configuration based on his 1966 novel Twinkle Twinkle Killer Kane. He wrote and directed The Exorcist III based on his 1983 novel Legion. And of course Blatty also wrote the Oscar-winning screenplay for the first Exorcist film based on his 1971 novel of the same name. These three movies constitute what Blatty referred to as his 'Faith Trilogy', and I consider them to comprise the real Exorcist trilogy.

Blatty wrote all three of these films and directed two of them. His directorial style has been compared to that of David Lynch, but Blatty is more cerebral than Lynch and there's a clear thematic thread connecting these three movies.

On the surface, The Ninth Configuration doesn't appear to have any obvious connections to The Exorcist. There are no references to Pazuzu or any of the events in the first film, and the horror that manifests in the second half of TNC is more psychological than supernatural. Its connection to The Exorcist is more thematic. According to Blatty, the two stories take place in the same universe. One of the main characters in TNC is an Apollo astronaut named Captain Billy Cutshaw, and Cutshaw is the same Apollo astronaut that attended the party at the MacNeil residence in the first Exorcist film. He's the one Regan tells "You're going to die up there." You find out in TNC that he never went to the moon owing to a mental breakdown he suffered on the eve of his launch. In The Exorcist he was played by Dick Callinan, while in The Ninth Configuration he's play by Scott Wilson. But it's the same character.

The Ninth Configuration is a strange and unique film, and that makes it rather difficult to describe. Before turning to horror, Blatty was an accomplished writer of comedy. Among other projects, he wrote A Shot in the Dark (1964), which is easily the best entry in the Pink Panther series and one of the funniest films ever made. The Ninth Configuration combines his aptitude for humour with his skill at horror, and the result is like a cross between One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975) and Jacob's Ladder (1990). The first half of the movie plays out like a black comedy set in a military mental hospital, while the second half takes a darker and more disturbing turn into psychological horror, touching upon themes of nihilism, PTSD, guilt transference and dissociative fugue states. I shan't say any more about the plot, since there's a major twist in the middle of the film that I'd hate to spoil, but it's a surprisingly complex film that veers drastically (some might say clumsily) from one tonal extreme to another.

The Ninth Configuration is also connected to The Exorcist through its philosophical and theological themes. With The Exorcist Blatty was exploring the idea of transcendent evil, while in The Ninth Configuration he's exploring the concept of transcendent good. Specifically through the character of Kane and the recurring themes of compassion and self sacrifice. Kane is portrayed by the Phantasm himself, Stacy Keach. He's backed by an excellent supporting cast that includes Scott Wilson, Ed Flanders, Jason Miller (Miller appears in all three entries in Blatty's trilogy, but this is the only one in which he doesn't portray Karras), Robert Loggia, Tom Atkins and Joe Spinell. I've also got to mention Moses Gunn, who appears as the first black Superman. Or rather a mental patient who thinks he's Superman and keeps switching back and forth between his costumed and civilian identities.

If my description of the movie's tone is confusing, that's because it's funny and disturbing in equal measure. While the first half veers more towards comedy, the second half is more violent and dramatic. The final act contains an intense slow burn sequence taking place in a bar which culminates in one of the greatest barroom brawls in movie history. It's also a very well written film full of quotable lines and memorable characters. The script earned Blatty the 1981 Golden Globe for best screenplay and it was also nominated in the best picture and best supporting actor (Scott Wilson) categories. Like The Exorcist III, its Rotten Tomatoes score has been gradually creeping up over the past few years as more and more critics are reappraising it and learning to appreciate its merits.

Some might describe The Ninth Configuration as weird, undisciplined or pretentious, and the tone is glaringly uneven, but I honestly think it's great. It's a really fascinating unique piece of American cinema that deserves more recognition than it gets. Apparently Blatty financed much of the film's budget out of his own pocket, which would explain why the finished product so strongly reflects his personal vision and creative idiosyncrasies. And as Blatty himself said, it's the middle entry in his trilogy that thematically connects The Exorcist with The Exorcist III. It's a film that I think needs to be seen more than once to fully appreciate it, as the first viewing can be a little overwhelming, but it's also the kind of movie that rewards analysis and intelligent consideration from the viewer. There's nothing in the plot that makes it essential viewing for Exorcist fans, but it's one of only three films that Blatty acknowledged as being part of the Exorcist canon and it is thematically integral to the trilogy as a whole.

