Vulgar Display of Power Pt 6 (The Devil and Father Amorth, 2017)

The_Devil_And_Father_Amorath_PosterFather Amorath was one of the Vatican’s most prominent Exorcists, in fact, he was the Exorcist in Chief.  William Friedkin, the director of the original the Exorcist presents one of his final exorcisms in the film.

Friedkin notes that at the time of the original film, he had never witnessed an exorcism.  He wanted to explore the topic, noting that he is a believer in the idea of supernatural forces.

He gives background into the film and book on which it was based, and the film includes bits of interviews with the late William Peter Blatty.  He explains when he wrote the book, originally he had planned on writing an account of a true life event. However, as time had gone on, sensitivity for the family resulted in Blatty choosing to make a fictionalized tale.

Friedkin meets with Father Amorath, who agrees to let him witness and film an exorcism of an Italian woman named Christina (there is a stipulation that Friedkin must film it himself, without a film crew present).

Friedkin interviews the woman Christina(she is revealed to have been through nine unsuccessful Exorcisms, which kind of challenges the notion of the power of the ritual) and her family. But Friedkin also interviews mental health experts and neurologists. I admit, the voices Christina utters are certainly unsettling, but still, the film leaves some doors open, in spite of Friedkin’s personal lack of skepticism.

Its is an interesting documentary and Friedkin’s involvement gives it an interesting perspective. It is not truly conclusive, and I suspect will, much like Friedkin’s 1973 film will impact the viewer based on what they bring to the film. The faithful will feel affirmed, the skeptical will remain skeptical.

Vulgar Display of Power Pt 3 (The Exorcist III, 1990)

the_Exorcist_3_PosterThe Exorcist III (originally titled the Exorcist III: Legion) came thirteen years after the Heretic.  It may have seemed like a pointless act to revisit the long dormant franchise. But the screenwriter of the first film (and author of the book upon which it was based) William Peter Blatty believed he had something to say.

Picking up seventeen years later, the film simply ignore the second film.  Maybe it happened…but it has no bearing here.  Lt Kinderman is older and wearier.  His work has devastated hope within him.

When a young boy is murdered in a fashion related to a case from about the same time as the first film, he becomes convinced dark works of the Gemini killer have resumed.  However, the one problem there is that the Gemini Killer has been dead for about 17 years. In spite of his lack of belief in any supernatural force for good, he starts to become desperate for answers, including talking to a mysterious patient that looks a lot like the late Father Karras.

Where as the second film veered off into insanity, Blatty seems far more determined to explore the questions of how can there be a good God in the face of all our depravity.  Kinderman has looked at the face of man and found it wanting.  He sees only the ugliness…the unworthiness.  And this is what makes the film so compelling.

The sincerity that was the undercurrent of the first film is back.  And for much of the film, Blatty is content to avoid the sensational, saving it for a dramatic confrontation with the Gemini Killer and the host of demons inhabiting the body of Father Karras.

George C. Scott takes over the role of Kinderman from the late Lee Cobb. He brings a wonderful gruff and tired feel.  Brad Dourif brings his skills as a character actor portraying the face of the Gemini Killer.  It is terrifically confident and angry.  The Gemini Killer and the demons housed with him mock faith, they see his mission as a dark and unholy one to spread despair through violence and carnage.

My one criticism is the final resolution. In some ways it is reflective of the first film, but at the same time it chooses murder over sacrifice. It undermines the whole idea of Kinderman accepting a larger world. The film does not give many other options, and you can argue the spiritual forces of good intervene so that Kinderman can act…but still, I kind of wish Blatty would have chosen a different option.

The Exorcist III is a powerful watch and a definite gem.

Vulgar Display of Power Pt 1 (The Exorcist, 1973)

the_Exorcist_PosterIt is hard to come into the Exorcist without preconceived notions. The stories of people vomiting or running out of the theater in terror may even set some people up for disappointment.

On an archeological dig Father Merrin discovers some rare and mysterious artifacts.  He suspects this is a portent of coming evil.

Elsewhere, Young Regan lives with her mother, a well known actress. Regan is exhibiting strange behaviors, and at first, her mother seeks medical intervention. In addition, there are strange noises heard in the house.  But as Regan’s actions get more and more disturbing and hard to write off as “puberty”, she becomes more desperate.

Meanwhile, Father Damien Karras is a preist who tends to favor psychological answers over faith ones. He finds his own faith in a precarious place.  Karras is brought in by the Catholic Church for consultation. He initially pushes for psychiatric treatments, and believes there is nothing darker at play.

Karras is also being questioned by a police Detective, Lt. Kinderman.  Kinderman seems genuinely interested in Karras and they strike up a friendship through the course of the film.

Reluctantly, it is determined that Regan is afflicted by a demonic entity. Father Merrin is brought by the Church t lead the exorcism. What follows is a battle of will and faith.

The Exorcist has earned it’s status very honestly. Even today it is an unsettling watch.  It is not the special effects or shocks that are behind this. Instead it is the film’s steadfast sincerity.  The movie does not treat this as entertainment or a joke.  And it is this sincerity that gives the more shocking stuff their real power.   And it also makes it easier to overlook some of the more outlandish moments, such as a head turning all the way around.

The performances are top notch.  Jason Miller plays Karras with a genuine pain… a man plagued with hurt and doubt. Max Von Sydow imbues Merrin with a strong gentleness.  And Linda Blair takes Regan from an adorable child to gut punching monster.

I have often said that you take from the Exorcist what you bring to it. If your world view is hopeless, it will seem like a hopeless film. I have always tended to a more positive approach and feel that the film ends on a truly hopeful note.

The Exorcist is not schlock, even when it indulges more standard horror tropes.  Instead, it uses those shocks to explore faith, life and meaning.  There is a wonderful and brief exchange between Karras and Merrin. Karras asks Merrin why the demon chose Regan.  “Why this Girl?”

Merrin responds: I think the point is to make us despair. To see ourselves as… animal and ugly. To make us reject the possibility that God could love us.

I think the movie seeks to challenge that. That it aspires to refute the demon’s assertion.  That maybe we are not merely animal and ugly. That we can be more.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