 |
| Quite possibly the most under-rated Sequel ever made. |
Cast: George C. Scott, Ed Flanders, Brad Dourif, Jason Miller, Nicol Williamson, Nancy Fish.
Director: William Peter Blatty
I've seen "Exorcist III" many times as of late, and gained a new appreciation for it. I actually also read the excellent novel "Legion" which William Peter Blatty wrote...and then made it into a film that he himself would write and direct. Blatty is an under-rated film-maker (see also "The Ninth Configuration," which is also a book he wrote that he turned into a really strong film), showing some really strong chops...and then he kinda faded away from film-making.
"Legion" is a novel that further discusses the themes Blatty put out there in "The Exorcist" but focuses more on forgiveness and, more importantly, being able to empathize with people that do terrible things to others. It's a heavy novel that's made into a serviceable horror flick, mostly by passing those heavy elements by. That isn't to say "Exorcist III" is without depth, however, because it certainly isn't. It's just that a lot of the philosophizing-and what essentially boils down to something of a non-conflict resolution-just simply wouldn't quite work on film. I won't spoil the ending of the novel, but I will say it's considerably different then what Blatty puts on film. Much like his screenplay of "The Exorcist," Blatty makes a lot of wise but tough calls on what to keep and what to toss out. It's something of a miracle of adaptation and shows fantastic instincts.
This movie might also by my favorite George C. Scott performance. Scott takes over the role of Kinderman (ably played by Lee J. Cobb in the original), the Policeman who saw too much and found his perception forever changed by what happened those few days to a young girl named Reagan Macneil, and the Friendly-but-troubled Priest Damian Karras. For me to say it's my favorite of Scotts is saying something: considering that I saw "The Changeling" which is basically Scott scowling in a Haunted House for ninety minutes and, as such, one of my favorite things ever. For such a rough and tumble guy, Scott is capable of such raw emotion and sensitivity, which is definitely on parade (along with his trademark scowling, growling and yelling) throughout the film. But, before I write this whole thing all at once, I should probably start the flick.
Right out of the gate, Blatty shows us a love of almost still imagery, religious iconography, and tracking shots...he clearly learned a lot from Friedkin about spacial relations. "Exorcist III" goes where no sequel has gone before, especially at the time of its filming, which is to ask us to completely forget the abomination that was "Exorcist II: The Heretic."
Can I just say how excited I am to be doing this piece? Especially after sitting through the monstrosity that was "Exorcist II: The Heretic." This film has easily become one of my favorite movies to just sit down and dig on. Even when it's flawed, it's just an entertaining film.
Ed Flanders does a wonderful job as Father Dyer. Flanders brings so much of the quirky humor that permeates the novel. Every scene he shares with Scotts Kinderman is a golden mixture of comedy and soulfulness. The film maintains a lot of that wit. A friend of mine and I constantly quote some of the films best lines...Scott manages about six in his first five minutes on screen.
I expect you to watch this movie, if only so I can say to you, "I can't go home...because of the Carp." Even Ed Flanders can't really hold it together during that monologue.
Blatty shows Friedkins affinity for quick cuts, which just keeps the movie moving. He also maintains the matter-of-fact photography the original used as well. Scenes are just people moving through space, talking to one another...or sitting at a booth, discussing. Blatty allows for some indulgence, but mostly it works because the actors do a fantastic job of bringing real gravitas to their dialogue. A scene of two characters discussing the nature of the world becomes an incredible moment.
Also, lest we forget this is a horror film...some really, really great scares are involved in this film. A scene of a Priest hearing a seemingly innocuous confession turns terrifying as the voice becomes distorted...and confessing some truly terrible things...
Much like the original, a lot of the violence is much more on the implied side than the direct approach. Sure, there's blood, but mostly it almost works like a joke: there's a set-up, and then the punchline..it just jumps to the Police doing their thing. We see the results but not the action. The crime scenes are described very graphically, but the horrors aren't made known to us firsthand. The victims of the crimes are decent people, people we would mourn on the news. In some ways, the message behind this film(more-so the book) are even more relevant these days. We aren't as blind to the horrible crimes committed on innocent people as we once were, given the internet and media. It's even harder to remember compassion for those who do those acts, too. Again, "Religion for Atheists." Interesting stuff.
Kinderman is a fascinating character. He's sort of a "last angry man" in a way, but also a man from a different time and place, or so he'd at least like to think. There's an almost naive sensibility to his cynicism.
The dream sequence is a favorite of mine. As Kinderman walks through the space of a weigh station between Earth and Heaven, seeing Angels and the recently deceased...along with a bunch of cameos, some by people who weren't famous yet, like Samuel L. Jackson...it's just a beautiful but eerie scene altogether. Then he sees Father Dyer...
