The Exorcist Saga

The Exorcist Saga

          There are maybe 5 or 6 horror movies that could claim to be as popular or as influential as The Exorcist. However, after the original film, the rest of the saga is rather inconsistent and varies in both style and quality. I can’t think of another horror franchise where each installment is as different as those in this saga. Although viewing them as a whole enhances the experience, all the films can be viewed as stand-alone works (and in some cases, work better that way).

The Exorcist

1973

Director-William Friedkin

Cast- Linda Blair, Ellen Burstyn, Max Von Sydow, Jason Miller, Lee J. Cobb

            

It’s a classic. It’s a part of the horror canon. It influenced a hundred other films. What is there to say about this film that hasn’t been said a hundred times already? It’s difficult to imagine a fan of horror films, much less a fan of this sub-genre, that hasn’t seen this film. But on the off chance that you haven't seen it, we’ll take a look.

A young girl (played by Linda Blair) is suffering from startling changes that the best doctors can’t explain. They tell her mother (Ellen Burstyn) that its mental illness but test after test reveals nothing. Desperately, she turns to a priest (Jason Miller) for help. Finally, an elder statesmen and the titular exorcist (Max Von Sydow) is called in to confront the infernal entity that has possessed the young girl.

What makes the movie memorable are the classic scenes of Linda Blair suffering from the demonic possession. She vomits green bile, her head turns around backwards, she penetrates herself with a crucifix, and she has a mouth that would blush the cheeks of the saltiest sailor.

What makes the movie more than just a shocker is the respect it has for its characters. We see the mother fall to pieces before our eyes as she watches her daughter slowly slip from her grasp. Father Damian is likewise tormented by his inability to save his dying mother. Shuffled into the mix is police Lt. Kinderman ( Lee J. Cobb) who is the audience’s surrogate, helplessly watching the events unfold.

There is a sense of dread and inevitability, but at no point does the audience ever question what is happening.  The various characters continue to disagree over whether or not they are seeing a demonic possession or just mental illness, but the audience knows the score.  When the exorcist shows up to face the demon, there is a sense of relief that the questioning is over.

The movie spawned several sequels of varying quality and has become such a part of American culture that people who have never seen the film will recognize images from it.

The most important thing is that 50 years after it was made, this film is still scary.   Pop it in when you’re home alone, turn the lights off and see if you can watch it without at least taking a break or two for some relief. I bet you can’t.

Exorcist 2: The Heretic

1977

Director-John Boorman

Cast- Linda Blair, Richard Burton, Louise Fletcher, Max Von Sydow, James Earl Jones

Music- Ennio Morricone

Father Lamont (Burton) is called in by the Vatican to investigate the death of Father Merrin in the first film. He seeks out Regan (the possessed child from the first film) who is now involved with a sort of new-age therapist that uses hypnosis to treat her patients. Regan assists Father Lamont with his investigation and also his eventual battle against Pazuzu, the demon from The Exorcist.

This film has been almost universally panned as one of the worst films of all time but I just don’t get it. Viewed on its own merits, it has a lot going for it. It was directed by John Boorman ( Deliverance, Excalibur, Zardoz), It has an amazing cast, In addition to Linda Blair and Max Von Sydow reprising their roles from the first film (as memories in the case of Von Sydow’s Father Merrin) it stars Richard Burton (who was nominated for about million Oscars and Golden Globes) as Father Lamont, Louise Fletcher (who won an Oscar for One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest) , and Oscar nominees James Earl Jones (Conan the Barbarian and uh, oh yeah, the voice of Darth Vader!) and Ned Beatty (Superman). How’s that for acting power!

The film has all sorts of crazy visuals like a church built into the side of a mountain above a cavernous pass, giant locusts and the occasional appearance of the demon Pazuzu. It also has a soundtrack by the greatest score writer ever (maybe 2^nd behind John Williams), Ennio Morricone. I think this is the Morricone’s best non-Western score and is both exotic and moody.

What it doesn’t have is much to do with The Exorcist, either stylistically or plot wise.

In fact, with some name changes and about five minutes of re-writes it could have been a stand-alone film. That was probably why the movie bombed; audiences were expecting a return to the original but got something completely new and, frankly, a little weird at times.  Also, Linda Blair had noticeably grown up since the first film and maybe her appearance as a beautiful young woman was hard for audiences to reconcile with her childlike image in the first film. The plot is also intricate to say the least, incorporating new-age psychology with religion and globetrotting from America to Africa and back again. 

Skip it if you want a return to The Exorcist, but if you want something entirely different and are open to the experience, its pretty entertaining.

The Exorcist 3

1990

Director-William Peter Blatty

Cast- George C. Scott,  Ed Flanders, Jason Miller, Brad Dourif, Nicol Williamson

           

I would never be so bold as to say that Exorcist 3 is better than the original. The original was groundbreaking, highly influential, and a true classic. That said, Exorcist 3 is a great film that is able to stand on its own merit and provides a vision of terror very different from the original.

            Taking place  15 years after the original, George C. Scott plays detective Kinderman, the cop from the original film. He is investigating a series of bizarre homicides that match the MO of a serial murderer, The Gemini Killer. The problem is, Gemini has been dead for a long time.

            As it happens, Gemini is inhabiting the resurrected body of Damien Karras, the priest from the first film. The killer is using the body as a staging ground as his soul goes out to possess others to do his dirty work. If this plot sounds familiar, it’s because it has been used in other films (The First Power, Fallen, and to a lesser extent Shocker).

            Thematically Exorcist 3 is different from the original. The Exorcist was very blatant with its horror (heads turning backwards, green vomit spewing etc). By comparison, the horror is more subtle in the third film. Flickering lights, whispers in the next room, or just deep guttural sounds are used to unnerve the viewer. The horror is rarely explicit, leaving it up to the viewer to fill in the blanks.

