.

Exorcist 3: Believer yet another film in a franchise that should have never existed, is about to hit the screens and it had me thinking on why only the first film has any quality for me.

The Exorcist, novel and screenplay, was written by William Peter Blatty, until that book best known as a comedic writer in Hollywood. While hitting trouble spiritual waters Blatty, a Catholic, write The Exorcist in part exploring his own faith and what it meant to him. Neither Blatty nor direct Friedken consider the film a horror movie even though it was marketed and widely seen as part of that long genre. It does not follow the usual cause and effect trajectory of a horror movie. Father Merrin’s archeological dig in Iraq does not release the demon from its containment, nor does Regan’s playing with a Ouija board cause her possession. In fact, the friendship between Friedkin and Blatty was severely damaged by Friedkin removing from the theatrical cut a scene Blatty considered absolutely essential to the theme and understanding of the story. It was later restored in the edition titled ‘the version you’ve never seen’ and it is the scene where karris questions why? Why this girl and Merrin provides the answer so that by the possession we will view humanity as mere animal, disgusting and unworthy of God’s love. The entire story rests on questions of doubt about God and his eternal love.

Now I am not, despite what the Monkeys might sing, a believer. That said Blatty was, and it is crucial to his novel and screenplay. At the very least within the setting of The Exorcist Catholicism is real and is an accurate depiction of the universe and its spiritual nature. Regan’s possession only makes sense in the context of a monotheistic god of love and a struggle for the souls of humanity.

Exorcist II: The Heretic jettisoned Blatty’s examination of faith for a typical horror plot of the 1970s where there is no mention of god or the tenets of Christianity replacing them with the sudden appearance of ‘superior’ humans with the psychic ability to heal others and the possession of the first film is retconned into a bid by demons to stop the evolution. The resulting movie is an incomprehensible miss-mash of pop psychology and ESP devoid of faith.

Exorcist III written and directed by Blatty, ignores the second film and attempts to get back to matters of faith, but intervening apparently blunted Blatty’s questions and the script and film lack essential core theme and sincerity of the groundbreaking first film.

After another lengthy break the studio returned to the franchise commissioning a film by noted writer and direct Paul Schrader, but when the final product dissatisfied the studio bosses, and the entire project was reshot by Renny Harlan as a more action/horror film. Eventually both movies were released as Exorcist: The Beginning and Dominion: Prequel to The Exorcist. Despite framing the story around Father Merrin and his crisis of faith following World War II neither movie found the heart of the original and neither found success with audiences.

Following another fallow period, the studio tried again this time with a sequel television series and now have once again returned to the big screen with yet another sequel. I have littler faith that the newest film will seriously examine faith from an honest Christian or Catholic perspective. I suspect such an approach would simply be too frightening too skittish about offending some element of the audience. As such we will be treated to another movie built around set pieces, extreme visual effects, and utterly devoid of meaning.

.

Local cinephile organization Film Geeks SD is hosting this Saturday September 23 the annual Secret Morgue a six-movie marathon. The titles of the films are secret with only the theme acknowledged. Previous marathons have had the themes of SF/Aliens, Witches, Animal Attacks, and 70s/80s horror. This year’s theme is zombies and that covers a lot of ground. Each year I have attended I have enjoyed, and I expect 2023 to be no different.

I am going to take some guesses as to which movie might screen. While I know some of the organizers, they have not nor would they ever give me any hints to the titles, so these are all just guesses of varying quality.

Night of the Living Dead: There are two reason I think this is a likely contender. First, it is the ur-text for modern zombie movies. Before Night zombie movies were Caribbean mystical zombies and afterwards that variety became to exception rather than the rule. the second reason is that the movie is in the public domain and therefore there are no rights holders with their palms out demanding cash for a public screening.

 City of the Living Dead I suspect at least one Italian zombie flick is going to make an appearance and it’s either this one or Zombie. I’ll put my money on the lesser-known film with the Lovecraft references.

One Cut of the Dead: A more recent film that has garnered praise within the horror community but not widely known outside of that social structure.

Sugar Hill A 70s blaxploitation zombie movie will be almost irresistible to the people of Film Geeks SD. It also has the charm of being a post-Night zombie movie that didn’t just crib from Romero’s cult classic.

The Living Dead at Manchester Morgue An English/Spanish co-production from the 70s, it clearly has inspiration from Romero’s Night but was produced before the zombie apocalypse became a cultural touchstone.

White Zombie A pre-code Bela Lugosi movie about classic Voodoo zombies, enslavement, and sexual perversion that also is in the public domain.  It is the original Zombie movie and for that fact alone I think there is a strong chance that it screens in the marathon.

I shall report from the Morgue and let all of you know how terrible my guesses turned out to be.

. 