The Exorcist III is the second of the two films Blatty directed. I wish he'd directed more movies, and had he done so I think he would have ranked among the best cult auteur filmmakers of that era. The Exorcist III should really be called Legion, which was the title of the novel from which it was adapted, but the studio insisted on it having the word 'Exorcist' in the title. Blatty's original cut didn't even contain an exorcism sequence, but the studio made him go back and shoot one for the theatrical version. A rough assembly of Blatty's original version was released by Scream Factory in 2016, but unfortunately it was pieced together from elements of inconsistent quality. The original film prints of Blatty's cut were lost, and so video transfers of the missing scenes were used to fill the gaps. This results in jarring shifts in picture and sound quality, but it still makes for a fascinating insight into what the film might originally have been like. I'd recommend newcomers start with the theatrical cut first, then check out the Legion/director's cut if they're interested.

The plot of The Exorcist III focuses on Inspector William F. Kinderman, the detective played by Lee J. Cobb in the first Exorcist film. Kinderman had a smaller role in the first movie than he did in the original Exorcist novel, but Blatty makes up for this by making him the central protagonist in The Exorcist III. This time he's played by George C. Scott, since Cobb passed away in 1976. The plot sees Kinderman investigating what appears to be a copycat serial killer who is terrorising Georgetown using the same MO as the deceased 'Gemini Killer'. His investigation leads him to Patient X, a mysterious John Doe locked away in a mental ward, who bears a striking resemblance to the late Father Damien Karras. Karras of course died at the end of the first Exorcist film, but now he is apparently alive again and claiming to be possessed by the Gemini Killer. The Gemini tells Kinderman that the 'master' (Pazuzu) helped him reanimate and take possession of Karras as revenge for Damien's role in the exorcism of Regan MacNeil, so the plot does connect directly with that of Friedkin's movie. Pazuzu doesn't appear in Blatty's original cut and is only mentioned, but the reshot ending of the theatrical version climaxes with an elaborate special effects sequence in which Pazuzu takes possession of Karras

In the final cut of the film, Patient X looks like Karras but physically transforms into James Venamun/the Gemini Killer when talking with Kinderman. So Jason Miller, as Karras, suddenly becomes Brad Dourif, who is playing the Gemini. This wasn't the case in Blatty's original cut. Originally Miller wasn't even in the film and Dourif was playing Karras. So there was no transformation. Patient X only ever looked like Dourif, and photographs depicting a young Karras showed him portrayed by Dourif.

Then the reshoots took place, during which Jason Miller was brought back to play Karras and Dourif's role was reduced to that of James Venamun. This required many of the most compelling scenes in the film, namely those between Scott and Dourif, to be rerecorded. You can see the original versions of their conversations in the Legion/director's cut while the theatrical edit features the reshot scenes. Some fans have voiced preference for the ending of the theatrical cut over Blatty's original version, and I can understand why. The theatrical ending includes Pazuzu, gore, lots of special effects and an actual exorcism, none of which occur in the finale of Blatty's original cut. Instead the director's cut ends with a shorter and more subtle verbal confrontation between Kinderman and the Gemini Killer, and Pazuzu never appears. I personally prefer the ending to Blatty's original cut, but I can see why others like the theatrical version better.

There's a particular jump scare in the Exorcist III which is often highlighted as being one of the best in movie history. If you haven't seen the film yet, then don't read any more about that scene or it'll ruin it for you. I've noticed lots of comments online from people saying that they were disappointed after getting hyped for the jump scare, or that they watched the relevant scene on YouTube and found it underwhelming. But of course it was going to disappoint them if they were expecting it. The whole reason it works on the unsuspecting viewer is the way Blatty lulls them into a sense of relaxation immediately before it happens. If you're not expecting it, it's one of the most startling jump scares ever. My advice is to not research it in advance, but just let it hit you. You'll enjoy it more. Another thing to look out for is the blink-and-you'll-miss-it shot of a desecrated statue resembling a certain comic book villain. The Ninth Configuration had Moses Gunn as Superman, and The Exorcist III has a Joker statue.

The central themes of The Exorcist III connect with those of both Friedkin's film and The Ninth Configuration, with Kinderman struggling to fend off nihilism and despair (much like Cutshaw in TNC) and retain his belief in good despite the tremendous evil and suffering his job exposes him to on a daily business. It's not as gruelling as the first Exorcist film, nor quite as funny or cerebral as The Ninth Configuration. Instead it fits somewhere in between those two films, with the emphasis on police procedural elements and the Gemini plot foreshadowing other nineties serial killer movies like The Silence of the Lambs (1991) and Se7en (1995). The cast brings back Scott Wilson and Ed Flanders from The Ninth Configuration, only here they're playing different characters. There's also a really weird dream sequence in which Samuel L. Jackson and Fabio make cameos. Again, it's Lynchian touches like that which make me wish Blatty had directed more movies. All in all, The Exorcist III is a satisfying albeit flawed conclusion to Blatty's Faith Trilogy and a good horror film in its own right. It was unfairly dismissed on its initial release, but in recent years its reputation has thankfully begun to improve.