George C. Scott turns in a fine performance as a world weary cop whose friends, and the memory of those friends, are under assault from the infernal forces.

Of special note to genre fans is Nicol Williamson (Merlin from Excalibur) as the exorcist in the film. His role is relatively small and he doesn’t have a lot of screen time, but he has that great voice and a real screen presence.

Whereas Exorcist 2 would have been better if it had had nothing to do with the original, Exorcist 3 is a worthy successor to the original. I consider this movie to be every bit as scary as the first, if not as well known.

Exorcist: The Beginning

2004

Director-Renny Harlin

Cast- Stellan Skarsgård, Izabella Scorupco, James D'Arcy, Andrew French,  Juian Wadham, Ben Cross

Dominion: Prequel to the Exorcist

2005

Director-Paul Schrader

Cast- Stellan Skarsgård,  Gabriel Mann, Clara Bellar, Andrew French, Julian Wadham Ralph Brown           

 

Plenty of actors have been victims of type casting. Michael Beihn has played a Navy Seal so many times he deserves an honorary trident. Actors have played the same character in unrelated movies such as when Christopher Lee played Dracula for Hammer and in Jesus Franco’s Count Dracula. Sean Connery even played the same character in 2 versions of the same film when he played James Bond in the 1965 Thunderball and again in the 1983 version of the same story in Never Say Never Again. But I can’t think of a single instance where the same actor played the same character in two different movies telling the same story, filmed back to back.

Yes, Exorcist: The Beginning and Dominion: Prequel to the Exorcist are both prequels to The Exorcist and ,yes, both star Stellan Skardsgard as a young Lancaster Merrin and they have nothing to do with each other. Wrapping your brain around this is the beginning of the confusing story of the prequel to The Exorcist.

The short version is this; Dominion was being made, but the Hollywood backers got cold feet, had the movie remade as The Beginning, which bombed so then Dominion was given a chance. So even though Dominion came out last it was made first. I guess. It’s confusing. But the history aside, are the movies any good?

The plot of both movies is the same. In the years immediately following WW2, Father Merrin has lost faith and is working as an archeologist for The Church, his lack of faith being the product of Nazi crimes he was involved in. He is dispatched to Africa to study an ancient church that was recently discovered. The church is actually a prison built to hold a demon. Once the demon is freed, it begins to spread its influence over the region. Merrin eventually regains his faith and confronts the demon.

            Neither film approaches the quality of either the first or third film. Beginning is more

of a traditional horror film typically made for mass consumption. It has some decent CGI, for its time. It plays up the fallen priest aspect a lot more and has more twists and turns in the plot. Dominion is more subdued and relies less on the shock value.

Both are competent films and, if they weren’t attached to the Exorcist franchise, would probably have been better received.  From a purely scholarly perspective, it makes for an interesting study. Both films have the same lead actor and some of the same supporting cast, the same plot and some of the same sets. It’s interesting to see how different directors interpret the same story.

The Exorcist: Believer

2023

Director- David Gordon Green

Cast-Leslie Odom Jr., Lidya Jewett, Olivia O’Neill, Ellen Burstyn, Jennifer Nettles, Norbert Leo Butz, Raphael Sbarge, Ann Dowd

 Warning, there are some slight spoilers below.

 Usually, sequels are made that don’t live up to the original. Occasionally, a sequel departs wildly from the original but still gives us something worthwhile. Rarely, a sequel comes along that surpasses the original. Many times, sequels leave you asking the question, what was the point?

Exorcist: Believer isn’t a bad film. It was competently made, with decent performances from its actors, adequate cinematography, serviceable special effects, etc. What the film lacks is any meaningful connection to The Exorcist. Sure, they brought back Ellen Burstyn for a few minutes to revise her role as Chris MacNeil. But her presence in the film only highlights Linda Blair’s absence (appearing for literally only a few seconds). And the film wrote Linda out as an afterthought just saying, well she’s not around (fans of Aliens will remember the half assed way that Alien 3 wrote out Hicks and Newt).

But Chris MacNeil wasn’t necessary to the plot at all, and the whole film could have been done without the character showing up and it wouldn’t have made a difference. The fact that the plot isn’t related to the original isn’t the real issue, the film isn’t even related thematically.

First off, there is barely even an exorcist in the film. The priest in this movie is a tertiary character with almost no role. The “exorcism” is carried out as a community project by people of very different religious beliefs, even saying “it takes all kinds.” While that’s a nice message for a little league baseball team, it doesn’t make for a compelling battle between good and evil.  In The Exorcist, a lot of time and energy is devoted to Damian’s crisis of faith and ultimately, it’s his return to his faith that empowers him to overcome evil. Here, the evil is overcome by a kind of spiritual crowdfunding by a variety of characters who get so little development, you won’t remember their names.

The Exorcist has lots of suspense and scares, but its true weapon is the sense of despair the film creates.  A priest losing his mother, a mother in the process of losing her daughter, grief and loss permeate the film, making the characters vulnerable to the evil in their midst. Exorcist: Believer doesn’t have such focus or any real focus, devoting a little time to the kids, a little time to the parent’s conflict with each other, a little time to this, a little time to that etc.

If the film, hadn’t been marketed as an Exorcist sequel, it would be easy to sit back and enjoy it as a competently made film. But slapping the name Exorcist on it creates certain expectations, just like slapping the words Star Wars, Jurassic Park, or Hellraiser on a film. And it doesn’t come within sight of meeting those expectations, and unlike Exorcist 2, which was experimental, this film is by the book formula. No worries though. The film made a tidy profit and the next sequel is already in production.