Movie 19: Exorcist:The Beginning

Because we needed to see what happened before "Exorcist."

Starring: Stellan Skarsgard, Izabella Scorupco, James D'Arcy, Remy Sweeney, Julian Wadham.

Director: Renny Harlin

For years, especially in the internet era, people often complain about "the studio."  In these cases, "the studio" becomes some sort of amorphous malevolent entity that usually exists solely to crush all things good and beautiful in the world.  It's usually characterized in the mind as a group of old white men in suits who sit around a table with cigars, cocaine and brandy, and discuss openly how best to destroy art, civilization, culture and the fanbase.  You hear it all the time: "It was a great movie before The Studio had their way with it" or "The Studio will never allow it to be good."  "There are no original ideas in Hollywood because The Studio won't allow it."

Usually, I find these statements to primarily be uttered by people with absolute no clue about anything, and certainly are unable to remember one specific thing about the world in that everybody is, essentially, just a human being.  In reality, it seems that The Studio is usually more-or-less interested in making something watchable (while remaining marketable and financially sound) and, generally, more-or-less got into the business because they loved movies.  People also often forget that, as artsy and glamorous as the industry is capable of being, it is still an industry.  It's a job and, as such, they often have the same duties and responsibilities as the rest of when it comes to the job...and that job exists because someone is paying for it and, since it's their money, they kinda do get the final say.  Because they could just, y'know, not spend the money anymore.  I'm no advocating for corporate america, far from it, just saying  that from a pragmatic stance, this is how it is and it isn't intrinsically good or bad.  It just IS.

That being said, there's something interested about literally seeing studio involvement in a film, and how it actually does affect things.  Such is the case with the "Exorcist Prequel," or which there are two versions of.

Long story short, as I remember it from (I think) a story in Entertainment Weekly: Paul Schrader was hired to make a Prequel film for the "Exorcist" franchise.  He set to work on a moderately expensive film taking place in the fifties about a young Father Merrin and his harrowing ordeal in Africa (because, as we saw in "Exorcist II:The Heretic," Africa is basically all just one big country anyway).  Schrader shot for awhile and the studio didn't like what they were seeing from him, citing it too "cerebral" and too light on action.  Details on what happened between Schrader and the studio are scarce but, in the end, Schrader was fired, and the studio more-or-less started over with a new script and a few change-ups in cast and crew.  This new set-up would be oversaw by Renny Harlin, a Director who made a career out of playing nice with studios, coming in under budget, and delivering a product that was generally watchable and marketable.  The fun part comes when, either due to contract or conscience, one of the producers actually contacted Schrader and allowed him to finish his film (albeit with a tiny fraction of the budget), which would be given a limited theatrical release and a DVD distribution under the name "Dominion:Prequel to The Exorcist."  The films were pretty similar, save for production values and a few different cast members and probably wouldn't be anything that anyone would have on their radar save for the fascinating story of a Studio intervening that isn't a rumor, or heresay, but is documented fact.  There are two versions of the same movie as a result. It's neat.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure I've only seen Harlins version once in the theaters, maybe twice on home video...and I don't remember too much about it.  Interestingly enough, despite my lack of memory on either film, I feel like my gut reaction is to say I like Schraders "Dominion" better, but when these came out I was still a kid who, like so many others, loved to hate the mainstream and dump all over anything The Studio did...so I likely had the knee-jerk reaction of siding with Schrader at the time.

I lied, I do have some memory of this, actually.  I remember a sequence or two I liked, some stuff I really didn't (isn't that old british guy from "Snatch" in this for no reason?) and an ending that spit in the face of canon...but in my old age, the canon-spit might not bother me as much as it did when I was twenty-two.

Ah, okay, we're in Cairo.  Thank you, movie, for addressing my concerns of Hollywood's Africa.  

Wow, heavy-handed exposition.  Merrin sits at a table boozing up, guy sits down, and actually says "I think you're a man whose lost faith in everything except himself" and calls Merrin "The greatest archeologist ever" or whatever.  I mean, I admire its simplicity, but it kinda makes me cringe. I also somewhat admire the films "Horror-movie Indiana Jones" approach.  The general set-up isn't bad, either: "We found a church buried in Kenya, we want you to go check it out and find the prize inside."  

Harlin does have kind of a knack for making nothing look like something.  Already he's employed some good looking crane shots and filled with a lot of activity: lots of people walking around, hammering things, making baskets, whatever.  Very little has actually occurred: some exposition, set-up, the british guy from "Snatch" and a Female Doctor for Merrin to have clunky flirtation dialogue with.  But it seems like we're getting somewhere, and that's pretty impressive.

I really do feel like you can see some of the focus-group inspired, money-mandated decisions.  Harlin probably handled that fine.  Like the studio said "Hey, make a part for that guy in Snatch.  He pops!"  He's a fine enough actor, but he seems like he literally could have been anyone and filled the "racist shitheel who runs the place" role fine.

The design of the church is pretty good.  It both overdoes and underdoes it, though...which might be one of the weirdest things I've ever actually written down.  I do love a weird location at the center of my horror flicks, though, so I'm willing to forgive it.  The trope of the "unknown location" in fiction is so inherently fixed with a sense of wonder and dread that makes for a remarkable experience for the viewer and the imagination.  Plus I do like history, so, bonus.

The dialogue in this is really kind of terrible.  I understand the nature of it is to keep things moving along, but still...it leaves a lot to be desired.  "The best view of God is from Hell" isn't too bad, though.  Not great, but...not too awful.

