International Exorcist II: The Heretic Arrow Films UK Limited Edition blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[Kaskade1309]

See post 56 above.

Oh, I see.

 

[Wayne Klein]

I think they are great fun for the reasons the creators intended. And I don't see them as turkeys. They're subversive art films disguised as blockbusters. They're supposed to undermine their alleged commercial intentions with black humor, similar to those books of poetry that the Letterists published in the early 1950's with sandpaper that would erase the words as you would open the pages. Of course, doing so in the context of Hollywood filmmaking is commercial suicide, which is one reason I admire Boorman and Verhoeven. It's difficult to argue whether or not Exorcist II & Showgirls are successful, because one of the elements of their success is that they fail. However, if you look at some of Boorman's and Verhoeven's other films, there is similar "howlingly funny dialogue" going against the thrust of the narrative, which is there on purpose. These are two filmmakers who thrive on irony and discontinuity. I think the "profundity" of Exorcist II & Showgirls is that the films are cinematic Molotov cocktails. Therefore, I don't think you can treat them as the typical "so bad it's good" films, icons of hubris such as Moment by Moment or Exposed or Staying Alive because in Exorcist II & Showgirls that mockery, which is expressed through an extreme over-the topness, is the essence of the filmmaker's strategy. The films were and are misunderstood because of the way they were marketed. But that doesn't mean they can't be appreciated on their own terms, as films which critique the filmmaking process, purposefully attacking the viewer for attempting to gain pleasure. I wouldn't be surprised if at some point in the next decade or so, those films are considered masterpieces. Of course, I mean that both in jest as well as seriously, which is how Exorcist II & Showgirls are intended to be taken. OK, maybe they would be good together after all.

I don’t think John Boorman intended for “The Exorcist II” to be what it ended up being at all. He realized that, despite his ambitions, he was totally the wrong director for a project like this.

 

[lark144]

I don’t think John Boorman intended for “The Exorcist II” to be what it ended up being at all. He realized that, despite his ambitions, he was totally the wrong director for a project like this.

You may disagree, but I have many friends who feel Exorcist II is a misunderstood masterpiece. I don't, but I find it fascinating, brilliantly directed, courageous in that it goes completely against the mold of its predecessor, and think it has a lot to give an unbiased viewer. And I absolutely believe those moments of high camp were purposeful. Just look at Zardoz or Leo the Last. Very similar, in its mix of the transcendental and absurd. Basically, you have to take the film on its own terms, as a Boorman project, with all that entails, and completely ignore Fredkin's film and Blatty's ideas of faith, sacrifice and the supernatural. Exorcist II shares many themes from Deliverance, of irrationality, the archaic, pagan root of evil and the unknowing cosmos, completely at odds with Blatty, but in order to discern them, you have to leave your expectations behind. Anyway, that's my take on it. Blatty is a Catholic tradionalist, whereas Boorman's vision is pre-Christian. You have to see the film for how Boorman intended it to be seen, not how it was marketed and reedited. It may be maudit, but I think it's brilliant.

 

[Wayne Klein]

Whatever Boorman's intent for Exorcist II may have been was unfortunately undermined by the fact that the final product turned out so dreadfully boring. It's hard to be subversive when the main thing you've subverted is your audience's ability to stay awake.

Showgirls, meanwhile, has already seen a critical re-appreciation. I recommend this book, which lays out the case for why it's always been a masterpiece.

It Doesn't Suck: Showgirls, by Adam Nayman

Sorry but Showgirls still sucks. It’s an awful, awful film.

 

[Wayne Klein]

You may disagree, but I have many friends who feel Exorcist II is a misunderstood masterpiece. I don't, but I find it fascinating, brilliantly directed, courageous in that it goes completely against the mold of its predecessor, and think it has a lot to give an unbiased viewer. And I absolutely believe those moments of high camp were purposeful. Just look at Zardoz or Leo the Last. Very similar, in its mix of the transcendental and absurd. Basically, you have to take the film on its own terms, as a Boorman project, with all that entails, and completely ignore Fredkin's film and Blatty's ideas of faith, sacrifice and the supernatural. Exorcist II shares many themes from Deliverance, of irrationality, the archaic, pagan root of evil and the unknowing cosmos, completely at odds with Blatty, but in order to discern them, you have to leave your expectations behind. Anyway, that's my take on it. Blatty is a Catholic tradionalist, whereas Boorman's vision is pre-Christian. You have to see the film for how Boorman intended it to be seen, not how it was marketed and reedited. It may be maudit, but I think it's brilliant.

