EXORCIST II THE HERETIC - spoilers and much too long !!
FrMerrin
further. I've gone through the film, trying to suggest some interesting ideas
and images, and I've failed, because the film has too much that you can't really
explain in words and I can't really verbalise what I love about it.
John Boorman has always been a director with the rare quality of genuine
ambition. He has big ideas and he wants us to share them. Unfortunately, the
public have not always wanted to join in, and his most ambitious films tend to
have failed with critics and at the box office. "Exorcist II The Heretic" is one
of the most reviled films in genre history, and it will probably never be
completely rehabilitated by its admirers. I'm not sure if it can be reclaimed as
a great film, but it is a very interesting one, and fits in perfectly with
Boorman's usual obsessions about spirituality.
The film takes place four years after "The Exorcist". The Vatican feels that
enough time has elapsed to avoid too much embarrassment, and they send Father
Philip Lamont (Richard Burton) to investigate the death of Father Merrin during
the Regan MacNeil exorcism. We have first seen Lamont in Africa, attempting an
exorcism which seems to fail. The opening image, of Lamont bathed by shafts of
light, sets up the central good/evil, light/darkness concepts of the film, and
it's interesting to compare this with the moment in "The Exorcist" when Merrin
arrives at the house and is bathed in pure white light. Boorman's film is
considerably more complex in its theology than Friedkin's - Friedkin sets up
good versus evil, Boorman suggests something much more interesting, as we will
discover.
This opening exorcism is powerfully visualised, the victim screaming in
animalistic utterances and then pleading to Lamont, "Why me ? I healed the
sick." Well, the answer is simple - it is her _because_ she healed the sick, but
Lamont doesn't yet realise this. She knocks over candles and her robe ignites,
as she burns in a martyr's pose. Three important images of people inflamed in
the film - flames suggesting both destruction and purification.
The woman's screaming becomes the wail of a saxaphone, as we meet Regan in the
first of the embarrassing tap dance scenes. Presumably intended to establish
that she is normal again, they simply succeed in looking ridiculous. Linda Blair
has lost her naturalness since the first film, having become a typical Hollywood
teenager, without a hint of spontaneity. This works against the film, which
intends to establish Regan as a being capable of either great good or great
evil. Here, she looks like she is barely capable of a few simple tap steps.
Another recurrent image of the film is non-communication. When we first see Dr
Gene Tuskin (Louise Fletcher) she is trying to communicate with a deaf and dumb
girl through a pane of glass, and not succeeding. People constantly try to
communicate in this film and fail, whether because of church bureaucracy,
language barriers or the influence of the demon. This ties in with the central
suggestion of a God under seige from forces of evil, meaning that he can no
longer hold his flock together, so people have stopped listening to him, just as
they can no longer communicate with each other.
The other important image in this scene occurs when Regan picks up a china model
of a dove. There are constant images of flying throughout the film, linked
usually with the demon, the locust god Pazuzu - a demon who is associated not
only with images of death and evil, but also with energy and sometimes beauty.
Lamont arrives at the Vatican and protests that he is not the right man to
investigate the death of Merrin. He believes that God has fallen silent, and
perhaps fears that Merrin's heretical beliefs will cause him even more spiritual
doubt and pain. It transpires that Merrin believed that the power of evil in the
world was so strong that it threatened to overthrow God - a God who seems ever
more silent in the face of his enemies. [ This is, of course, a rather nice
link to "Exorcist 3", and Kinderman's despair at the apparent impotence - or
refusal ? - of God to help his creations. ]
Lamont is put on the assignment despite his objections, and he begins his
investigation by going to see Dr Tuskin, hoping to discover more about Regan. Dr
Tuskin believes that the exorcism was a sham, which made things worse by messing
around with Regan's already fragile psyche. She does not believe in the soul -
talking only about mind and body - and refuses the existence of demons, saying
that "We make demons up here", referring to the human mind. Lamont tries to
convince her, however, with an interesting speech that is completely overplayed
by Richard Burton. Burton is sometimes very impressive in the film, but he also
tends to turn his speeches into cheap melodrama. Burton is hammy, where, for
example, George C Scott, was powerfully theatrical.