This post's already ridiculously long so I'll stop here. I just wanted to share my thoughts on these three films and the ways in which they connect to form one of the most compelling horror trilogies in cinema history. Of course there were other entries in the Exorcist franchise, but these were the only three films that Blatty, the original creator, acknowledged as being part of the canon. They were the only three he wrote and all three were adapted from his novels. I'll post my thoughts on the other 'apocryphal' Exorcist films at a later time.

[thecolorsblend]

I tend to prefer more grounded horror stuff like slasher movies. If it has to go in a more fantasy direction, I usually prefer monsters like vampires, werewolves, etc.

The paranormal/demonic stuff... it just gets to me. It might be that I believe stuff like that can actually happen. And if it does, there are not very many defenses against it.

Having said that, The Exorcist is a superb example of its genre. I think what works for me is the mystery/thriller aspect where the characters try to figure out what the deal is and stuff gradually gets more and more out of control with every manifestation that occurs.

I have only seen the initial film; none of the sequels.

At one point, apparently Friedkin was supposed to direct The Ninth Configuration. So, I'm wondering if Blatty inserted the comic book characters as an enticement. Fun fact: Before Donner came along, the Salkinds adored The Exorcist and attempted to woo Friedkin to direct Superman: The Movie. Turns out, Friedkin was VERY interested in Superman as well. It's Hollywood tho. So, whatever happened happened and the Salkinds ultimately settled on Donner. Friedkin is said to have deeply regretted missing out on Superman.

So, I'm wondering if Blatty didn't include those comic book references as sort of like a consolation prize for Friedkin. Something in his usual genre but a few comic book references for fun. And since Blatty ultimately directed the movie, I'm guessing those comic book references weren't enough to convince Friedkin to be the director.

Anyway.

[The Joker]

Thanks for creating this thread, Silver.

I've had a passing interest in The Exorcist for years now, but have only recently taken the plunge in finding out more about these films. Recently, I went thru the trouble of investigating the differences between each and every DVD/Blu ray release, and settled on making it a point to purchase the 1997 DVD edition due to the original Saul Bass WB opening logo remaining intact (supposedly the only edition that doesn't resort to using the more known WB shield opening logo), as well as the original color timing (particularly during the final exorcism section where Pazuzu's true form makes a brief cameo). I'm admittedly a stickler in wanting to watch this movie as closely as to what audiences witnessed during a original theatrical run, and I wanted to get invested in what was presented way back in 1973 with the original film.

Having said that, I'm sure I will soon purchase one of the more recently anniversary blus in order to see the other cut(s), as well as to listen to the various commentary tracks and extras. Back to the movie, like Colors, I have only seen the original as of this post, but I can safely say that The Exorcist did not disappoint. It's a pretty powerful film about faith, relentless demoralization and despair, yet finding the strength to rise above and leave the viewer with a sense of hope by the end. I can understand how/why some people (especially teens) these days would be rather dismissive of such a film now, but like Silver stated, you pick up on things you might have initially missed during the 1st viewing, and really, the subliminals with this are truly something quite to behold.

A absolutely powerful piece of art by William Friedkin to be perfectly honest.

Silver, I'm sure I'll be using your posts in this thread as something of a reference/study guide as I eventually make my way thru the sequels. Right now, I'm kinda torn on if I want to watch (despite being aware of it's negative rep) The Exorcist II to follow up on with what happened to Linda Blair's Regan MacNeil character, or just go straight to The Ninth Configuration. I'm interested in both, and genuinely would like to see both, before I go into The Exorcist III and it's theatrical/Legion cuts.

I would be lying if I said I wasn't at least "curious" about the upcoming proposed Blumhouse trilogy. I mean, I don't have any illusions that it can go anywhere near the 'lightning in a bottle' kinda reaction that the original received in 1973, but I think David Gordon Green has a directorial style that could possibly fit in suitably well within the Exorcist premise. A lot remains to be seen though...

[Silver Nemesis]

I tend to prefer more grounded horror stuff like slasher movies. If it has to go in a more fantasy direction, I usually prefer monsters like vampires, werewolves, etc.

The paranormal/demonic stuff... it just gets to me. It might be that I believe stuff like that can actually happen. And if it does, there are not very many defenses against it.