The problem is that it was Friedkin’s film and he wasn’t a Catholic. Blatty’s novel is Catholic, yes, but Friedkin’s film may have elements of it but his focus was a bit different from Blatty’s. Boorman was the wrong director for a film like this. A project unrelated to “The Exorcist II” would have worked much better at examining the themes he wanted to do. I’m a fan of both of the other films (“Zardoz”) and it works with those films. It isn’t about the camp factor either. It’s just a bad film with good intentions.

 

[lark144]

The problem is that it was Friedkin’s film and he wasn’t a Catholic. Blatty’s novel is Catholic, yes, but Friedkin’s film may have elements of it but his focus was a bit different from Blatty’s. Boorman was the wrong director for a film like this. A project unrelated to “The Exorcist II” would have worked much better at examining the themes he wanted to do. I’m a fan of both of the other films (“Zardoz”) and it works with those films. It isn’t about the camp factor either. It’s just a bad film with good intentions.

That is your opinion and I respect it. However, I consider Exorcist II the opposite, a good film with bad intentions. I'm using the term camp in the manner Susan Sontag defined it, as subversive. In fact, I can think of no commercial film from the 1970's that's as subversive and formally complex. You don't see it that way, which is fine. There's no reason why you should. But I and others do.

BTW, I had a friend who was involved with the production of Exorcist and gave me a copy of the shooting script written by Blatty and it's there on the screen almost shot for shot, including framing, editing & sound effects, which were very specific, and went on for paragraphs, with all kinds of detailed description, including sentences such as "Reagan's public hair is never to be seen!" Because of this, I consider Blatty more responsible for the look as well as the intent of the Exorcist then Fredikin, whose other films are quite different, stylistically and philosophically.

 

[Wayne Klein]

That is your opinion and I respect it. However, I consider Exorcist II the opposite, a good film with bad intentions. I'm using the term camp in the manner Susan Sontag defined it, as subversive. In fact, I can think of no commercial film from the 1970's that's as subversive and formally complex. You don't see it that way, which is fine. There's no reason why you should. But I and others do.

BTW, I had a friend who was involved with the production of Exorcist and gave me a copy of the shooting script written by Blatty and it's there on the screen almost shot for shot, including framing, editing & sound effects, which were very specific, and went on for paragraphs, with all kinds of detailed description, including sentences such as "Reagan's public hair is never to be seen!" Because of this, I consider Blatty more responsible for the look as well as the intent of the Exorcist then Fredikin, whose other films are quite different, stylistically and philosophically.

I don’t doubt that. However, Friedkin’s cinematic version of Blatty’s script also reflects his vision which he was quite clear about. The plot is the same as the novel just more narrow in scope. Friedkin worked with Blatty during the writing of the script and during production. It reflects both of their visions with Friedkin as director having final word.

I love John Bormann and been a fan since I saw “Point Blank” back in the early 70’s but I just feel this isn’t a very good film. I’ve watched the film three times over the years. Unfortunately, for me he doesn’t achieve his goal. I admire him for tackling though. When I saw it in theaters I was both fascinated and dumbfounded. There is some good stuff in it but it just doesn’t gel for me.

I still pull it out on occasion just to see if my impressions have changed. It hasn’t I appreciate your opinion in it though as it is food to have a different take on the material.

 

[lark144]

I don’t doubt that. However, Friedkin’s cinematic version of Blatty’s script also reflects his vision which he was quite clear about. The plot is the same as the novel just more narrow in scope. Friedkin worked with Blatty during the writing of the script and during production. It reflects both of their visions with Friedkin as director having final word.

I love John Bormann and been a fan since I saw “Point Blank” back in the early 70’s but I just feel this isn’t a very good film. I’ve watched the film three times over the years. Unfortunately, for me he doesn’t achieve his goal. I admire him for tackling though. When I saw it in theaters I was both fascinated and dumbfounded. There is some good stuff in it but it just doesn’t gel for me.

