Most of the convolution resulted from the forced rewrite. But having said that, I don't think it's just a mess. In fact, I feel that the new script with Damien Karras played by Miller, and in need of rescue, "ups the ante" considerably over the Legion novel. In Legion, Karras was not even present. Instead, his reanimated body was being used by the vengeful demon as a vehicle for the Gemini Killer. That's interesting: it gives Kinderman a mystery to solve and a crime spree to end. However, Exorcist III is even more interesting because it gives Kinderman and Fr. Paul Morning a new demonic victim to save: Karras, who had rescued Regan MacNeil, has now himself become the subject of rescue. And, at the end, the vengeful demon itself re-emerges to taunt Morning and Kinderman, thus bringing the demonic back to the screen again.
a really good story was missed that should have been told: Kinderman's daughter gets possessed by the demon. Nice and simple.
Yes, simple, but perhaps not so nice for the reason that it would mainly be a repeat of the original Regan MacNeil story, with Kinderman, wife, and mother-in-law standing in for Chris, Sharon, and the household. Dyer could live in this version, being the priest that Kinderman consults for advice and ultimately exorcism. Dyer could then, like Karras before him, die in the attempt to save Julie Kinderman - whatever. It's just too close to the original.
And, to tell the truth, Legion itself is very convoluted:
Why is the saintly Dr. Amfortas involved in the Gemini killing spree, as his Doppelganger insists? How far does his brain tumor excuse his acts? And since he has purportedly been aiding Vennamun in the killings, is he aware of Vennamun's identity, and of the demon that influences the returned serial killer? And if aware of these things, why doesn't Amfortas resist the evil and/or seek priestly advice?
Why does the unfortunate Amfortas need to find out, via the Doppelganger, that "Annie", the lost love of his life, had been carrying out an affair with the vile Dr. Temple? Are we, in these final pages of the novel, to suddenly feel the same contempt for Annie as we do for Temple?
Kinderman accuses Temple of pumping Patient X for information on the earlier Gemini Killing crime spree. But Blatty never explains if Kinderman is merely putting legal pressure on Temple, or if Temple actually discussed the case with Vennamun. If Temple really did discuss the case with Vennamun, he must have eventually become convinced of Vennamun's dybbuk-type "resurrection", and probably of the serial killer's connection to the demon. What did he do with this specialized supernatural information? Yet Blatty never explores this scenario and its potential consequences.
Even more convolution appears with Blatty's presentation of the Dyad/Twins motif. First, he says that the Godhead was originally two Personalities (thus brothers if not twins) and one of them incarnated in and as the universe, becoming "the Angel" climbing Its way back to union with God.
Second, Blatty presents another dyadic motif in the sign of the Gemini - Twins.
Then he presents a reification of the motif in the form of evil James Vennamun and his saintly abused twin brother Tommy. In a further convolution Tommy, who pays out of the body visits to James, sometimes occupies Karras' reanimated body while James is "dormant".
Then, as mentioned above, Blatty adds another dyad to the story in the form of Vincent Amfortas and his own Doppelganger.
Third, in an even more convoluted type of writing, Blatty fills page after page of Legion with Kinderman's mostly lame "religious search", which essentially consists of his embarassingly uncritical embrace of I.D./ Creationist theory - which makes for a truly penitential read.
In general, therefore, I prefer Exorcist III's relatively simple presentation over Legion's all-too-frequently unresolved complexities.
reply
share
sbrooks839
8 years ago
bastasch8647, no offense, but do you own stock in this movie or something, because you are all over these message boards. It's like you have nothing better to do than to await someone to post something just so you can come along and reply, SMH.
And, sorry, but you're not telling me anything I don't already know. I am very familiar with the book "Legion", and also very familiar with everything about the film. I bought and read the book when it came out in 1983, and first saw the movie when it hit theaters back in 1990, and have watched it several times over the years.
Matter of fact, there was a time in the mid 80's when I was interested in trying to adapt the book into a screenplay, but never really did anything with it.
Thanks for your reply. Have a nice day!
reply
share
bastasch8647
8 years ago
No offense taken. It's just that I would have thought that you, as someone who read the book and liked it to the extent of doing a screen adaptation, would be aware of its labyrinthian convolutions. So I just wondered why Exorcist III's convolutions bothered you more than Legion's.
You have a nice weekend.
reply
share
sbrooks839
8 years ago
I didn't say one bothered me more than the other, lol. I said that watching the film again (especially after watching the Director's Cut), I now realize what a bad, dated, convoluted film it is. Did you even bother reading my initial comment, lol?
The acting is pedestrian, TV movie material, ugh. George C. Scott is way too over the top in so many scenes. The dream sequence is atrocious, and looks like something made-for-TV quality.
Plus, I've always thought that dream sequence was in the wrong spot, and would have been better suited if it had been at the end of the film after Kinderman shot Karris and the scene cuts to the sun, then it could have cut to the dream sequence, then end.
But, it still wouldn't have saved what is in my opinion a very convoluted mess of a screenplay.
The whole "let's bring Damien Karris back from the dead, and he is possessed by the Gemini Killer who happened to have been put to death as Damien flung himself out the window at the end of 'The Exorcsist' and has inhabited his body for 15 years" is beyond ridiculous.
H*ll, it almost makes Boorman's sequel a classic in comparison, lol.
And, yes, having Kinderman's daughter being possessed would kind of be a retread of "The Exorcist", but all these years later, I just think that would have made for the better story for Blatty to have pursued.
