Skip to main content

I think the exorcism made the problem worse.

Exorcist II: The Heretic
(1977)

(SPOILERS) While I’ve seen instalments the original and III a number of times, until now I hadn’t got round to checking out the near-universally reviled first Exorcist sequel. Going in, I had lofty notions Exorcist II: The Heretic would reveal itself as not nearly the travesty everyone said it was, that it would rather be deserving of some degree of praise if only it was approached in the right manner. Well, there is something to that; as a sequel to The Exorcist, it sneers at preconceptions right off the bat by wholly failing to terrify, so making its determined existence within the fabric of that film becomes downright bizarre (the relationship is almost like Back to the Future Part II to Back to the Future, but not). Further still, it warrants a twisted validation for being its own thing, refusing to rehash its predecessor like 90% of sequels, then and now, thus exerting fascination all its own. Unfortunately, John Boorman’s film is also equal parts listless and dull, never as torturously inept and bungled as, say Highlander II: The Quickening, but bearing all the signs of a lash-up from a studio desperate to cash in while simultaneously lacking any real idea of how to do so.


If you regard The Exorcist as the greatest movie ever made, it’s perhaps understandable that you’d see its first sequel as the worst (stand up, Mark Kermode).  I have some sympathy with John Boorman’s reasons for turning down the chance to direct the original, however (he found the story “rather repulsive”, which is probably why it suited William Friedkin down to a tee; Friedkin notably referred to Boorman as “a dumb guy” after seeing the sequel, although it’s unclear if this was before or after his post-Sorcerer career had fizzled into abject mediocrity). The Exorcist is a very well-made, very scary movie, but there’s little lasting thematic resonance to Friedkin’s bag of tricks beyond the capacity to terrorise, and I can at least appreciate Boorman’s high-minded aims for the sequel, even if he failed to imbue them. His “metaphysical thriller” eschewed a return to “torturing a child” that was the original, and was undoubtedly what audiences were expecting, instead opting to explore the relationship between good and evil through the dualistic constructs of religion and science.


William Goodhart’s screenplay (heavily rewritten by Boorman and Rospo Pallenberg) picked up on the inspiration for Father Merrin, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (Richard Burton’s Father Lamont even name-checks him at one point), who balanced the theory of (creative, rather than Darwinian) evolution with his own religious beliefs, and the concept of the noosphere. the latest phase in the development of the Earth, whereby humankind’s consciousness and interaction yields a transformative effect on the planet. Love would be the ultimate driving force in this process, leading to a universal Omega Point (the doctrinal Second Coming).


This kind of flirtation with pseudishness is right up my street (or haunted steps; which were recreated on a soundstage for The Heretic as filming permission was denied) as far as movie material goes; William Peter Blatty notably had greater success integrating overt religious philosophy in Exorcist III, in spite of interfering studio edicts. The problems that mangle Exorcist II probably derive from its genesis as a low budget cash-in that would interview the main players of the original, since this is retained with Father Lamont (William O’Malley couldn’t return as Father Dyer) investigating whether Max von Sydow’s Father Merien was a heretic (and indeed, sympathiser with Old Nick himself). It’s a premise that feeds too overtly on the carcass of Friedkin’s film, resulting in a picture continually burdened by looking backwards at its predecessor as it struggles to plough forward with its own distinct leanings (again, Exorcist III did a much better job of referencing the history of the series while addressing its own distinct themes, which, like Heretic, focus on a man questioning his faith).


It might have been better to cast aside Linda Blair’s Regan altogether, and so strike out in an entirely concerted direction. After all, they had von Sydow on board, and his questionable stature had been placed firmly at the core, and in the title, of the sequel. As it is, though, The Heretic comes across as if every element is designed to get the backs up of fans of the original. There, the core element was the reality of demon possession; it struck such a chord because it was palpable. It put the fear of God (or Pazuzu) in audiences. 


Now, Linda Blair’s back, the demon child, the corrupted precious innocent, but she’s refusing to don possession make-up and her acting deficiencies (possibly coke-fuelled, it would explain the silly dippy grin she’s wearing throughout) are as foregrounded as her mammaries. On top of this, the picture takes delivery of a sci-fi gizmo that makes Brainstorm look like cold clinical reality, as Louise Fletcher’s Dr Tuskin hooks Regan up to a synchronizer by which the shared mind can allow a connected party to experience the other’s thoughts (and thus the original’s possession scenes).