I still pull it out on occasion just to see if my impressions have changed. It hasn’t I appreciate your opinion in it though as it is food to have a different take on the material.

Thanks for the conversation!

 

[titch]

That is your opinion and I respect it. However, I consider Exorcist II the opposite, a good film with bad intentions. I'm using the term camp in the manner Susan Sontag defined it, as subversive. In fact, I can think of no commercial film from the 1970's that's as subversive and formally complex. You don't see it that way, which is fine. There's no reason why you should. But I and others do.

BTW, I had a friend who was involved with the production of Exorcist and gave me a copy of the shooting script written by Blatty and it's there on the screen almost shot for shot, including framing, editing & sound effects, which were very specific, and went on for paragraphs, with all kinds of detailed description, including sentences such as "Reagan's public hair is never to be seen!" Because of this, I consider Blatty more responsible for the look as well as the intent of the Exorcist then Fredikin, whose other films are quite different, stylistically and philosophically.

My copy is on the way and I'm looking forward to listening to the new commentary track with Kim Newman. He is very knowledgable and insightful. I've previously only considered Exorcist II to be a turkey, but it's been a long while since I saw it last and I might see it with a different perspective, this time round.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

My copy is on the way and I'm looking forward to listening to the new commentary track with Kim Newman. He is very knowledgable and insightful. I've previously only considered Exorcist II to be a turkey, but it's been a long while since I saw it last and I might see it with a different perspective, this time round.

It's still a turkey but an interesting one. Boorman is such a creative filmmaker that even though he makes some rather huge missteps in this, the final product is wacky enough to be kind of fun.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I don’t think John Boorman intended for “The Exorcist II” to be what it ended up being at all. He realized that, despite his ambitions, he was totally the wrong director for a project like this.

I don't think he really wanted to make this picture, he did not at all like Friedkin's film and so one of his main goals was to portray Regan as a beautiful and happy child that was a force of good in the world. He apparently found what Friedkin and Blatty came up with pretty offensive because of the disgusting manner of Regan's portrayal.

I love Boorman, think he is a wonderful filmmaker, but The Exorcist was not about Regan, and how she is portrayed in it. That basically misses the point, which was about how the people dealing with her possession had their faith and beliefs tested. So, to some degree, or to a great degree, Exorcist II has a flawed premise...which is fine because it launches into something completely removed from the first film. Honestly, I like that a sequel would do that, particularly to a huge hit.

You may disagree, but I have many friends who feel Exorcist II is a misunderstood masterpiece.

Yeah, it is in no way a masterpiece, that would greatly diminish the idea of what a masterpiece is. It is overall, a pretty lousy film, but it does have many interesting things going on. It is intelligently made, but not a brilliant film. I think because he got mired in a bad idea what we get to see is a talented and wildly creative filmmaker stuck bringing that bad idea to life. This film is Boorman's reaction to The Exorcist, and his reaction included not really grasping Friedkin's film because his disgust blurred his vision of it...in my opinion.

In fact, I can think of no commercial film from the 1970's that's as subversive and formally complex.

There is no question the film is subversive because Boorman did want to subvert what he saw was wrong with The Exorcist. It's not really subversive in the way Verhoeven is subversive, it is subversive in that Boorman actually thinks he is fixing things that were wrong with The Exorcist in his sequel. Problem is, those things were not wrong with The Exorcist. He's just responding to what he did not like and changing the Regan character and trying to make the entire enterprise more metaphysical. He begins with a bad idea, and it leads to a bad film albeit one that is really creative in its approach.

I can see why people would think the film was fun, or interesting, and why they might enjoy it. However, making this out to be a misunderstood masterpiece or even a good film is kind of ridiculous to the extent that there really are films that are masterpieces, and misunderstood masterpieces, but this is just an excellent filmmakers sort of wrongheaded response to a film he didn't like.