"You realise what you're up against ... Evil ... a spiritual being, alive and
living, perverted and perverting, weaving its way insidiously into the very
fabric of life."
This sums up the difference between the Friedkin and Boorman approaches. In the
original film, there is GOOD and EVIL, and one has to make a supreme sacrifice
in order to defeat the other. Boorman's film suggests that Evil is a force which
requires good in order to thrive; possibly the two need to co-exist to retain a
spiritual balance. Certainly, as I've stated before, evil in "Heretic" is
associated with much more than simply make up, swearing and vomiting - it's
linked with images of beauty and energy, it is, in short, _alive_ and seductive
as a separate force in the world.
There follows the first hypnosis scene, one of the major problems with the film
when watching with an audience. It looks and sounds very silly, and it shows how
difficult it is to convey an idea in visual terms. The _idea_ of one mind
melding with another to discover the contents of the sub-conscious is very
interesting, but the actual staging is disastrous. Flashing lights and ominous
tones do not really work for an audience, and the point of the scene is lost.
Boorman seems to realise the problem, and uses some effective facial close-ups
to establish a more convincing mood, but it still doesn't work. Unfortunately
this scene seems to lose the audience, which is a problem since it's important,
as it is where Lamont first confronts the demon. Dr Tuskin has gone "into synch"
with Regan, and is trapped in her subconscious memories of the exorcism, so
Lamont has to go in and save her. Why he should be able to do this is not
explained, but it results in him being "brushed by the wings of the locust", as
he confronts the demon, who is threatening to take Dr Tuskin's heart in the way
it took the heart of Father Merrin. If you think this is confusing, you're
right, and its virtually impossible to write about. But, after a struggle
between the two sides of Regan - her good side, as she is in everyday life, and
her evil side, which is still possessed by the demon - Tuskin's heart is
restored, in rather unfortunately literal terms. This idea of the heart as the
battleground is repeated later in the film, and is not really very effective.
However, this scene shows Lamont what he is up against, and he says "Evil is
gaining. Father Merrin was killed ... that wasn't the mind of a child. It was
horrible, utterly horrible ... and fascinating." Evil is, as I said earlier,
seductive, and Lamont comes under its spell in this scene, and succumbs even
further later in the film.
At this point, it's obvious that Boorman is not remotely interested in making a
sequel to "The Exorcist". He's making a film about evil, and, worse for most
horror fans, he wants to make _the_ film about evil. Unfortunately, he already
made a great film about evil in "Deliverance", without any of the thuddingly
obvious spiritual dialogue that fills "The Heretic". On the positive side, and
what makes the film a visual feast, the cinematography is on hand to provide the
conviction that is sometimes lacking in the script and performances.
The hypnosis is followed by an interesting non-sequiteur, where Regan gives Dr
Tuskin a picture of Lamont, in which he is surrounded by flames. Lamont believes
that she is warning him of danger, and he goes down to the basement, where there
is a small fire smouldering away in a box. Brilliant music and lighting,
turning the portrait into a visual of Burton surrounded by flames - also
reminiscent of the opening immolation of the possessed woman.
Boorman is constantly on the lookout for an interesting or memorable visual
coups, and he achieves one of the best in the following sequence of Regan in her
bedroom. We hear a voice - that of Pazuzu - inviting her to "go flying". She
walks out onto the roof garden, gown flowing behind her, an image of freedom
from restraint. Meanwhile, this is intercut with strange, brown-tinged images of
Africa; mud huts, unfamiliar faces, all in red light as a swarm of locusts
approaches. Merrin appears in the midst of the swarm, repelled by the
destruction but fascinated by the single-minded aggression and energy of the
swarm. Just as she is about to step off the ledge, Regan comes out of her trance
and falls backwards. This is shot in a dreamy slow-motion, the contrasts between
the airy city and the primitive Africa brilliantly caught by William A Fraker,
whose cinematography is consistently incredible.