I feel like the English speaking Kenyan Christians-who don't have Kenyan accents-having a pet Monkey was mandated...oh, snap, CGI Hyenas ate the Monkey!  Then they CGI attack the hell out of the kid.  Not a bad scene, despite being cheap looking. There are a lot of cliches here, too.  Merrin goes to see the guy in the madhouse, guys commits stylized suicide, makes reference to Merrins past...very by-the-numbers.  Killing off kids, though, is a rarity in horror and always a very bold move.

So, wait, why was there steamed breather when Merrin and the other Priest were talking outside the sanitarium?  It has to be like a hundred degrees...I think someone shot the scene in the cold and forgot to digitally remove it...

Why was the guy from Snatch laying in the Doctors bed waiting for her to wake up? I feel like it would have just been easier to kick open her door and start shouting or something.  Less time consuming.  I mean, that plan would also require me to lay there for awhile waiting for her to wake up (which could take awhile) and not falling asleep myself.  I mean, at least sit in a chair?

Again, you can see things happening in this movie simply because they have to in order to fit basic movie tropes.  The romance between Merrin and The Doctor is not earned whatsoever.  They literally did nothing but exchange a few glances and talk about being sad and then they're making out.  You can see it was done simply because, well, the male and female leads need to have a romance in the movies.  

Yikes, that "give birth to a corpse" scene is pretty freaking, though.  I'll give this movie that one.  That was one uncomfortable scare sequence, and the dummy looked pretty great.  Again, for all the lousy-ness that is this film (and it undoubtedly is lousy, you guys), it has one thing going for it and it's Harlins direction.  Harlin has a way of making all of this LOOK impressive: stylish photography and editing, lots of color...it looks like something interesting is happening even though, really, nothing is.  At all.

I dunno, this script seems to take a lot of liberties with time and location...wouldn't the Doctor be, like, run out of town for using water for something as unnecessary as a shower on a dig in the middle of Kenya?  But, then again, what would a horror movie be without a girl in a towel stumbling around in the dark by candlelight?  WHAT I ask you, WHAT?!  I mean...besides interesting.  Oh,, and then magical vaginal bleeding.  This movie is sexist.

I forgot the younger priest was even in this movie.  I'm not sure why he is.  Having seen "Dominion" I know most of these characters were in the original script...so I assume they were kept in this version for simplicity...holy crap, though, this thing is scattered.

Oh, hey, there is an answer for the younger priests involvement.  It's just stupid and convoluted. 

This movie has kind of come together a bit more right after the flimsy "spot where lucifer fell" nonsense, though.  The allusions to Apartheid, the particularly gruesome imagery of the guy from snatch tied up and full of holes, the British soldier putting a bullet in the head of the Kenyan Priest and Stellan Skarsgard seemingly waking up from his coma to actually emote afterwards...actually a good sequence of events.  It's kind of like the movie itself woke up, too.  I find it funny, though, that Merrin knocks when looking for Sarah.  Sandstorm rolling in, war breaking out between two opposing military forces a mile away, the devil kicking around and a child in danger of ritual murder...civility is still important.

Y'know, I much prefer my horror heroes to be bothered by the horrors they encounter.  Merring hardly even blinks and the horrible scene in Sarah's bedroom...I mean, Damian Karras saw Reagan and was like "Holy shit" and then held it together but...anyway, the conceit that Sarah is the only actually possessed feels again like a studio note:

Exec:"So, hey, the chick should be possessed."

Screenwriter: "Well, in the original film they specifically state that Merrin performed his exorcism on a young African boy..."
Exec: "Yeah, but, it was the girl who was possessed in the first one right?"
Screenwriter: "Uh...yes, sure, but..."
Harlin(kicking screenwriter in the shin): "Hey, whatever you want.  Chicks possessed!"
Screenwriter: "But, while it was true that the little girl was possessed, the story we're telling was said to be on a boy...in fact, it took days..."
Harlin(whispering):"Shut up!  We got a good thing going here. Making half a movie for a full paycheck?  Awesome. So shut up."

The imagery of the possessed victim running around doing stuff is neat, even if Scorupco is way over doing it, the make-up effects are kinda cheap looking...and she can fly, which is kinda silly.  Levitation I buy...but flying?  Possession is shock, not function.  I do like the sexuality, even if the vulgar statements came far more naturally out of a twelve year old girl...but the mounting and riding him is a good image.  I don't know how I feel about him action-movie one-linering all over her, though.  Skarsgard does some great work with the exorcism ritual, though.  Much like Sydow, he makes it all look and sound pretty bad-ass. Bad green-screen is a friend to no one, though.  And, wait, when he kicks the demon out, her tongue recovers but her head wound doesn't?  

Killing off the female lead is cheap.  I think it lets Merrin off too easily.  He recovers from his lack of faith at a time when he totally wants to nail someone...I think the better show of his newfound faith is saving her, her being like "so, we gonna do this?" and him saying "I'd really like to, but, y'know, God and stuff,."  I think it would show his conviction much more strongly. 

Final thoughts: I've said it a couple times throughout this writing: Harlin has a real knack for making nothing look like something.  This movie seems interesting and engaging even though it really isn't.  But, for all the decent (but not extraordinary) cinematography, and occasional bursts of visual and performance strength, it's overall a lightweight, scattered movie with no clear identity of it's own.  It IS a patchwork film, a rush job, and an attempt to take bits of pieces of someone elses movie and make it a new one.  We know that without it showing us...and it still shows us anyway.

Final Rating: 2 and a half stars.  I'm feeling a little generous.