 

[johnmcmasters]

I was never a fan of the original Exorcist, which admittedly I saw under mixed circumstances when my university's events club somehow secured a print of the film directly from the studio while it was showing on a first-run basis in Chicago. The night it was shown a standing-room-only crowd filled the largest auditorium on campus, and I went with a group of friends. All of us reacted in wildly different ways to the film. I thought it was just ugly, another friend in the group had to visit a chapel afterwards (seriously) because he was so freaked out that he was shaking. Some in the group reported being shocked. Etc. Then my film professor at the time somehow got the print to show in his graduate course on film criticism, and there were only about 12 of us in that small screening room for that showing. At that screening I became aware of how cunningly it was structured (sort of like an endurance course), how amazing the sound design was, and how superb the actors were in it. But I still thought it was ugly. It still left me cold.

I had no desire to see Exorcist II which arrived after I'd moved to NYC, but my best friend went on opening night. I remember his reports of how poorly it was received by the audience -- laughing, jeering, general disbelief about what they were seeing. Then it went "under the knife" as that newspaper article so aptly puts it! I caught up with it years later, and it just floored me in both good and bad ways. It was definitely a Boorman film and tonally all over the place. My lasting memory of the film is just one sequence that occurs near the end when everyone is converging on, and returning to, the apartment in DC, and there is an existential threat of pure evil making the journey fraught with difficulty. At one point there is what I remember to be a shot of the sky and cityscape and suddenly it seems as if the entire universe begins to throb and strobe with angry intent. I loved that moment, which is probably imperfectly remembered and was probably a very simple effect that will be leave me underwhelmed these days.

I've got the Arrow set ordered!

 

[lark144]

I don't think he really wanted to make this picture, he did not at all like Friedkin's film and so one of his main goals was to portray Regan as a beautiful and happy child that was a force of good in the world. He apparently found what Friedkin and Blatty came up with pretty offensive because of the disgusting manner of Regan's portrayal.

I love Boorman, think he is a wonderful filmmaker, but The Exorcist was not about Regan, and how she is portrayed in it. That basically misses the point, which was about how the people dealing with her possession had their faith and beliefs tested. So, to some degree, or to a great degree, Exorcist II has a flawed premise...which is fine because it launches into something completely removed from the first film. Honestly, I like that a sequel would do that, particularly to a huge hit.



Yeah, it is in no way a masterpiece, that would greatly diminish the idea of what a masterpiece is. It is overall, a pretty lousy film, but it does have many interesting things going on. It is intelligently made, but not a brilliant film. I think because he got mired in a bad idea what we get to see is a talented and wildly creative filmmaker stuck bringing that bad idea to life. This film is Boorman's reaction to The Exorcist, and his reaction included not really grasping Friedkin's film because his disgust blurred his vision of it...in my opinion.



There is no question the film is subversive because Boorman did want to subvert what he saw was wrong with The Exorcist. It's not really subversive in the way Verhoeven is subversive, it is subversive in that Boorman actually thinks he is fixing things that were wrong with The Exorcist in his sequel. Problem is, those things were not wrong with The Exorcist. He's just responding to what he did not like and changing the Regan character and trying to make the entire enterprise more metaphysical. He begins with a bad idea, and it leads to a bad film albeit one that is really creative in its approach.

I can see why people would think the film was fun, or interesting, and why they might enjoy it. However, making this out to be a misunderstood masterpiece or even a good film is kind of ridiculous to the extent that there really are films that are masterpieces, and misunderstood masterpieces, but this is just an excellent filmmakers sort of wrongheaded response to a film he didn't like.

Thanks for your comments. I do not think Exorcist II is a misunderstood masterpiece, When it came out, I did have a number of friends who thought so. For me, it's a fascinating but flawed film, for many of the reasons you explain. I think focusing on Reagan is one of the sequel's attributes, to counterpose humanity, the life of an individual and all that entails, as opposed to dogma. In the original, Reagan is just a plot device, woman/child as object, something the priests can react to--they count, she doesn't--which I personally find condescending, as well as deeply manipulative, and also highly sexist, as it implies women are inately corruptible, which is why, for me, in spite of being, in Billy Wilder's estimation, "one of the most beautifully lit films ever made" Exorcist fails as a film, that is, a human document, something that can expand our understanding of what it means to be alive, which many of Friedkin's work does, just not this one. That's my focus, anyway. Again, I think you have to look at Exorcist II in the context of Boorman's work, not as a reaction to the original film, which everyone seems to be doing.