A Haunting in Venice is star and director Kenneth Branagh 3rd outing as Agatha Christie’s detective Hercule Poirot. Adapted from Christie’s novel Hallowe’en Party Branagh and

20th Film Studios

screenwriter Michael Green fully commit to the aesthetics of a ghost story for this interpretation with a raging storm outside, which also conveniently removes the authorities from investigating the crimes, an ancient house with countless dark and dreadful chambers, and a tragic history full of the unexpressed anger expected from ghostly vengeance. That said this is a Hercule Poirot mystery and it is no spoiler to reveal that nothing supernatural is at hand and only the living can speak for the dead.

The story opens with Poirot retired in Venice with a dour bodyguard to chase away anyone attempting to engaged Poirot’s services when an American mystery author, an old acquaintance of the detective’s, Ariadne Oliver (Tina Fey) lures him out of his seclusion. Ariadne house found a medium Mrs. Reynolds (Michelle Yeoh) whom Ariadne cannot prove as a fraud. She needs Poirot to either reveal the tricky or confirm the fantastic nature of the woman’s metaphysical talents. Mrs. Reynold is scheduled to perform a seance at a reputedly cursed and haunted home. Once there the cast of diverse and suspicious characters is revealed and Poirot, despite his intention to retire is drawn inexorably into a murderous mystery.

 A Haunting in Venice is a terribly lovely film with pitch perfect cinematography by Hans Zambarloukos and a unique musical score by Icelandic composer Hildur Gudnadottir. Branagh is exception at crafting sequences that hold the fear and suspense suspended in the air like a fog slowly drifting to the ground. It would be quite something to see him tackle a proper ghost/horror film and not one merely reproducing the style of one.

The cast is uniformly talented, and it is so very nice to see Michelle Yeoh cast in a part that is in no way a typical ‘Michelle Yeoh’ role with even her ethnicity unrelated to the role.

The mystery unfolds in a manner expected of a Christie plot. That is to say that there are elements and backstory details not presented to the audience before the third act’s required detective’s exposition but as this is to be expected from Christie it should not be held against the film.

A Haunting in Venice is currently playing in theaters nationwide.

Warner Brothers Studio

.

Four years following the harrowing events of The Exorcist Regan McNeil (Linda Blair) is a 16-year-old girl studying at an arts and performance school in New York City and apparently still unable to recall her possession and exorcism.

The Catholic Church dispatches Father Lamont (Richard Burton) to investigate the death of Father Merrin (Max Von Sydow) during Regan’s exorcism. Lamont, himself a survivor of a botched exorcism, inserts himself into Regan psychiatric treatment by Dr. Tuskin (Louise Fletcher) discovering through hypnosis and a psychic link with Regan that Merrin did not die of his well-displayed heart condition but rather from the demon psychically manipulating Merrin’s heart. Lamont pushes forward his investigation to discover why Regan was targeted for possession and to validate Father Merrin’s heretical theories about humanity.

Oh god, this movie is bad.

First off as a sequel it makes no sense. The Church is concerned about Merrin and what happened to him, as though an elderly man with a heart condition having a heart attack and dying is at all more peculiar than a healthy young priest defenestrated to his death. However as far as this movie is concerned Father Karris never existed. The movie always undercuts one of the main mysteries of The Exorcist, why her? Why Regan McNeil? In the longer released version Merrin speculates, correctly, that it is to make us feel that we are animals, unworthy of God’s love. When that scene was cut from the film it damaged to friendship between the writer Blatty and the director Fried kin because Blatty believed it to be so critical to understanding the meaning of what he had created.

This ties to the second reason this movie doesn’t work; it simply isn’t Catholic enough.

Now I am a non-believer. I do not believe in any gods or goddesses. The universe is ruled by physical laws and when we die, we end. That said, if you are crafting a work that hinges on religious theology then you need to stay true to that theology as it is the reality of that world. Blatty was a Catholic and wrote the novel and screenplay for The Exorcist exploring his deeply held faith and what evil means in the world he viewed as fallen. Part of the reason The Exorcist is so compelling and is because it comes from a sincere belief in its truth. Exorcist II: The Heretic abandons all that for uber-psychics with special mental healing powers and their destiny to unify humanity into one grand loving mind. That is pretty damned far from any Christian theology.

Aside from the lackluster script the movie is further damaged by some of the most blank, lifeless line readings I have ever seen on the screen. It is as if director Boorman, in an attempt to live up to his surname, instructed everyone to play their parts in a bad imitation of Star Trek’s Vulcan race. This movie has some real acting talent in it, Max Von Sydow, Richard Burton, Louise Fletcher, and James Earl Jones, but there is not one scene of genuine emotion in the entire movie.

The film’s score by the great Ennio Morricone is discordant to the point of distracting and quite possibly the worst score that man has ever composed.

Exorcist II‘s art direction is equally damaging to any suspension of willing disbelief. The sets look like sets, with studio lighting and backdrops only marginally better than what had been achieved on television a decade earlier.

The Exorcist is a film I revisit often, Exorcist II: The Heretic I last watched 40 years ago and revisiting it was a mistake.

Exorcist II” The Heretic is currently streaming on Max.