Skip to main content

Catatonics are so easy to possess.

The Exorcist III
(1990)

(SPOILERS) The demand for reshoots on The Exorcist III, as seems to be the case more often than not, failed to bolster its box office. One might argue that alone made tampering with William Peter Blatty’s vision for the picture redundant. Ironically, however, it may have resulted in a superior film; while I haven’t seen the “Director’s Cut” version of the film assembled a few years back (glued together with sticky tape and Blu Tack might be more accurate, given the quality of the materials available), nothing I’ve read about it makes it sound superior to the theatrical release.

Most reviews – not Mark Kermode's, inevitably – have suggested the DC (titled Legion) is less satisfying than the theatrical, even if the vision involved is purer (the is-he/isn’t-he of a supernatural presence is massaged, with more of Brad Dourif’s performance and none of Jason Miller’s); I may well give it a look eventually, but I’d sooner it was in the form of miraculously found Morgan Creek footage than Blatty’s VHS dailies (I’ve read the director thought the theatrical was actually the better version, although I don’t have a source for this). Certainly, from summaries of the differences, the most significant divergent elements were in the novel and earliest screenplay (according to Wiki), presumably excised prior to the Legion Blatty shot and intended for release. These related to the Gemini Killer’s murderous motivation: abuse by an alcoholic, evangelist father, which seems rather on-the-nose – given the entire film is a rumination on evil vis-à-vis God allowing humanity to be afflicted by it – and might be why Blatty elected to excise it.

Blatty had originally developed Legion as a project with William Friedkin, before they fell out over the direction it was taking and Blatty went ahead and turned it into a novel. The Gemini Killer was in part inspired by the real-life Zodiac Killer – who was a big fan of The Exorcist – and included links to the earlier work (Lieutenant Kinderman, Father Karas’ possessed body). If the novel forwent any kind of cinematic ending in favour of elucidating the killer’s motivation, the DC seems to fall between the stools of providing not enough of either (the most we get is “I must go on killing daddy”).

It’s unclear precisely how the title evolved – what would it have been called if the Friedkin version had got off the ground? – but it’s evident Blatty would have preferred plain Legion, and the production was likely known as The Exorcist: Legion and The Exorcist: 1990 before arriving at the final release title of The Exorcist III. One might suggest Blatty should have been canny enough to realise that someone, somewhere along the line – if only the absent line of audiences: albeit, the picture did open at number one, forming a trio of supernatural afterlife fare at the top of the charts with Ghost and Flatliners; it plummeted out of the top five in its second week – was going to cry foul at an Exorcist movie minus any semblance of an exorcism (ideally Morgan Creek would simply have adjusted the title accordingly).

The director tells it that associations with Exorcist II: The Heretic were the killer to its box office, but in a genre where dud entries don’t tend to staunch returns for very long and recoveries are staged all the time, I find it hard to believe the chief reason wasn’t that this was a talky, contemplative anti-horror, one where we’re 45 minutes in and there stillaren’t any scary moments. It’s very much the kin of The Ninth Configuration rather than The Exorcist, and its box office reflects that more selective impulse towards finding a receptive audience.

Blatty also attested that it was more frightening than The Exorcist… which it clearly isn’t, even if it has that one scene that surpasses anything in the Friedkin film. That scene is a masterpiece in clinical restraint; you know something is due to happen because the camera is fixed for so long on the mundanity of the corridor, and then, when it happens… Also a lovely touch that the nurse locks the door before the heart-stopping incident. There are other moments in the film – the elderly patient crawling across the ceiling, the attack at the Kinderman home with those giant shears (Sherrie Wills of Heathers and Meet the Applegates narrowly avoiding them). And then there’s that all-timer line, “Catatonics are so easy to possess”. Those slim pickings aside, though, the most “horror” the film gets is courtesy of the reshoots.

Kinderman: This I believe in… I believe in death. I believe in disease. I believe in injustice and inhumanity, torture and anger and hate… I believe in murder. I believe in pain. I believe in cruelty and infidelity. I believe in slime and stink and every crawling, putrid thing… every possible ugliness and corruption, you son of a bitch. I believe… in you.