Meanwhile, Lamont flies to Washington, to see the house where the exorcism took
place. We see the flight he is on, as the undercarriage of the jet resembles the
mandibles of the locust. Another flying image here, of course. There is a lovely
shot of the Hitchcock Steps in a rain storm, and Lamont meets Sharon, who is
looking after Regan in the absence of her mother [because Ellen Bursteyn didn't
want to be in the film]. Their conversation establishes that the demon was
expecting Merrin, and that it feared him, but this scene in Washington doesn't
really accomplish anything apart from an ambiguous image of a locust hovering by
the bedroom ceiling.
Returning to Regan and Dr Tuskin, Lamont goes into synch with Regan - cue more
ludicrous flashing lights - and Regan reveals that she can see Father Merrin.
Thus, we get Merrin's story, which is vital to the film. Long ago, in Africa,
Merrin saw a young boy who had unusual powers to tame the locust swarm. However,
it seems that the locusts came because of the boy, and he muses "Does Great
Goodness draw Evil upon itself ?". This is an important concept in the film,
which depends on our acceptance that Regan can be a force for Great Goodness
which is something of a moot point. However, in Merrin's story, the imagery is
extraordinarily sensuous and gorgeous to witness, as we see a primitive
landscape emblazoned with rich, fiery colours. The boy, the healer if you like,
is possessed and speaks, "I Am Pazuzu" - Pazuzu is the king of the evil spirits
of the air, symbolised by the locusts. Regan refers to Pazuzu as being her
"dream name". Incredible shots follow of Merrin and the possessed boy trapped on
a mountainside. As people fall to their deaths, the two begin a battle for
supremacy which will not be resolved until the Georgetown exorcism. Back in
church, with a predominance of red, the exorcism of the boy takes place and
seems to work. But is it a permanent victory, or just a temporary gaining of the
upper hand ? Pazuzu suggests that he can take the boy back any time he likes -
but why then is he so scared of him ?
Then, in the greatest scene in the film, and one of the best scenes of recent
cinema, the demon tempts Lamont by showing him his domain. There is a beautiful
journey through Africa, as Pazuzu says "Come, fly the teeth of the wind, share
my wings", and Lamont succumbs. The soundtrack fills with inexplicable noises,
and the orange/brown visuals suggest a land which is incredibly strange, almost
unknowable. The journey ends in an ancient mud city, where a man steps out and
screams at the demon, becoming a leopard. This is the boy, Kokumo, who was
possessed and has survived to become a healer - the demon is frightened.
By this point, you're either hooked on Boorman's insanity and want to see more -
as I am - or laughing your head off at the silliness of it all. Personally, I
prefer ambitious failure to mediocre success, but it's a matter of opinion. It's
problematic, however, because the film insists on giving ammunition to its
detractors. The scene which comes next has a vital narrative purpose - to
establish Regan as another great healer who can combat Pazuzu - but the dialogue
is so appalling that it's difficult to stay with the film. Regan says "I was
possessed by a demon ... but I'm OK now", which is stupid in any context. She
heals the deaf and dumb girl, achieving communication denied to others - but
Morricone's gorgeous music score has to provide the emotional fulfillment that
the script doesn't provide. Lamont believes that Regan's powers are magical,
while Dr Tuskin believes they have a rational basis - she is hiding behind
science, suggests Lamont, because she can't make the leap to accepting what she
can't comprehend.
Lamont meets Regan at the Natural History Museum, purely for the purpose of
half-explaining selected bits of Theillard De Chardin for the audience - that
the individual consciousnesses in the world will merge together to form a "world
mind" for the betterment of mankind. Lamont suggests that if this happens
prematurely, it could be used for the purposes of evil rather than good. The
words "metaphysical twaddle" spring to mind, but it's an interesting idea which
is returned to in the later conversation with Kokumo about locusts.
Lamont travels to Africa in order to find Kokumo, the boy who survived the
possession of Pazuzu, with the aim of discovering a way to fight the demon. He
climbs the mountain, and , becoming increasingly obsessive, attends a communion,
where he says "Evil overwhelms us". However, ignore the dialogue and get drunk
on the beautiful visuals. Again, a lack of communication causes problems, as
Lamont can't explain what he wants to the tribes people , who call him a devil
worshipper and stone him. His attack is psychically felt by Regan, who is also
bathed in red light which reminds us of Africa, and she has a seizure in the
middle of a very dull tap routine.