 

[Robert Saccone]

Thanks for your comments. I do not think Exorcist II is a misunderstood masterpiece, When it came out, I did have a number of friends who thought so. For me, it's a fascinating but flawed film, for many of the reasons you explain. I think focusing on Reagan is one of the sequel's attributes, to counterpose humanity, the life of an individual and all that entails, as opposed to dogma. In the original, Reagan is just a plot device, woman/child as object, something the priests can react to--they count, she doesn't--which I personally find condescending, as well as deeply manipulative, and also highly sexist, as it implies women are inately corruptible, which is why, for me, in spite of being, in Billy Wilder's estimation, "one of the most beautifully lit films ever made" Exorcist fails as a film, that is, a human document, something that can expand our understanding of what it means to be alive, which many of Friedkin's work does, just not this one. That's my focus, anyway. Again, I think you have to look at Exorcist II in the context of Boorman's work, not as a reaction to the original film, which everyone seems to be doing.

I completely disagree that The Exorcist fails as a film, is sexist and that Regan is just a plot device. From my perspective she's an innocent child that accidentally opens herself up to the demonic force that eventually possesses her. There's nothing inately about her being a female that causes this to happen. It's more her curiosity couple with her immaturity and not understanding the forces she is interacting with. (Also let's not forget that Blatty's story is based on an incident he learned about that actually involved a boy). She garners a lot of sympathy as she is completely overtaken and subdued by the demon as the plot progresses. And in the end it is a selfless act of sacrifice and kindness by Karras that saves Reagan. For me it is a very nerve wracking but ultimately up lifting experience.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Thanks for your comments. I do not think Exorcist II is a misunderstood masterpiece, When it came out, I did have a number of friends who thought so. For me, it's a fascinating but flawed film, for many of the reasons you explain. I think focusing on Reagan is one of the sequel's attributes, to counterpose humanity, the life of an individual and all that entails, as opposed to dogma. In the original, Reagan is just a plot device, woman/child as object, something the priests can react to--they count, she doesn't--which I personally find condescending, as well as deeply manipulative, and also highly sexist, as it implies women are inately corruptible, which is why, for me, in spite of being, in Billy Wilder's estimation, "one of the most beautifully lit films ever made" Exorcist fails as a film, that is, a human document, something that can expand our understanding of what it means to be alive, which many of Friedkin's work does, just not this one. That's my focus, anyway. Again, I think you have to look at Exorcist II in the context of Boorman's work, not as a reaction to the original film, which everyone seems to be doing.

I agree with Robert's take above on Regan. She is meant to portray the innocence of childhood, something pure. She's not just a plot device and really her being female is not particularly important to the story. Her mother and the priests, all stellar actors, are where the story really plays out. I think the metaphor is good people having to deal with bad things in life, just in this case the bad thing is a demon possessing a child. The demon is out to destroy them, not so much the child which it is using as a tool. However, I don't believe she is diminished to just being an object, the audience and the characters all feel for her emotionally and want her to be saved/cured.

I don't think the film is at all sexist nor does it say anything about women being corruptible, the demon corrupts innocence to impact the faith and beliefs of those that witness it.

I'm not a religious person, but I feel for the priests in this. I think the film is manipulative of the audience but that is what films typically do, manipulate our emotions, find ways to get us into the story. For such a wacky story, it does an absolutely masterful job of this. I mean, I like these characters, I feel for these people, and that makes the film really a great piece of work.

It's about people that will do anything to help someone else, the child, the priests really want to help Chris as well. They do commit selfless acts. The priests give their lives to save the girl and her mother. I think the film says a lot of things about humanity and positive things at that. Friedkin uses a really wild tale to get at things about people. About Karras, his crisis he is going through, his relationship with his own mother, this is really a beautifully made picture in every way.

If I look at Exorcist II in the frame of Boorman's other films, it just seems a misstep to me. I don't see it as part of the greater whole of his body of work, which are not subversive pictures but are humanist films. I do not think Verhoeven and Boorman are the same kind of filmmaker. Verhoeven is a subversive filmmaker, whereas Boorman is not.

Boorman probably had to have Blair in the film but she is the least important character to focus on. Even Blatty when he wrote his sequel did not focus on Regan because she was not really what the demon was after, he focused on those that survived and knew about the exorcism. The demon was after them. Bad things come for people in life, and this demon is going after as many people as possible.