I know what you mean. The Exorcist is not a comfortable film to watch. There are other horror films that I like more, simply because they're more fun to revisit. But the fact I've never become desensitised to Friedkin's film the way I have to practically every other horror movie is a testament to its power. A key factor is that Blatty and Friedkin took the theological themes seriously. Two of the priests in the film, Father Dyer and Father Tom, were portrayed by real Jesuits who also served as technical advisors, and Georgetown University was complicit in the movie's production. A major problem with most Exorcist imitators is that they don't take the underlying ideas seriously, or they handle them in a predictable and superficial manner. Consequently they end up imitating the 1973 film's visuals and set pieces without ever capturing its depth.

Many of the most memorable special effects in The Exorcist – such as the projectile vomiting and 360-degree head rotation – could easily have veered into farce, as the innumerable Exorcist spoofs have so amusingly demonstrated. But Friedkin managed to walk a fine line of making it all work without ever going too far. The Exorcist is the only horror film I can think of that feels suggestive and subtle, but is also graphically explicit. Usually a horror movie is one or the other, since the subtle approach tends to preclude explicitness and vice versa. But The Exorcist strikes me as somehow being implicit and explicit at the same time. Maybe it's because it's working on several different levels that it manages to do this, but that paradoxical quality is one of the things that elevates it for me. Offhand, the only other film I can think of that accomplishes something similar is Kubrick's The Shining (1980), being both suggestive and graphic without either quality detracting from the other.

At one point, apparently Friedkin was supposed to direct The Ninth Configuration. So, I'm wondering if Blatty inserted the comic book characters as an enticement. Fun fact: Before Donner came along, the Salkinds adored The Exorcist and attempted to woo Friedkin to direct Superman: The Movie. Turns out, Friedkin was VERY interested in Superman as well. It's Hollywood tho. So, whatever happened happened and the Salkinds ultimately settled on Donner. Friedkin is said to have deeply regretted missing out on Superman.

So, I'm wondering if Blatty didn't include those comic book references as sort of like a consolation prize for Friedkin. Something in his usual genre but a few comic book references for fun. And since Blatty ultimately directed the movie, I'm guessing those comic book references weren't enough to convince Friedkin to be the director.

I didn't know about this. A Superman movie directed by Friedkin would have been something special. Unquestionably, he was one of the greatest filmmakers of the Hollywood New Wave. I think The Exorcist is his best work, but The French Connection (1971), Sorcerer (1977) and To Live and Die in L.A. (1985) are all excellent films as well. It's interesting that the Salkinds hired Donner based on The Omen, since that's a movie film historians frequently compare with The Exorcist. Personally, I've never been a huge fan of The Omen. It's a good film. It's well made and well acted and I like Jerry Goldsmith's score. But I've never thought it was a great film, and I certainly don't place it in the same league as The Exorcist. Yet if it wasn't for The Omen, then I suupose Donner wouldn't have made Superman.

Was Friedkin interested in directing films based on other DC properties? His knack for crime thrillers would've made him a suitable pick for Batman. He also knew how to handle action. The car chase in The French Connection is legendary, but if anything I'd say the car chase in To Live and Die in L.A. is even better.

Imagine a gritty and realistic Batmobile sequence shot and edited like that. This is what the Tumbler chase in Batman Begins should have been like.

On the subject of Friedkin, he directed an interesting documentary back in 2017 called The Devil and Father Amorth all about the Vatican's chief exorcist. It got a very mixed response from critics and viewers, but I enjoyed it. The biggest criticism of the film was levelled at a sequence depicting a real exorcism in which the subject's vocalisations sound as though they've been distorted and exaggerated in postproduction. Friedkin denied altering the audio in any way and claims that this is what the woman's voice was really like, but to be honest it does sound a little suspect to me. If her voice really did change like that... damn.

I've had a passing interest in The Exorcist for years now, but have only recently taken the plunge in finding out more about these films. Recently, I went thru the trouble of investigating the differences between each and every DVD/Blu ray release, and settled on making it a point to purchase the 1997 DVD edition due to the original Saul Bass WB opening logo remaining intact (supposedly the only edition that doesn't resort to using the more known WB shield opening logo), as well as the original color timing (particularly during the final exorcism section where Pazuzu's true form makes a brief cameo). I'm admittedly a stickler in wanting to watch this movie as closely as to what audiences witnessed during a original theatrical run, and I wanted to get invested in what was presented way back in 1973 with the original film.