More flying imagery ensues, as Lamont is taken to the mud city by Ned Beatty's
light aircraft. Lamont enthusiastically explains, "I have flown this way before
... on the wings of a demon." As this suggests, he is not able, on his own, to
find Kokumo, and he must call upon the powers of the demon to help him. Good,
again, requires evil. The question arises, does Lamont still have any faith in
the power of God ?
Kokumo [James Earl Jones at his most majestic] is wearing, ironically, a locust
head-dress - is he taunting the demon ? - and warns Lamont that "Pazuzu has
brushed you with his wings." Lamont must perform a metaphorical "crossing over"
from Pazuzu to Kokumo by walking across a floor of nails - he can't seem to do
it, and falls, but wakes up in a modern, scientific research centre, where
Kokumo appears to be a proper doctor in a white coat. He is a researcher into
locusts, explaining how, when the harmless individual locusts brush their wings
against each other, they turn into a swarm with "one evil mind" - "When the
wings have brushed you, there is no hope for you." Clearly, this refers to
Lamont as well, and there is a deliberate sense that evil is considerably more
powerful, and threatening, than good. However, Kokumo reveals that he has been
experimenting with a "good locust" who is resistant to the brushing of the
wings.
We are left with the question of whether good can overcome evil - the
witchdoctor Kokumo advises Lamont that he must engage with the evil Regan and
tear out her heart, in order to destroy the evil once and for all. Returning to
America, Lamont becomes obsessed with the contact with Pazuzu, believing himself
to be the only one who can save Regan's soul. Merrin's story continues, during
an illicit hypnosis session in a hotel room, where he explains that "Many
healers appeared after Kokumo. I tried to protect them. Satan has sent Pazuzu to
destroy their good." Temporarily, Pazuzu succeeds in possessing Lamont's soul,
showing him the power that evil can summon up. There's all manner of portentous
dialogue here, which can be safely ignored.
The finale takes place in the Georgetown house, and isn't really very effective.
Regan is now literally divided between a good and evil self, and there is a
rather good scene as evil, hideously deformed Regan is transformed in a smooth
take into glowing, seductive, beautiful Regan - evil is not only ugly, it is
also beautifully tempting. It would help if Linda Blair was remotely desirable,
but never mind the details. After an apocalyptic struggle, and Pazuzu's
temptation to kill Good Regan and allow evil to rule the day, Lamont tears out
Bad Regan's heart and is apparently killed as the house collapses. Meanwhile, Dr
Tuskin and Sharon have arrived to rescue Regan from the mad priest, but their
car crashes and Sharon - who has been fascinated by the evil - goes up in flames
- third time for this image. The swarm of locusts descends on the house in some
extraordinary images which look so good that the narrative sense gets a little
lost.
Regan emerges from the wreckage, and sends the swarm away by performing the same
ritualistic dance that we saw the young Kokumo engaged in earlier in the film.
Lamont walks out of the house, alive if a little bruised, absolves Sharon for
her seduction by the evil, and wanders off into the world with Regan, in
preparation for her pre-destined role as a great healer.
This ending sent some preview audiences into fits of laughter - although its
hard to see why, since it is no more stupid than previous scenes in the film -
and was re-edited so that Lamont died in the house. That version doesn't make
narrative sense though, since the whole point is that Regan achieves a victory
over evil, and uses her powers to restore her and her protector.
So, there it is. Can I convince anyone that it's a great film ? I strongly doubt
it, but it is a very interesting one, as I said. Essentially, it's an arthouse
movie on a vast budget, and it has very little to do with the original film.
Boorman deliberately omitted the masturbating, vomiting excesses of the
original, and later admitted that he should have supplied more in terms of
traditional horror "I created this arena and didn't throw enough Christians into
it.".
However, for anyone who wishes to see an ambitious, often disastrous, but always
original film, with some of the greatest imagery in any English language horror
film, consistently superb cinematography and brilliant music, then "Exorcist 2
The Heretic" is well worth watching. Like me, you may squirm at some of the
awful dialogue, or feel a sudden desire to throw things at the screen when Linda
Blair is tap dancing ... but it is one of the few films which I find constantly
fascinating and I come back to it time and time again with renewed pleasure. As
Pauline Kael said, the film is sometimes astonishingly bad, but often incredibly
good, and as Martin Scorsese noted, the visuals are uniquely gorgeous.