The climax consisted of Morgan Creek throwing $4m at a showy exorcism sequence (which, to be fair, includes the odd moment of startling imagery, such as a crucified Karras appearing out of a gaping crevasse in the cell floor) via inserting a couple of earlier scenes featuring Nicol Williamson as a prelude to his performing a rather gruey – and perfunctory – casting out; it’s a less elegant repeat of Father Merrin in the original, the character shown initially but only destined to intersect with the narrative proper for the exorcising main course.

Kinderman: I was signalling beings on Mars. Sometimes they answer.

Also added is Jason Miller as Karras/ Patient X’s alter ego, and whether or not Blatty felt it was the right idea, in that it’s emphasising ambiguity as overtly the case, I think this adds to the texture and sense of the uncanny depths of the netherworld X partly exists in; there’s some fairly unsubtle and obliging exposition on the part of Dourif (which he’s absolutely terrific at), which includes the suggestion of the hierarchies and deals of the other side. This isn’t chilling in a conventional sense, but the notion of a realm of demonic “orders” disturbs on a more pervading level. Blatty commented of the exorcism “it’s all right, but it’s utterly unnecessary and it changes the character of the piece”. That may be true, but there’s nevertheless the sense that it doesn’t adversely impact what’s important therein, as it’s almost exclusively back-ended.

Kinderman: Shouldn’t you be reading from the gospels?
Dyer: They don’t give you all the fashions.

And besides, the picture’s most pronounced pleasures are in its opening sections. It’s very evident from these that Blatty could be a very funny guy (he wrote A Shot in the Dark, after all), and for my money his particularly line of black humour comes together more successfully here than in The Ninth Configuration. The banter between Lt Kinderman – George C Scott, taking on the Lee J Cobb role from the first film; it doesn’t matter too much that Scott was the same age as Cobb when he played Kinderman, as Scott could easily have passed for a decade older than his actual age – and the ailing Father Dyer (Ed Flanders) is a hoot, taking in the heavy metaphysical subjects (“Bill, it all works out right” assures Dyer), a carp in the bath (“It’s a tasty fish. I’ve nothing against it”) and It’s a Wonderful Life. Scott is a riot in this movie; even when he isn’t delivering zingers, Kinderman’s suddenly eruptive temper is hilarious (“It is NOT in the file! It’s NOT!”)

Patient X: It’s the smiles that keep us going, don’t you think? The little giggles and bits of good cheer.

There are noteworthy performances everywhere you look, of course. Flanders is completely up to the repartee with Scott. Brad Dourif’s career started off interestingly (One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest) and would remain so, typically cast as freaks (The Eyes of Laura Mars, Wise Blood, Dune, Blue Velvet) but the Gemini Killer represented a point, post-voicing Chucky, where he would be an increasing go-to guy for the horror genre. It’s surely also not coincidental that a number of Exorcist III alumni would go on to appear in The X-Files (and Millennium), since the doomy, foreboding tone informs both of Chris Carter’s series as much as Kolchak and The Silence of the Lambs; serial killer Luther Lee Boggs in first season episode Beyond the Sea is a direct influence.

Patient X: I must admit, it makes me chuckle every time.

Dourif’s relishing every minute of Patient X (the only other big screen role in the ‘90s that comes close is Dr Gediman in Alien Resurrection), and as ever when two great actors share scenes, he and Scott only improve each other’s performances. Dourif’s serial killer brings a much humour to bear, including the almost meta “I do that rather well, don’t you think” when he transforms into Karras (well you should; an entirely different actor just replaced you).

There’s also Scott Wilson as the chain-smoking Dr Temple, in the tried and tested role of psychiatric hospital head who has as many issues as his patients (see also Dr Chiltern The Silence of the Lambs). Wilson is now best known for a four-season stint on The Walking Dead, but had played the co-lead against Stacy Keach in Blatty’s previous film and would later appear in The X-Files’ seventh season episode Orison; his rehearsal of his patient confessionals prior to speaking to Kinderman is particularly amusing. Nancy Fish (as red herring Nurse Allerton) would appear in X-Files Season 4’s Elegy, meanwhile, and there’s also Lois Foraker in a small role (7.3: Hungry). Away from X-Files associations, we also get Samuel L Jackson and Fabio in Kinderman’s Glen Miller-infused dream sequence.