There's a strong argument to be made that that's the best version of the film, and it's certainly the most appropriate for recapturing the experience of the original audience. There are controversial aspects to the director's cut, such as the fact Friedkin's use of effects and subliminal imagery is a lot less subtle than in the original version. Those are fair criticisms. I suppose I might just favour the director's cut because it's the one I've watched the most times as an adult. It's definitely worth seeing, but you're right to start with the earlier version.

Silver, I'm sure I'll be using your posts in this thread as something of a reference/study guide as I eventually make my way thru the sequels. Right now, I'm kinda torn on if I want to watch (despite being aware of it's negative rep) The Exorcist II to follow up on with what happened to Linda Blair's Regan MacNeil character, or just go straight to The Ninth Configuration. I'm interested in both, and genuinely would like to see both, before I go into The Exorcist III and it's theatrical/Legion cuts.

I am seriously tempted to sit down and watch Exorcist II: The Heretic right the way through, but I don't really want to buy the DVD. If it was available on Netflix or Amazon Prime, or if it was on TV, I'd watch it. But if I purchase the DVD or Blu-ray I fear I'll probably just watch it once and then give it to a charity shop. I think I've seen most of the film in bits and pieces, and it strikes me as being a studio-driven enterprise made by people who wanted to recapture the commercial success of the first film without necessarily understanding what made it so great to begin with. John Boorman is a skilled director and he's made some classic films over the years – particularly Hell in the Pacific (1968), Deliverance (1972), Excalibur (1981) and Hope and Glory (1987) – but I don't think he was the right person to helm an Exorcist sequel. And Blatty's lack of involvement in the writing must have been a major detriment.

Another fear I have is that since Exorcist II revisits scenes from the first film it might damage my enjoyment of its predecessor. Then again, Martin Scorsese actually preferred the second movie to the first. And unlike me, Scorsese has watched Exorcist II in its entirety. I'm speaking from a position of ignorance. He isn't. So maybe Exorcist II has hidden qualities that are worth searching for. If you do watch it Joker, or if anyone else on the site does, then I'd be genuinely interested to hear your thoughts. Is Exorcist II underrated or is it truly as awful as most people say?

While we're at it, has anyone seen Paul Schrader's Dominion: Prequel to the Exorcist (2005)? I've seen Exorcist: The Beginning (2004), the theatrically released prequel which I gather was entirely reshot by Renny Harlin. But I've heard that Schrader's version is better. William Peter Blatty seemed to favour Schrader's cut over Harlin's, which would make it the only other Exorcist-related film that Blatty showed any positivity towards. Neither of the prequels has particularly high audience ratings online though, so I'm not overly optimistic. But I'd be curious to see just how different Schrader's prequel film is to Harlin's and if it is indeed superior. I've looked on YouTube for a video essay that might detail the differences, but there doesn't seem to be an in-depth analysis of the subject. James Rolfe posted a video about the two prequels a few years ago, but he doesn't show any clips from either film to illustrate the differences or commit to saying which is better.

I would be lying if I said I wasn't at least "curious" about the upcoming proposed Blumhouse trilogy. I mean, I don't have any illusions that it can go anywhere near the 'lightning in a bottle' kinda reaction that the original received in 1973, but I think David Gordon Green has a directorial style that could possibly fit in suitably well within the Exorcist premise. A lot remains to be seen though...

Yeah, I'm trying to keep an open mind about it too. Blumhouse produced some of my favourite horror films of the past decade, and the recent Halloween movies restored a level of dignity to that franchise that had been missing for a while. I don't think an Exorcist reboot is necessary, but if it has to happen then I'd rather it was Blumhouse handling it than most other studios. We'll definitely track the progress of the new films in this thread as more info becomes available.

[thecolorsblend]

Was Friedkin interested in directing films based on other DC properties? His knack for crime thrillers would've made him a suitable pick for Batman. He also knew how to handle action. The car chase in The French Connection is legendary, but if anything I'd say the car chase in To Live and Die in L.A. is even better.

Not that I ever heard about. Back in those days, WB didn't control Superman on film. The Salkinds owned the film rights to all things Superman. So, offering Batman as an alternative or a consolation prize wasn't possible.

Still, you and I aren't the only ones wondering what a late Seventies/early Eighties Friedkin Batman film might've been like.

On the subject of Friedkin, he directed an interesting documentary back in 2017 called The Devil and Father Amorth all about the Vatican's chief exorcist. It got a very mixed response from critics and viewers

I must count myself among them, sadly.