His effort to change how Regan was portrayed was really not a solid place to focus. He wanted to do that because he was thinking of his daughter. So, in his sequel she is just totally over the top wonderful and kind. It ends up being goofy because he could not help himself from focusing on that because Regan in the first picture so disturbed him. It not only leads to a goofy performance from Blair and a bunch of unintentionally funny moments, it drains drama from the story and forces the audience to sit through some seriously bad scenes. Scenes that don't advance the story but are just there to show that Regan is a wonderful kid having a great time in life and making everyone around her happier. Dancing her way to sainthood, I guess.

This over the top effort to show how awesome she is, well, it just was not needed. I don't think anybody thought Regan was an evil horrible person, I think they knew it was the demon possessing her saying and doing the freaky stuff.

This is, in part, why Exorcist II is such a mess and terrible film. We did not need an Exorcist sequel about how kids are wonderful. Boorman though, just could not get past the fact that they portrayed a child the way they did and so made it central to his film that he show us Regan was just the best kid ever.

He should have just passed as other directors had passed on it.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I was never a fan of the original Exorcist, which admittedly I saw under mixed circumstances when my university's events club somehow secured a print of the film directly from the studio while it was showing on a first-run basis in Chicago. The night it was shown a standing-room-only crowd filled the largest auditorium on campus, and I went with a group of friends. All of us reacted in wildly different ways to the film. I thought it was just ugly, another friend in the group had to visit a chapel afterwards (seriously) because he was so freaked out that he was shaking. Some in the group reported being shocked. Etc. Then my film professor at the time somehow got the print to show in his graduate course on film criticism, and there were only about 12 of us in that small screening room for that showing. At that screening I became aware of how cunningly it was structured (sort of like an endurance course), how amazing the sound design was, and how superb the actors were in it. But I still thought it was ugly. It still left me cold.

I had no desire to see Exorcist II which arrived after I'd moved to NYC, but my best friend went on opening night. I remember his reports of how poorly it was received by the audience -- laughing, jeering, general disbelief about what they were seeing. Then it went "under the knife" as that newspaper article so aptly puts it! I caught up with it years later, and it just floored me in both good and bad ways. It was definitely a Boorman film and tonally all over the place. My lasting memory of the film is just one sequence that occurs near the end when everyone is converging on, and returning to, the apartment in DC, and there is an existential threat of pure evil making the journey fraught with difficulty. At one point there is what I remember to be a shot of the sky and cityscape and suddenly it seems as if the entire universe begins to throb and strobe with angry intent. I loved that moment, which is probably imperfectly remembered and was probably a very simple effect that will be leave me underwhelmed these days.

I've got the Arrow set ordered!

There is no question that when it was released The Exorcist was probably one of the most in your face pictures ever made. It portrayed things that it is kind of hard to believe studio execs approved. Now, I don't think a film like it would ever get made. The thing is, aside from the shocking stuff, it is a really wonderfully made film with fantastic performances from the cast.

Everything about it was kind of perfectly done. I've had an odd relationship with it over the years. When I saw it as I kid, I just found it very scary. As I watched it later in life I found it kind of ridiculous from a story standpoint. I went through a period where I felt like it was a film made just for Catholics. Then I really fell in love with how great it is as a movie. The performances, the story, the pacing, the photography, the score...it all really comes together as a fantastic movie. What you go to the movies for. It lingers in your head after watching it.

Exorcist II just is not even in the same ballpark. It is a film confused about what it wants to be, the performances are bad, the story is a disaster, the photography is quite nice, the score is nowhere near as memorable. It is really just a mistake with some interesting ideas.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

For me, films like Exorcist II and Ridley Scott's Prometheus are birds of a feather. Bad sequels/prequels that have no idea what the hell they are doing and just throw stuff at a wall to see what sticks. They look pretty but make no sense whatsoever and pretty much are total garbage next to the films they are trying to follow-up.

I think good directors can make horrible films. Friedkin did himself when he returned to the horror genre to make The Guardian. I think he leaves that out of all discussions he has about his films. I should also note though when he returned to Exorcist territory to make a "documentary" about the Vatican's exorcist it also ended up being a horrid piece of work.

 

[titch]

Well, that sold out quickly.