 |
version seven. http://demongin.org |
Exorcist: Typology
In which I explain why Friedkin's original enjoys pride of place and what this means for all subsequent exorcism and Exorcist flicks.
Wednesday, 2009-10-28 | Film, Literature
| The leaders of the Catholic Church endorsed The Exorcist--virtually promoted it as much as they could. The Cardinals of New York and Los Angeles and Chicago and the other big cities, all over the world, they endorsed it because it represents a literal depiction of the Roman ritual of exorcism which still exists in the Catholic faith. It's still there. The power of faith to drive out demons. And this film showed that and they embraced it. |
| William Friedkin |
OK, so, in chronological order by release, you've got the following films, directors and writers:
| Released | Title | Director | Writer |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1973 | The Exorcist | William Friedkin | William Peter Blatty |
| 1977 | Exorcist II: the Heretic | John Boorman | William Goodhart |
| 1990 | Exorcist III | William Peter Blatty | William Peter Blatty |
| 2004 | Exorcist: the Beginning | Renny Harlin | Alexi Hawley |
| 2005 | Dominion: Prequel to the Exorcist | Paul Schrader | William Wisher Jr. and Caleb Carr |
This list intentionally omits spin-offs (e.g. 2000's Possessed, which is a Showtime-financed made-for-cable-television dramatization of the real-world events that inspired Blatty's novel), parodies (e.g. 1990's Repossessed, which stars Leslie Nielsen and features Linda Blair in a tongue-in-cheek reprise of her turn as Regan MacNeil) and documentaries. In subsequent writings on the Exorcist phenomenon, I'm going to stick to a rough "canon" that only includes movies of feature-length that are presented as continuations of William Peter Blatty's novel.
And, while we're on the subject of movies presenting themselves of continuations of Blatty's work, the easiest superficial observation one can make about the titles above is that there is, in the marketing and even in the plots of all of the movies released after Friedkin's original, a desire to re-capture some kind of authenticity or originality.
Consider how the two prequels released in 2004 and 2005 were presented as the back-story mentioned in the 70's films. Consider also how they go back in time and feature ancient archaeological sites with Byzantine paintings. The people who designed and conceived these movies wanted them to be understood as closer to the "source" or the "original", "authoritative" and "definitive" events that lie at the heart of all exorcism stories. Indeed, the 2004 prequel is about a church built over the spot where Lucifer, in some sort of pre-historical, antediluvian dawn, is hurled to the Earth by his Creator; the very idea of getting back to the authentic source of demonic possession drives that narrative completely.
Consider also how the 2000 re-release of Friedkin's original was marketed as "the version you never saw". Or consider how Exorcist III is presented, in nearly all of its original marketing materials, as the work of the man who brought you the original. Granted, this is partially because of the need to create a little distance between Blatty and Boorman's box office flop, Exorcist II: the Heretic, but there is also something more happening there, as concerns the desire for "originality" and "authenticity".
This, I contend, has a lot to do with the unique place that Friedkin's original movie--and not so much Blatty's novel--holds in the popular imagination. But I'll get to that point in a bit.
Another important superficial feature to notice and keep in mind when looking at the release table (i.e. the canonical releases) above is how the definite article is dropped from the titles after the first film. This says something about how the scope of the narrative is (perhaps necessarily) wider in all of the sequels and prequels.
To that point: if the first story is about the (almost Jungian) archetype of "the exorcist", what forces in the world and society call him into existence and what drives compel him onward in this role, then the subsequent tales, by dropping the definite article from the title, overtly disclaim that story and, instead, announce to the viewer (before the opening credits roll) that this is a movie about a particular exorcism--one among many--and will not be concerned so much with a "figure" or a "type" as it will be concerned with how a particular case of demonic possession takes place.
And from these facts we gain two important insights. First, the original film's effect on the popular imagination was so profound as to invent a new type of movie with its own conventions and thematic necessities: "exorcism" narratives are as easy to spot and define as "buddy action" or "slasher" or "romantic comedy" movies. Before Friedkin's movie, demonic possession and exorcisms were obscure historical narratives at the fringe of popular conceptions of the occult: after Friedkin's movie, they became a staple of the horror/psychological thriller genre.
Secondly, in addition to establishing a generic type or convention, Friedkin's movie also is taken as something as a cinematic given by its descendants. It's a subtle point, but the fact that his original movie enjoys a (seemingly) permanent place in the popular imagination, means that Friedkin's movie is, after a manner of thinking, "playing in the background" of all subsequent movies about exorcism and possession (even ones that don't claim Blatty's novel or the events upon which it is based as their origin--but those don't concern us here). What this means in a functional sense is that you're just plain not going to see a movie that deals with possession and doesn't make some kind of reference to Friedkin's movie. It is in no wise overstating the facts to say that he turned over every leaf in the genre and that all subsequent works are in some way derivative.
And since Friedkin invented a category and created an indispensable resource for future film-makers, the fact that subsequent movies must, to some extent, be homages, the most special and important thing about his original is that it (and it alone) can explore the psychological interiority of the man who literally embodies the mythical archetype it invents. Since the scope of all subsequent exorcism flicks is necessarily widened--i.e. since exorcisms and possession are accepted into and recognized by the American imagination as conventions within a narrative--it is literally impossible for anyone to make a movie that does what Friedkin does with characterization. Since the genre is established, you simply cannot make an exorcism movie that reinvents the character of the exorcist, e.g. by stripping him of his razor sharp intellect, his experience among primitive peoples or by swapping out his disaffected, "lapsed Catholic priest" persona for something less Friedkin-esque.
Which brings me to the end of this essay and the beginning of the next one I plan to write: since Friedkin's movie defines a genre of film, a set of narrative conventions and an archetypal figure, it must be those things (and not merely the power of Christ) that compels so many subsequent directors, writers and producers to try their hand at telling an exorcism story.
In the next exorcist essay, I intend to take up the topic of the film-makers per se and spend some time with the details of their various productions and make some speculations about what I think they were trying to do and why.