Again, not to be "Book vs. Movie" guy...but I do wish Kindermans partner from the book was put into the film. The character was wonderfully understated. He does appear in the film, but only has a few lines of dialogue. But Atkins did wonderfully in underscoring the heartbreak and spiritual dissolution that Kinderman feels after the death of his friend. That's well done in the film, too, of course...Scott brings it just the surface for a second and then buries it, and it's tragic. Such a quiet, brooding scene.
"Radio is broken...dead people talking." That has a lot of significance to the book but not so much the film. It's still a really nice scene and is quite moving, mostly because Scott sells it remarkably well.
What the screenplay for this film does very well is focus the story on the personal journey and emotional distress of Kinderman. It may not have the luxury of hashing out all of the philosophies, but it can still bring the central character arcs and out nicely.
Blatty also understands visual symmetry. So many of his set pieces, especially in Churches, showcase some beautiful photography.
"IT IS NOT IN THE FILE!" George C. Scott can yell like nobody else.
It's amazing that Jason Miller returned to reprise his role as Karras(in a way, anyway)...he once again does some great work, but he's replaced through a lot of the scenes with Brad Dourif, but Dourif is incredible for his part. It makes a lot of sense in context. Both men do great work with what is basically almost all monologue. Dourif does reveling in evil and depravity with great pride incredibly well. He's downright chilling in a lot of his scenes. Great use of sound in the Gemini Killer scenes, too.
The dialogue in the gemini killer scenes is lifted directly from the book...but coming out of Dourif it becomes even more bone-chilling. It's one of my favorite performances, really. Extraordinary stuff.
One of my all-time favorite scares occurs in "Exorcist III." A Nurse is wandering around, most of it all one long shot down a darkened hallway, and then this white robed figure just lunges from off screen and comes at her...it has this big scare chord...it's just a solid scene and a great scare.
I hate the modern statements about "Jump Scares" a lot. They're not a new thing, and yet the internet tends to be awash in comments about "all new horror movies are jump scares and those are so lame." They've existed forever, though, and are a staple of horror. Sure, movies over-use them on occasion, but here's the thing: Horror is basically like a joke, to borrow from myself above and from a number of horror scholars, and work by set-up and punchline, set-up and punchline, set-up and punchline. the Jump-Scare is the punchline. The accumulation of tension and then releasing it with a punch. You're supposed to jump. Sure, the jump scare needs to be earned with suspense and atmosphere, but seriously: they're fairly necessary. But these days, the kids are all "jump scares, ha, ha. Lame." I just saw it again last night on a trailer for some new horror movie that didn't have a jump scare in the trailer so some punk was like "wow, a horror movie without jump scares, yay" and...y'know, I'm ranting and raving. I'm very tired. But they're necessary. Stop decrying movies that use them. Sure, keep in mind whether or not they're earned, but just because a movie uses one doesn't mean it's bad.
Blatty starts breaking his symmetry rule slightly during the scenes between Dourif and Scott. It's minimal and subtle, yet effective. There are long-shots of the cell, and the left half of the frame is slightly larger and more spacious, giving the Gemini Killer a lot of room. George is on the right side, squeezed into the frame, cornered and isolated. Very nice shot.
Nancy Fish gives a really fun performance as Nurse Allerton, the bitchy older nurse who both does and doesn't get along with Kinderman. She has some great dialogue to work with and seems to have a good time with it. Just wanted to pass along to shout out to her work here.
Father Morning seems kinda tacked on and that's because, well, he is. Not in the book whatsoever. But, hey, I guess a film called "Exorcist" needed to actually contain an exorcism. Rumor has it that the whole sequence was actually an eleventh hour alteration made by the studio, but it may not be a bad thing. Sure, it's kinda silly at times, particularly the dialogue throughout...a lot of it is pretty terrible. The effects and atmosphere of the scene aren't bad, though, they just feel a little rushed. But, as I alluded to earlier, the ending of the novel was pretty unfilmable. There's not a lot of actual conflict, certainly not anything that would excite a movie going public. Even if the studio forced it onto Blatty, I think it was still necessary. Unfortunately, though, Kinderman has a really terrible monologue...his "I believe" stuff is really over-the-top...but the last moments actually have a nice sense of finality to them. It's not the "forgiveness" theme of the novel, but brings a nice sense of closure to concepts of friendship and brotherhood that permeate the film, and that's nice. At least it brings some substance. And hey, it gives Damian one last hurrah instead of ignoring him completely like certain "Exorcist II: The Heretic" movies.
Final Thoughts: While by no means a perfect film, "Exorcist III" really is an under-rated film made by an under-rated film-maker. Blatty made something that, while not anywhere near his original vision (but he has his book for that), but was substantive and thoughtful while being mostly scary and marketable to a horror movie crowd. It doesn't get the respect it deserves. It's witty and interesting, and has a lot of great performances. It's last ten minutes don't do it any favors, but that sort of thing happens sometimes. Like I said, I don't think it was an entirely bad decision to deviate from the source material when it came to making an ending that would be satisfying for a mainstream audience.
Final Rating: 3 stars.
No comments:
Post a Comment