There are simply too many questions. The Catholic Church has always been reluctant to allow exorcisms to be recorded. For that matter, they've always been reluctant to allow outsiders to participate. You can search up a series of interviews with Adam Blai on YouTube. He's a Catholic layman who, due to a gigantic variety of special circumstances, frequently assists with exorcisms with the permission of his diocese. His bishop at one point instructed him to grant interviews about his experiences in order to raise awareness of what the Church teaches is the very real danger concerning the forces of darkness. That's why his statements might be the most forthcoming public discussion the Catholic Church has ever engaged in when it comes to these matters. Still, Blai's circumstances are highly unusual and highly unlikely to ever be repeated. He's also got a lot of wild stories, incidentally.

So, it raises a TON of questions for me as to how and why the Vatican's chief exorcist would permit an outsider (and particularly Friedkin) to create a for-profit feature film out of a possession case.

There are many issues to be discussed with this. And frankly, it's a conversation we might better have in PM's since it veers into religious territory concerning actual cases of possession/oppression/infestation.

In brief, however, I will say that there are many elements of the Fr. Amorth movie that just plain don't add up for me. I don't completely know what to think about it.

The biggest criticism of the film was levelled at a sequence depicting a real exorcism in which the subject's vocalisations sound as though they've been distorted and exaggerated in postproduction. Friedkin denied altering the audio in any way and claims that this is what the woman's voice was really like, but to be honest it does sound a little suspect to me. If her voice really did change like that... damn.

Not sure what to think of that either. On the one hand, I want to say that if Friedkin was determined to embellish his movie, he would've included some The Exorcist-style shock effects. The stair spider-walk and the like.

On the other hand, the Fr. Amorth thing was clearly a shoestring operation and pitching someone's voice in weird ways is super cheap to do.

I could see that either way, honestly.

[Silver Nemesis]

Amorth strikes me as something of a maverick, which is perhaps why Friedkin was drawn to him. When it came to warning people about the dangers of possession, Amorth advocated preventative measures as preferable to curative. That's why he endorsed cautionary films like The Exorcist. Despite certain obvious theatrical embellishments, The Exorcist showed the spiritual, emotional and psychological dangers of possession and quite literally put the fear of God into the audience. In the same way that a film showing the harmful effects of drug addiction might deter someone from experimenting in narcotics, Amorth was keen to deter people from engaging in any act that might incur a spiritual sickness (e.g. dabbling in the occult or messing around with Ouija boards). He probably saw Friedkin's documentary as another way of accomplishing that end and participated in the hope of dissuading people from exposing themselves to harm. I'm sure there are many other Catholic exorcists who feel embarrassed by the documentary and would rather these matters were handled discreetly, but Amorth had his own agenda and I believe his ultimate goal was to educate and protect the unwary.

The motives of 'Christina', the woman portrayed in the documentary's exorcism footage, are less clear. She seemed willing to share her experience with the public, but then she and her partner attempted to revoke that permission for reasons unknown. Or did they? We only have Friedkin's word to go on. And the incident he describes in the church, which is not captured on film, sounds more dramatic than anything else depicted in the documentary. Did it happen? Is he exaggerating? Or was 'Christina' merely a woman suffering from mental health problems who changed her mind about having her ordeal documented on film? We'll probably never know. It's important to remember that the documentary came out after Amorth died. This factor afforded Friedkin more creative license than he might have had if Amorth had been alive to dispute the film's content. I'm not saying Friedkin definitely did fabricate or intentionally distort events depicted in the documentary (though it seems highly probable that he did), but if that were the case then I wouldn't hold Amorth complicit in the deception.

This discussion has inspired me to go back and re-watch some of the Exorcist films over the past few days. On revisiting the Legion cut of Exorcist III, I've decided that I actually prefer the theatrical cut. The Legion cut is still very good, but the theatrical version just feels more complete. More polished. There are definitely things I like better about the Legion cut, but on balance I think the theatrical version edges it out slightly.

I also recently revisited Exorcist: The Beginning. My opinion on that movie hasn't changed. Two major problems I have with that film are that it lacks the verisimilitude that made the best entries in the franchise so believable, and that it fails to convincingly evoke its East African setting. On the latter point, almost every location shot is encircled by a wall of rock that limits the geographical scope to that of a small set. Occasionally the camera moves above the rock to afford us a glimpse of the unconvincing digital landscape that lies beyond. But the result resembles something from a noughties TV show. I never really believed the characters were in Kenya, and the final shot of Merrin strolling through St. Peter's Square is one of the worst green screen effects I've seen in a film of this vintage. The quality of the digital effects in general is poor, with the worst example being the CG hyenas. The make-up and practical effects are good, but anything involving chroma key composition or CG imagery looks dated and cheap.