The issue is, probably, can you make a film which survives a bad script and poor
performances, and becomes a genuine success because of the imagery and the ideas
? Previous Boorman films have not had this problem, since the endlessly
fascinating "Point Blank" is a metaphysical puzzle film disguised as a
straightforward action revenge thriller, and "Deliverance" is an exciting
adventure movie. "Zardoz" tries to pull it off, but the ideas are as silly as
the execution, so it doesn't really get anywhere. But, "Exorcist II" tries
things that other horror movies don't even begin to attempt, and it's that
intellectual bravado that I respond to. The film is hesitant, complex,
over-reaching and, sadly, finally unsuccessful, because it tries far too much
and never resolves itself. However, for better or worse, there is not a single
film which is remotely like it - and that is, in the end, some sort of triumph.
Mike
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
WideScreenPig
inductee into the EXORCIST II club, your review makes me appreciate it
all the more. As you say, an ambitious failure is better than
mediocre success.
One thing I noticed that you didn't note: the "silly blinking lights"
of the hypnosis machine, whether silly or not, are part of an image
system of light/dark that Boorman and Fraker intentionally created, so
that we see characters (especially Lamont) passing through alternating
paths of light and darkness (see also the scene in which Lamont
approaches Kokumo's lair - patterns of light and dark fall across his
face in a deliberate tempo that mirrors the machine).
______________________________________
WideScreenPig
"There will be no Messiah. Armageddon is cancelled."
- Allfather Starr
-----------------------------------------
Robocop:Prime Directives Official Website
www.robocop-pd.ca
-----------------------------------------
FrMerrin
>Outstanding critical piece, Mike. I loved it. As a relatively recent
>inductee into the EXORCIST II club, your review makes me appreciate it
>all the more. As you say, an ambitious failure is better than
>mediocre success.
>
>One thing I noticed that you didn't note: the "silly blinking lights"
>of the hypnosis machine, whether silly or not, are part of an image
>system of light/dark that Boorman and Fraker intentionally created, so
>that we see characters (especially Lamont) passing through alternating
>paths of light and darkness (see also the scene in which Lamont
>approaches Kokumo's lair - patterns of light and dark fall across his
>face in a deliberate tempo that mirrors the machine).
You're right - I missed that. Also, at the end, there is a final tone and
flash, suggesting that Dr Tuskin is still in synch with ... something.
BTW, I know Blatty hates "Exorcist 2", but it seems to me that 2 and 3 share a
number of things in common - not least, the refusal to include audience pleasing
gore every five minutes. Of course, Boorman was more fortunate in that he didn't
have his film taken off his hands and was allowed to make cuts himself.
Billy Cutshaw
admire this movie, although I do feel it pales in comparison with both
The Exorcist and Exorcist III. Still, there is a lot to like about
The Heretic and as you rightly say, it is very much a one-of-a-kind
movie. As the vast majority of films are merely routine affairs, I
feel it's important that we champion anything that at least attempts
something original, despite its flaws.
I would say however, that I preferred the cut where Burton's character
dies at the climax (not least because we get to hear that amazing
Morricone track over the end credits!).
On Thu, 23 Mar 2000 18:27:31 +0000, FrMerrin <fr.m...@virgin.net>
wrote:
John Phillips
this one above I think I'll leave it up to FrMerrin to deliver the goods
(running for cover!). I liked the pieces you wrote for the Brian De Palma
discussion board, Mike...and er, we 'must' have a chat about a small time
guy named James Cameron sometime and an 'interesting' little number he once
made - THE TERMINATOR.
John.
FrMerrin <fr.m...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:as1ldsg0ii6j4ej7o...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 23 Mar 2000 20:00:24 GMT, ws...@trends.ca (WideScreenPig) wrote:
>
> >Outstanding critical piece, Mike. I loved it. As a relatively recent
> >inductee into the EXORCIST II club, your review makes me appreciate it
> >all the more. As you say, an ambitious failure is better than
> >mediocre success.