I actually didn’t mind this subplot. It’s such an unabashed distillation of the era’s predilection for the crossing over of science/ and new age thinking (there’s even spoon bending on display), but it further ensures any lurking sense of original’s horror shrinks into the background. Boorman appears to consciously shy away from anything really spooky; about as chilling as we get is the possessed Regan coming into view through a distorted mirror effect.


Given that Regan is to now be the “good locust” (Pazuzu being the demon of the air), a Neo-esque chosen one who can heal others, the demon wants to destroy her (likewise James Earl Jones’ Kokumo when he was younger; Jones wasn’t even credited at the time for the most iconic work he undertook on a film released in 1977, of course); she’s retconned as a special person rather than just an average afflicted pre-teen (so it couldn’t be you, or your family, that got picked on by Pazuzu). 


As a consequence, a number of sequences play out on a different plane of existence. Notably the dual Regan finale, in which Father Lamont is on the receiving end of anything the Warner Bros special effects department can throw at him. This is a damp squib, an attempt to compensate for the lack of Regan even being possessed during the main body of the film. It lacks even the genuine sense of the surreal found in Lamont’s earlier encounter with Kokumo.


This sequence, the most engaging in the film (not all that hard, admittedly) finds Father Lamont seeking out this man. Having called on Pazuzu to show him Kokumo, he discovers him in the mountain caves where Merrin exorcised him, wearing locust headgear, only for Lamont to then find himself speaking to Kokumo the scientist, studying locusts in a lab. It’s an idea Boorman would return to in a more fully developed form with Percival’s Grail travails in Excalibur, the vision quest being one of indefinite materiality. Unfortunately, Heretic rarely manages to coalesce its ideas in such a pleasing manner. It’s fractured and fragmented, making Pauline Kael’s response surprisingly positive and almost laudatory:


Kael: The picture has a visionary crazy grandeur… a swirling, hallucinogenic, apocalyptic quality… The film is too cadenced and exotic and too deliriously complicated to succeed with most audiences… There’s enough visual magic in it for a dozen good movies; what the picture lacks is judgement – the first casualty of the moviemaking obsession”.

I’d argue what it lacks more damagingly is narrative propulsion. Boorman leaves the picture sitting there, apparently incapable of meshing its constituent parts into a palatable whole. Kael’s completely right regarding the visuals (William A Fraker also lensed ‘60s classics The President’s Analyst and Rosemary’s Baby, as well as 1941 for Spielberg), and the sequences in Africa are strange, exotic and unknowable, lent the same kind of mythical lustre Boorman would later bring to Arthurian Britain. Dr Tuskin’s lab is striking in a different way, a movie-world parlour of windows, reflective surfaces, and hermetic safety (and dawn rooftops).


Yet the interactions between Lamont and Tuskin never translate as more than rote. None of the main performers manage to wrestle the material into something engaging. Fletcher is curiously passive, and the challenges to science and faith fall rather flat. Burton definitely isn’t at his best here and, while I wouldn’t get carried away slating him – as it seems those experiencing his acting here can’t help but do, amid reports of his drunkenness during the shoot – since his oversized ham ought to be strangely appropriate to the picture’s portentous notions, somehow he just flounders.


Mainly, though, Boorman falters through throwing his grand theme out there (“Does great goodness draw itself to evil?”) without the clarity to assemble a commanding narrative from it. The locust footage offers some nice squirmy close ups and swarmy skies, but it isn’t even really very ominous. Scorsese defended the picture, preferring it to the original and comparing its main theme to the Book of Job (on those grounds alone, Damon Lindelof probably loves it). But strong underlining ideas rarely excuse poor delivery. Apparently Kubrick was offered the picture and believed the only way to do it would be to make it more graphic and horrific than Friedkin’s. Boorman is to be congratulated for not doing that (conversely, Blatty made a movie with some at least as memorable horror moments as the first film that didn’t either) but he has failed to synthesise his ideas.


Not in his hurried post-release re-edits either. Boorman was sick during its making, and Pallenberg apparently directed key scenes, but his reasons for trimming the picture were the disastrous audience reactions (reactions did not improve). About the only roundly admired aspect of the picture is Ennio Morricone’s score, and even that has its detractors. Kim Newman, often a sense-speaker in these things, noted that, for all its failings, Exorcist II: The Hereticdoes manage to be very interesting”. I’d certainly agree with that, at least when its not managing to be dramatically inert. Heretic is both a striking and torpid picture, a combination you’d find difficult to pull off if you tried. 