The bad effects work also contributes to the lack of verisimilitude I mentioned earlier. One of the reasons Friedkin's film is so effective is that it feels grounded. Chris doesn't instantly seek a spiritual solution to her daughter's sickness, but rather acts the way a real mother would by first pursing every avenue of medical science. She consults doctors, specialists, psychiatrists, and it's only when every other option has been exhausted that she turns in desperation to the church. The futility aroused by that fruitless process of investigation only adds to the horror, and the angiography scene in particular is one of the most painful to watch. The ordinary setting of Georgetown also feels believable, and before they expose us to any excesses of supernatural horror Blatty and Friedkin first take their time presenting us with vignettes of everyday life that establish the initial state or normality. That normality is gradually disrupted in such a way that preserves the film's verisimilitude as the supernatural elements are introduced by degrees. If the movie had opened with the exorcism scene it wouldn't have worked as well. The excesses of that final sequence had to be earned by the preceding escalation.

In contrast, Harlin's film doesn't bother to establish a believable status quo. Instead we're thrown in at the deep end, with heavy use of CG effects and orangey-yellow lens filters that are typical of noughties horror flicks. Consequently the film's aesthetic leans towards stylisation rather than realism, and this makes the over-the-top set pieces feel even further removed from reality. Harlin tries to shock the viewer, likely in an attempt to match the impact of Friedkin's film, and this results in some suitably horrible imagery: a little girl being shot in the head by a Nazi officer, a small boy screaming in agony as he's torn apart by hyenas, maggots crawling on a stillborn baby as its bloody corpse is presented before its devastated mother. But the film just isn't frightening, and the violence, which is more excessive than any other entry in the series, feels less meaningful than it ought to.

The performances generally aren't bad, and there is some striking imagery. The basic premise of the movie also has a lot of potential, and perhaps that potential was better actualised in Schrader's Dominion. I assume the script for Dominion was better, as the script for Harlin's film comes across as heavy-handed and conspicuously lacking in wit. It attempts to tackle serious themes of faith and despair – themes which were much better handled by Blatty – but the film's theological pretensions aren't particularly thought-provoking and tend to get buried beneath the chaos of the action scenes. All in all, it's a pretty bad film and not one I would recommend. It's watchable enough, but it fails to capitalise on its interesting premise and feels unworthy of the best instalments of the franchise (i.e. Friedkin's film, TNC and The Exorcist III).

Here's how I would rank the films in the series, starting with the best:

•   The Exorcist: Director's Cut (2000)
•   The Exorcist (1973) theatrical cut
•   The Ninth Configuration (1980)
•   The Exorcist III (1990) theatrical cut
•   The Exorcist III: Legion (1990) director's cut
•   Exorcist: The Beginning (2004)

Now I just need to see The Heretic and Dominion.

Here are a few more observations concerning The Ninth Configuration.

The final scene of TNC has parallels with the final scene of the first Exorcist film. Both end with the passing of a medal (a Saint Joseph medal in The Exorcist and a Saint Christopher medal in TNC) as characters drive away from the building in which the bulk of the story took place.

TNC is the source of the 'Howie scream', which went on to be used in countless other movies, TV shows and videogames. It's probably the second most famous stock sound effect of its kind after the Wilhem scream, and it's first use was during the bar fight in TNC when the gang leader attacks Kane.

Stacy Keach's face is awesome. He looks like he was drawn by Frank Miller, which is perhaps why he was cast as Wallenquist in Sin City: A Dame to Kill For (2016). If it weren't for the scar from his cleft lip, I think he'd have made a good Batman back in the eighties.

There's a scene in Exorcist: The Beginning that strongly resembles a scene from The Ninth Configuration. (Minor spoiler) In both films, a character approaches another character who is sitting on the floor cradling an object in their lap. The first character asks what the other character is holding, and then the camera moves to reveal that the seated figure is cradling a severed head.

I'll cap this post off with some amusing Friedkin clips. Here he is commenting on Exorcist II: The Heretic.

This is him discussing the possibility of an Exorcist remake.

This final clip has nothing to do with the Exorcist. It's just Friedkin tormenting Nicolas Winding Refn.

[Silver Nemesis]

Russell Crowe is playing Father Gabriele Amorth in a new film titled The Pope's Exorcist. The project is being directed by Australian filmmaker Julius Avery, whose other credits include the WWII horror movie Overlord (2018) and Sylvester Stallone's upcoming superhero film Samaritan (2022).