> >
> >One thing I noticed that you didn't note: the "silly blinking lights"
> >of the hypnosis machine, whether silly or not, are part of an image
> >system of light/dark that Boorman and Fraker intentionally created, so
> >that we see characters (especially Lamont) passing through alternating
> >paths of light and darkness (see also the scene in which Lamont
> >approaches Kokumo's lair - patterns of light and dark fall across his
> >face in a deliberate tempo that mirrors the machine).
>
> You're right - I missed that. Also, at the end, there is a final tone
and
> flash, suggesting that Dr Tuskin is still in synch with ... something.
>
> BTW, I know Blatty hates "Exorcist 2", but it seems to me that 2 and 3
share a
> number of things in common - not least, the refusal to include audience
pleasing
> gore every five minutes. Of course, Boorman was more fortunate in that he
didn't
> have his film taken off his hands and was allowed to make cuts himself.
>
Eric Smith
fr.m...@virgin.net wrote:
> BTW, I know Blatty hates "Exorcist 2", but it seems to me that 2 and 3
> share a number of things in common - not least, the refusal to include
> audience pleasing gore every five minutes. Of course, Boorman was more
> fortunate in that he didn't have his film taken off his hands and was
> allowed to make cuts himself.
As I have theorized, E2 failed not on its own merits, but rather, the
audiences'.
They went expecting more blasphemies and vomiting, and when they got an
artsy, thoughtful meditation on good vs. evil, they did what most filmgoers
do when they don't understand something... pan it.
--
Eric Smith
esm...@twcny.rr.com
synthuser
>
> A note to the curious - if you want a brief review, don't bother reading any
> further. I've gone through the film, trying to suggest some interesting ideas
> and images, and I've failed, because the film has too much that you can't really
> explain in words and I can't really verbalise what I love about it.
<snipped but read>
Good stuff Mike.
I used to hate this film(as you know),
then I watched it again a few times as
a result of your "occasional" E2 postings. ;)
Though I still have some problems with it,
I can now appreciate it as well.
Jeff Leach292931
>this one above I think I'll leave it up to FrMerrin to deliver the goods
>(running for cover!)
Bullshit! Go ahead and write and post your reviews. I'd like to seem them. I
never get enough of reading reviews. As for Merrin, I'm willing to bet he'd be
one of the first to agree. Some of my favorite posts on this NG are Brian
Wright's reviews, which are always good for a howl. So, I look forward to
seeing your reviews. I plan on writing a few, too.
Jeff Leach
"I'll kill you and I'll kill your families. And I'll do it in pieces."
Drug dealer Donatelli from "An Innocent Man"
FrMerrin
wrote:
>>I 'was' considering writing a couple of reviews for this newsgroup but after
>>this one above I think I'll leave it up to FrMerrin to deliver the goods
>>(running for cover!)
>
>Bullshit! Go ahead and write and post your reviews. I'd like to seem them. I
>never get enough of reading reviews. As for Merrin, I'm willing to bet he'd be
>one of the first to agree.
Of course. In fact, the point is self-evident. The more in-depth on-topic posts,
the better, and I think your reviews would be fascinating, John.
Michael Rogers
the original Exorcist film instead of repeat it.
You were quite cogent about the films problems and it's nobility none
the less.
One of the big problems for me on E2 was the depiction of possessed
Regan. It was in Linda Blair's contract that she would not be made up as
possessed again. So, any views of possessed Regan you see in this film
are either a double or stock footage from the first film.
Then there was the voice. In the original Exorcist, the demon voice was
carefully done, aiming for deepness, male/female nuances and it was
really effective. Compare that with Possessed Regan's voice in here that
sounds like it is straight from the Wicked Witch in Wizard Of Oz.
This is indeed an interesting failure and deserves a look at both the
First version (ID'd by the Richard Burton character surviving at the
end) and the reedited version (ID'd by a recap of the events of the
first film with narration and stills and Richard Burton's character dies
at the end).
Mike
Dr BUTCHER MD
rap it has received ,but your reveiw has inspired me to hire it out and
watch it in a positive frame of mind,cheers.