It was of course, a box office failure… Well, compared to the original. In today’s money, it made about $120m in the US, quite respectable. However, not in comparison to the almost $900m made by Friedkin’s film! Short of Mel Gibson directing a (or another) religious horror movie, I suspect that’s well out of reach for the genre today. As for Boorman’s career, some direct scorn at Zardoz, but that picture knows exactly what it wants to be. Exorcist II is probably the only resounding stinker of his career (albeit there have been other definite failures), but at least it manages to be an interesting stinker.





Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

I will beat you like a Cherokee drum.

Fast & Furious 8 aka The Fate of the Furious (2017)
(SPOILERS) Fun. Brio. That’s what any director needs to bring a sense of to the ever more absurd Fast & Furious franchise at minimum. Action chops are definitely up there, but paramount is an active affinity with how plain silly the series is. And it’s a quality F Gary Gray doesn’t really have, or if he does, he’s never shown it, previously or here. Even his action leaves something to be desired (his The Italian Job remake is far superior in that regard). Which isn’t to suggest there isn’t fun to be had from Fast & Furious 8/The Fate of the Furious, but it’s much more sporadic and performance-based than the previous outing, lacking the unbridled gusto James Wan brought to Furious 7.

But maybe I’m wrong about this. While I’ve seen every instalment in the franchise (only the once, mind) I haven’t followed it avidly in order (1, 4, 5, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, I think, only the first and last two at the cinema), although, it isn’t as if t…

I’m sorry to bother you, but are you telling people you’re God?

The Leftovers Season 3
(SPOILERS) I didn’t watch the final season of The Leftovers in Damon Lindelof’s preferred weekly format. Rather, I took it in over three nights (blame Sky for not knowing what to do with it), and if I’m completely honest, it wasn’t until the finale that I thought it reached the heights of Season Two. Which doesn’t mean it isn’t still (probably) the best series currently on TV (or was, at any rate), just that by the time of its third run it had evolved into something familiar, rather than disconcerting. As such, HBO was probably right to call time, as a fourth innings (Lindelof projected it might have had enough juice to go that far, left to its own devices) could have seen a shift towards mild contempt.

The big takeaway is that Lindelof has successfully rehabilitated his reputation after the litany of brickbats coming his way following the Lost finale (3.8: The Book of Nora is the anti-Lost finale) and the unfair maligning he received following Prometheus (blame …

This is our last stand. And if we lose... it will be a planet of apes.

War for the Planet of the Apes (2017)
(SPOILERS) It isn’t difficult to see why War of the Planet of the Apes didn’t open as well as its predecessor and is unlikely to come close to its gross; it plays it safe. Which sounds odd to say, for such a dark, downbeat, (almost) relentlessly grim blockbuster, but the lack of differentiation between this and its dark, downbeat, (almost) relentlessly grim predecessor suggests Matt Reeve and Fox thought more of the same would tickle its audience’s anthropoid itch, when in fact it only leads to a lack of differentiation. Which is a shame, as War of the Planet of the Apes is (mostly) an accomplished movie, expertly directed by Reeves and performed with due conviction by its mo-capped (and otherwise) cast.

It does seem a tad churlish to complain about what a movie might have been when it maintains the series’ consistent high quality, but I’m now firmly in the camp of wishing some of the more tonally-varied content of the original pictures was finding…

There’s no surf in Michigan.

Don’t Breathe (2016)
(SPOILERS) I passed on Fede Alvarez’ The Evil Dead remake – it seemed a tad too close to torture porn for my tastes, and besides, why redo Evil Dead if you’re eschewing a sense of humour; it’s what made it what it is – so this home invasion thriller in reverse is my first exposure to his work (he also has a new Lisbeth Salander movie, baffling rebooting the series with the fourth instalment, and a remake of Labyrinth on his to-do list). Don’t Breathe is okay, effective within its highly exploitative bracket, rarely doing anything but serviceably pushing obvious shock buttons.


I’ve seen reviews complain about the rape subplot herein – some even seem to think the Blind Man’s defence of “I’m not a rapist” is a representation of the views of the filmmakers, and that it thus needs emphasising that he is, in fact, which rather suggest a desire to be outraged than ends up making them look a bit dim – but it seems to me to go with the generally dubious territory of this ki…

Why would you sell the cows?