Kinderman: Would a God, who is good, invent something like death? Plainly speaking, it’s a lousy idea.

Blatty indicated there simply wasn’t room for the rumination that concluded the Legion novel in a thriller of The Exorcist III”s nature, but that omission does rather leave a hole as to what the picture does believe in, where Kinderman’s journey does take him; his belief is confirmed, but it’s hardly a positive construct, given his earlier disillusion. The novel’s epilogue has much in common with the Gnostic cosmological view, albeit with a glimmer of perverse hope (Blatty notes “... before the Big Bang, mankind was a single angelic being who fell from grace and was given his transformation into the material universe as a means of salvation wherein his legion of fragmented personalities would spiritually evolve”). It might have been amusing if Blatty had attempted to shoehorn that in. As a much less palatable conclusion than the comforting Christian-tinged Hollywood ruminations being served up by Bruce Joel Rubin during this period (whose Ghost became the biggest hit of that year globally; he also had Jacob’s Ladder out that year), it certainly would have been interesting if he’d attempted to get the idea across somehow.

1990 was both a notable and less than illustrious year for the arrival of long-gestating – or too briefly knocked together – sequels to ‘70s properties, ones that underperformed either critically or commercially. There was Jack Nicholson’s The Two Jakes, which like Legion was supposed to appear in the early-to-mid ‘80s; when it finally surfaced it bombed big time (I really liked it). Texasville found Peter Bogdanovich, in the career doldrums, returning to The Last Picture Show and assembling most of his cast but sparking little interest from audiences. Then there was – at that point – a Rocky too far, which despite the original director found audiences staying away in droves. And of course, most famously, The Godfather Part III (first mooted in very different form in the late ‘70s), conspicuously failing to reach the artistic heights of its predecessors. What they have in common (I’m not going to include Texas Chainsaw Massacre 3) is a struggle to meet the sensibility of their illustrious originals. In Blatty’s favour, though, aside from the reshoots, The Exorcist III at least doesn’t try. It may not be as effective as the original Exorcist in terms of singularity of vision, but I do think it’s a more interesting picture, focussed as it is on foreboding rather than visceral scares, and on rumination on the nature of evil rather than delivering pat pejoratives.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

Watership Down (1978) (SPOILERS) I only read Watership Down recently, despite having loved the film from the first, and I was immediately impressed with how faithful, albeit inevitably compacted, Martin Rosen’s adaptation is. It manages to translate the lyrical, mythic and metaphysical qualities of Richard Adams’ novel without succumbing to dumbing down or the urge to cater for a broader or younger audience. It may be true that parents are the ones who get most concerned over the more disturbing elements of the picture but, given the maturity of the content, it remains a surprise that, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which may on the face of it seem like an odd bedfellow), this doesn’t garner a PG certificate. As the makers noted, Watership Down is at least in part an Exodus story, but the biblical implications extend beyond Hazel merely leading his fluffle to the titular promised land. There is a prevalent spiritual dimension to this rabbit universe, one very much

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) (SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek , but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan . That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

They say if we go with them, we'll live forever. And that's good.

Cocoon (1985) Anyone coming across Cocoon cold might reasonably assume the involvement of Steven Spielberg in some capacity. This is a sugary, well-meaning tale of age triumphing over adversity. All thanks to the power of aliens. Substitute the elderly for children and you pretty much have the manner and Spielberg for Ron Howard and you pretty much have the approach taken to Cocoon . Howard is so damn nice, he ends up pulling his punches even on the few occasions where he attempts to introduce conflict to up the stakes. Pauline Kael began her review by expressing the view that consciously life-affirming movies are to be consciously avoided. I wouldn’t go quite that far, but you’re definitely wise to steel yourself for the worst (which, more often than not, transpires). Cocoon is as dramatically inert as the not wholly dissimilar (but much more disagreeable, which is saying something) segment of Twilight Zone: The Movie directed by Spielberg ( Kick the Can ). There