Tyrannorabbit
wrote:
>
> >Outstanding critical piece, Mike. I loved it.
I as well enjoyed it.
> >As you say, an ambitious failure is better than
> >mediocre success.
Often, maybe usually, but I wouldn't say always...how many
mediocre successes could possibly be worse than _Dune_?
> BTW, I know Blatty hates "Exorcist 2", but it seems to me that 2 and
3 share a
> number of things in common - not least, the refusal to include
audience pleasing
> gore every five minutes. Of course, Boorman was more fortunate in
that he didn't
> have his film taken off his hands and was allowed to make cuts
himself.
Even after the film's release!
--
-Brian J. Wright
"SEX CAULDRON?!?!? I thought they shut that place down!!!" -Krusty
THE CAVALCADE OF SCHLOCK IS ALL FUCKED UP!!! So I'm withholding the
URL, nyah, nyah. Stay tuned for updates.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
FrMerrin
wrote:
>In article <as1ldsg0ii6j4ej7o...@4ax.com>,
>fr.m...@virgin.net wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 Mar 2000 20:00:24 GMT, ws...@trends.ca (WideScreenPig)
>wrote:
>>
>> >Outstanding critical piece, Mike. I loved it.
>
> I as well enjoyed it.
>
>> >As you say, an ambitious failure is better than
>> >mediocre success.
>
> Often, maybe usually, but I wouldn't say always...how many
>mediocre successes could possibly be worse than _Dune_?
I'd always assumed that it was commonly accepted that "Dune" was a disaster, but
apparently some people like it. There's no accounting etc...
>> BTW, I know Blatty hates "Exorcist 2", but it seems to me that 2 and
>3 share a
>> number of things in common - not least, the refusal to include
>audience pleasing
>> gore every five minutes. Of course, Boorman was more fortunate in
>that he didn't
>> have his film taken off his hands and was allowed to make cuts
>himself.
>
> Even after the film's release!
I should have included something about that. There are at least two other
versions of the film apart from the original one, which I was reviewing. The
re-edited version runs about ten minutes shorter and cuts out some of the
dialogue and re-jigs some of the story. The other version, apparently released
in continental Europe, I have never seen.
Billy Cutshaw
about Exorcist II at least!!
On Fri, 24 Mar 2000 16:41:32 +0000, FrMerrin <fr.m...@virgin.net>
wrote:
Billy Cutshaw
out of the editing room at one stage, the final cut of Exorcist III
was a 'Blatty cut'.
On Thu, 23 Mar 2000 21:10:32 +0000, FrMerrin <fr.m...@virgin.net>
wrote:
>On Thu, 23 Mar 2000 20:00:24 GMT, ws...@trends.ca (WideScreenPig) wrote:
>
>>Outstanding critical piece, Mike. I loved it. As a relatively recent
>>inductee into the EXORCIST II club, your review makes me appreciate it
>>all the more. As you say, an ambitious failure is better than
>>mediocre success.
>>
>>One thing I noticed that you didn't note: the "silly blinking lights"
>>of the hypnosis machine, whether silly or not, are part of an image
>>system of light/dark that Boorman and Fraker intentionally created, so
>>that we see characters (especially Lamont) passing through alternating
>>paths of light and darkness (see also the scene in which Lamont
>>approaches Kokumo's lair - patterns of light and dark fall across his
>>face in a deliberate tempo that mirrors the machine).
>
>You're right - I missed that. Also, at the end, there is a final tone and
>flash, suggesting that Dr Tuskin is still in synch with ... something.
>
>BTW, I know Blatty hates "Exorcist 2", but it seems to me that 2 and 3 share a
>number of things in common - not least, the refusal to include audience pleasing
>gore every five minutes. Of course, Boorman was more fortunate in that he didn't
>have his film taken off his hands and was allowed to make cuts himself.
>
Clear and Present Dylan
>A note to the curious - if you want a brief review, don't bother reading
any
>further. I've gone through the film, trying to suggest some interesting
ideas
>and images, and I've failed, because the film has too much that you can't
really
>explain in words and I can't really verbalise what I love about it.