American Pastoral (2016)
(SPOILERS) Maybe Philip Roth and cinema just don’t mix. I couldn’t say for sure, as I haven’t read any of his novels, but the consensus is pretty much that none have resulted in highly acclaimed adaptations (eight have been translated to film or television thus far). American Pastoral won him a Pulitzer, so I presume it must be good, although you wouldn’t know it from the stodge that ends up on screen, any more than you’d have the remotest idea what it was in the material that hastened Ewan McGregor to make his directorial debut.

He can’t take the blame for the screenplay (stand up, John Romano) so that’s something in his favour, and technically, I guess, you could call him competent, but in terms of putting a dramatically coherent film together he does, alas, seem pretty hopeless, miscasting himself in the lead (and this after a string of roles that have rather re-established his early promise) to underwhelming effect – ironic, since he had been attached as an…

He’s a good kid, and a devil behind the wheel.

Baby Driver (2017)
(SPOILERS) Pure cinema. There are plenty of directors who engage in superficial flash and fizz (Danny Boyle or JJ Abrams, for example) but relatively few who actually come to the medium from a root, core level, visually. I’m slightly loathe to compare Edgar Wright with the illustrious likes of Sergio Leone and Brian De Palma, partly because they’re playing in largely different genre sandpits, partly because I don’t think Wright has yet made something that compares to their best work, but he operates from a similar sensibility: fashioning a movie foremost through image, supported by the soundtrack, and then, trailing a distant third, comes dialogue. Baby Driver is his most complete approximation of that impulse to date.

Is that a cherry pie?

Twin Peaks 3.11: There’s fire where you are going
(SPOILERS) A damn good episode. Perhaps the lesser part of it is the still great FBI plotline, but that’s only because – despite having the most overtly weird elements – it is more linear and less inimitable than the other claims to fame: Bobby and the shooting incident, and Dougie-Dale’s encounter with the Mitchum Brothers. Yes, it’s taken me a while, but I’ve finally come around to silver fox Bobby. Or should that be Becky’s pops.

What impressed me most about this sequence was the way it develops – escalated would be the wrong word. You think the scene is about one thing but then it becomes about something else, and then it becomes about something else entirely. During the build-up to this we’ve had the ominous, Blue Velvet-esque scene in which a boy playing ball sights Miriam crawling bloodied from the woods. Followed by Shelly riding the bonnet of her car until Becky throws her off. 

There’s something very matter-of-fact procedural …

A man who doesn't love easily loves too much.

Twin Peaks 2.17: Wounds and Scars
The real problem with the last half of the second season, now it has the engine of Windom Earle running things, is that there isn’t really anything else that’s much cop. Last week, Audrey’s love interest was introduced: your friend Billy Zane (he’s a cool dude). This week, Coop’s arrives: Annie Blackburn. On top of that, the desperation that is the Miss Twin Peaks Contest makes itself known.

I probably don’t mind the Contest as much as some, however. It’s undoubtedly lame, but it at least projects the season towards some kind of climax. If nothing else, it resolutely highlights Lynch’s abiding fascination with pretty girls, as if that needed any further attention drawn to it.

Special Agent Cooper: You made it just right, Annie.
I also like Heather Graham’s Annie. Whatever the behind the scenes wrangles that led to the disintegration of the Coop-Audrey romance (and it will be rather unceremoniously deconstructed in later Coop comments), it’s certainly the …

Rejoice! The broken are the more evolved. Rejoice.

Split (2016)
(SPOILERS) M Night Shyamalan went from the toast of twist-based filmmaking to a one-trick pony to the object of abject ridicule in the space of only a couple of pictures: quite a feat. Along the way, I’ve managed to miss several of his pictures, including his last, The Visit, regarded as something of a re-locating of his footing in the low budget horror arena. Split continues that genre readjustment, another Blumhouse production, one that also manages to bridge the gap with the fare that made him famous. But it’s a thematically uneasy film, marrying shlock and serious subject matter in ways that don’t always quite gel.

Shyamalan has seized on a horror staple – nubile teenage girls in peril, prey to a psychotic antagonist – and, no doubt with the best intentions, attempted to warp it. But, in so doing, he has dragged in themes and threads from other, more meritable fare, with the consequence that, in the end, the conflicting positions rather subvert his attempts at subversion…