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/russell-crowe-popes-exorcist-1235169682/

[Silver Nemesis]

Russell Crowe is playing Father Gabriele Amorth in a new film titled The Pope's Exorcist. The project is being directed by Australian filmmaker Julius Avery, whose other credits include the WWII horror movie Overlord (2018) and Sylvester Stallone's upcoming superhero film Samaritan (2022).

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/russell-crowe-popes-exorcist-1235169682/

I'm tempted to go see this. It might not be very good, but the subject matter interests me.

The Critical Drinker interviewed Russell Crowe about it last week.

Another exorcist-themed film coming out later in the year is Nefarious, starring Sean Patrick Flannery.

[thecolorsblend]

Hey SN, do you like The Conjuring series? Watched the three main Conjuring films in that franchise over the past few days and had a blast with them.

[Silver Nemesis]

The Conjuring is my favourite horror franchise of the past decade.

I watched The Conjuring (2013) repeatedly when it first came out. The first half of the movie, where the scares are comparatively subtle and implicit, is terrifying. The Annabelle story, the clapping game, the music box, the scene where the girl wakes in the night and tells her sister there's someone standing in the shadows behind their bedroom door – all of that stuff's very effective. I'm less keen on the second half of the film, where the horror becomes more obvious and visual. But on balance, it's a good movie and genuinely scary in places. Regardless of whether or not the Warrens were frauds in real life, their fictionalised screen counterparts make for extremely likeable protagonists. Wilson and Farmiga have great chemistry, and it was a smart move to focus the series on them rather than the monsters.

I personally don't find The Conjuring 2 (2016) particularly scary, even though most viewers seem to find it more frightening than the first. However, in some ways I think it's a better film than the original. It places a strong emphasis on the characters and their relationships, and it's tremendously atmospheric. Several movies and TV shows have been made about the Enfield poltergeist, and while most evidence points to the haunting being fake, TC2 does a good job of incorporating those suspect details into a fictionalised narrative wherein it's real. It's a rare example of a good horror sequel that's more than just a retread of its predecessor.

I've only seen The Conjuring: The Devil Made Me Do It (2021) once. I need to see it again. I thought it was ok, but suffered from the absence of James Wan. It felt like a step down from the first two, but I give it credit for doing something different. It's not bad.

I've seen all of the spinoffs except the first Annabelle (2014) movie, so I can't comment on that one.

Annabelle: Creation (2017) is decent. It's an unnecessary prequel to a prequel, but it's well made and reasonably effective.

The Nun (2018) has an intriguing premise and is strong on gothic visuals and ambience. Unfortunately the second half of the film sacrifices plot in favour of repetitive set pieces that aren't very scary. It's not offensively bad or anything, but it's one of the weaker instalments in the series. I'm hopeful the upcoming sequel will be an improvement.

I have seen The Curse of La Llorona (2019), but I can barely remember it. From what I recall, it's the worst of The Conjuring movies and very generic.

Annabelle Comes Home (2019) is surprisingly good. I rate it just below The Conjuring 1 and 2. The Warrens feature more prominently in this than they do in the other spinoffs, making it feel a bit like The Conjuring 2.5. If you like the main entries in the series, then I recommend this one.

I also highly recommend Insidious (2010) if you haven't already seen it. It's directed by James Wan, stars Patrick Wilson and feels like a test run for The Conjuring series. It's very scary and has one of the most unnerving scores in horror movie history.

Going back to a point I made in the John Wick thread, I'm always eager to support fresh IPs that bring new characters and storylines to the screen instead of just retreading old ones. You can see how Wan and his team were influenced by things like The Haunting (1963), The Exorcist (1973), The Amityville Horror (1979) and Poltergeist (1982), but I love that they took those influences and used them as the foundation for something new. The Conjuring is one of the few shared universe franchises that isn't adapted from a comic book or pre-existing film series, and it's one of the few modern horror brands that isn't based on a movie from the seventies or eighties. I also appreciate that for all their hokey over-the-top visuals, these films take the underlying theological and demonological themes seriously. They're creative, spooky and fun.

This franchise is only a decade old and still has a lot of life left in it. They've already shot The Nun 2, which comes out later this year and will hopefully fix the flaws of the first movie, and The Conjuring 4 is in pre-production. I'd rather see Wan direct that than another Aquaman movie.

Does anyone else like The Conjuring franchise? If so, it might be worth starting a separate Conjuring Universe thread for posting further discussion, news, trailers, etc. If there are any horror fans on the site who haven't seen these movies yet, they're worth checking out.