<snip>
Well it was a damned good try! ;-)
Seriously, that was some great writing, Mike. I'm not sure you convinced me
that said "merits" actually exist and aren't just imagined <g>, but I'll
certainly give it another go (getting me to do so is a fantastic achievement
on its own -- so give yourself a pat on the back).
Dylan
Dr Walpurgis
most even-handed review of E2TH I have ever read. Superb.
I've saved it to disk.
--
"Oh, the times we have to live in . . . TAXI!!!"
Lucio Fulci - QUELLA VILLA ACCANTO AL CIMITERO
http://www.geocities.com/hollywood/3390/
Dr Walpurgis
> Then there was the voice. In the original Exorcist, the demon voice was
> carefully done, aiming for deepness, male/female nuances and it was
> really effective. Compare that with Possessed Regan's voice in here that
> sounds like it is straight from the Wicked Witch in Wizard Of Oz.
An excellent observation. Mercedes McCambridge's voice
sounds like dozens of lost souls clamouring to speak at once
('I am Legion', as it were), and the result is convincingly
and intelligently demonic, and one of the most unsettling
aspects of the film. E2TH is hamstrung from the beginning by
failing to reproduce this.
FrMerrin
>Michael Rogers wrote:
>
>> Then there was the voice. In the original Exorcist, the demon voice was
>> carefully done, aiming for deepness, male/female nuances and it was
>> really effective. Compare that with Possessed Regan's voice in here that
>> sounds like it is straight from the Wicked Witch in Wizard Of Oz.
>
>An excellent observation. Mercedes McCambridge's voice
>sounds like dozens of lost souls clamouring to speak at once
>('I am Legion', as it were), and the result is convincingly
>and intelligently demonic, and one of the most unsettling
>aspects of the film. E2TH is hamstrung from the beginning by
>failing to reproduce this.
I agree. Most of the worst problems of the film seem to involve Linda Blair, in
fact.
Mike
synthuser
> I agree. Most of the worst problems of the film seem to involve Linda Blair, in
> fact.
Yep.
Dr Walpurgis
> > > Then there was the voice. In the original Exorcist, the demon voice was
> > > carefully done, aiming for deepness, male/female nuances and it was
> > > really effective. Compare that with Possessed Regan's voice in here that
> > > sounds like it is straight from the Wicked Witch in Wizard Of Oz.
> >
> > An excellent observation. Mercedes McCambridge's voice
> > sounds like dozens of lost souls clamouring to speak at once
> > ('I am Legion', as it were), and the result is convincingly
> > and intelligently demonic, and one of the most unsettling
> > aspects of the film. E2TH is hamstrung from the beginning by
> > failing to reproduce this.
>
> I agree. Most of the worst problems of the film seem to involve Linda Blair, in
> fact.
Thinking about this a little more, one becomes aware of the
great lost opportunity here. I was struck when I saw THE
EXORCIST again during its recent rerelease that the demon is
reduced to almost a walk-on in the movie. In the novel we
see this incredible, awesome intellect at work which
Blatty's screenplay chose to down-play. In E2TH's
screenplay, on the other hand, there is this great
opportunity to see the demon fully developed as a character,
but unfortunately when he is, he is rendered almost risible
by the feeble voice given to him.
Scorp
on "Exorcist II." I think it's definitely underrated in many
ways. I adore the score (in fact, I have the CD) and I own
the "Making-Of" Book which gives one the impression that another
film was being made.
I would truly enjoy the chance to see more of your
analyzations. Perhaps on Argento and Italian horror?
All I can say is keep up the VERY GOOD WORK!
Sincerely,
Joe Zaso
Producer
CINEMA IMAGE PRODUCTIONS
New York
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Homer
Dr Walpurgis <il_do...@fulci.com> wrote:
> I've nothing to add, except to say that that is the best,
> most even-handed review of E2TH I have ever read. Superb.
> I've saved it to disk.
Unfortunately, it was a mid-80s RCA Video Disc. :-/
--
"That's me. I'm paranoiac. Every time I see a dead body
I think it's been murdered." -- Columbo; "Etude in Black"
Homer
aka Home...@yahoo.com