And, by the way, sorry if I sounded rude, I have enjoyed going through these message boards and reading your very insightful comments about the Exorcist films on here. :)
reply
share
bastasch8647
8 years ago
Thanks for the kind words and for clarifying the reasons why you think the film is convoluted. I guess it confuses some viewers, e.g., some think that Kinderman is egregiously stupid because here he is, "watching Karras turning into" Vennamun and vice-versa and he still can't put the essential data together; the headless Christ statue, covered in a sheet, attacks Nurse Keating, etc. Of course these are misunderstandings of explicit scenes, not objections to the film's unnecessary complexity.
Scott is way too over the top in so many scenes.
God yes - but why? I thought Cobb was the perfect Kinderman. Scott acts like he was bitten by the Grinch.
I've always thought that dream sequence was in the wrong spot, and would have been better suited if it had been at the end of the film after Kinderman shot Karris and the scene cuts to the sun, then it could have cut to the dream sequence, then end.
What an innovative thought... it might actually point to Blatty's own belief in an afterlife, in a Purgatorial "Elsewhere", it would puzzle and amuse the viewer as well as show that in The Exorcist universe, people do survive death and perhaps sometimes we on earth (Kinderman) can "visit with" beloved departed (Dyer, etc.)...
dream sequence is atrocious, and looks like something made-for-TV quality
I can't judge too much about that, cuz I've only seen this film on the small screen...maybe on the wide screen it would look more cinematic...but then again, that was not your experience of it.
The acting is pedestrian
It didn't bother me until people on here kept complaining about Lampert's "obviously dubbed" voice... I still don't know if she was dubbed or not. Well, as discussed, Scott was too intense, Nurse Allerton's reactions/interactions are weird, but I can't tell how much that is because of Blatty's writing and direction. Nobody else, except Dourif (who I thought was masterful), and Dyer has any "spotlight acting" scenes. I thought Flanders was adequate, but as you pointed out, the dialogue fails him in his and Kinderman's interactions, e.g., Dyer's brother Eddie with whom he may have a hereditary disease connection, except for the fact that Eddie was "killed in Vietnam" (that's funny?) - etc. Also I took offense when Kinderman was complaining about the existence and persistence of evil in a world supposedly overseen by a benevolent deity, and one of the "evils" he mentions is "Mongoloid babies" - WTF?? - did Blatty write this in the 1950s? The term of description as well as its association with God's absence, is entirely inappropriate.
Anyway - agreed that characters and dialogue could have used more proofing and more realism and responsibility...
reply
share
sbrooks839
8 years ago
Oh, no, I didn't find it to be confusing, I am just now realizing how convoluted it all is. But, I probably sounded too harsh about the film, because honestly I do still like it a lot, and am glad it was made (even though I've always wished the title would have been "Exorcist III: Legion"). And it was definitely worth the investment to get the Scream Factory blu-ray!
Some of the comments I made about the pedestrian acting (especially in the dream sequence) has always been a complaint of mine, and am noticing it even more on recent viewings. But, I guess not everyone can get such top drawer realistic portrayals from their cast like Freidkin can, lol.
I'm also really just now noticing for the first time how the music and demonic sounds are also so over-the-top and really unnecessary. And don't get me started on some of the cheap jump scares that lead to nothing (I saw on another thread you talking to someone else about this, and they tried to defend it by saying that "The Exorcist" also had those, but no that movie did not - yes, it had some "false scares", but they were not cheaply done at all).
By the way, I don't know if you saw my reply to you on another thread just the other day apologizing for being so defensive when you tried to correct me on the fact that it is leaves and not locusts in the opening church scene. You are so right about that! I don't know what the h*ll I was thinking, lol. I guess it was kind of wishful thinking (I used to be a huge fan of "The Heretic", but luckily came to my senses a couple years back, lol).
Thanks for the replies, it really is a pleasure discussing these films with someone who has such extensive knowledge of them!
reply
share
bastasch8647
8 years ago
apologizing for being so defensive when you tried to correct me on the fact that it is leaves and not locusts in the opening church scene
Aw, geez, I must have missed that most recent post, but I do recall the discussion. Well, I guess leaves are easier that locusts to clean up post-scene...!
not everyone can get such top drawer realistic portrayals from their cast like Freidkin can
Yes... other than Dourif, who is really on a level of his own, Blatty didn't seem to want to coax realistic, "winning" acting from his cast... but then of course there's the question of his sometimes-awful writing (Dyer's brother Eddie, Allerton's weirdness, Kinderman's outbursts, "Who STUCK this guy??", etc.).
Blatty certainly could have written Scott/Kinderman more sensibly and gently - simply by transfering the character intact from the Legion novel, where Kinderman is still the likable, shuffling, brilliant cop we came to love. Blatty must have been aware that Scott was able to play gentlemanly, subtle parts, as he showed in his performance in The Changeling. Oh, well, it didn't turn out that way.
the music and demonic sounds
An immediate turn-off for me too. My first reaction was a groan...wondering why Blatty would dump these gimmicks in our face (ears) - was he fearful that his film was not scary enough on its own, so he felt that he must mess around with the soundtrack? Friedkin proved himself a master of sound in The Exorcist. Uncanny sounds combined with extant "serious" music and Tubular Bells. Not so Exorcist III, which had no identifying theme, but simply re-used Oldfield's music and Barry deVorzon's sound effects (I don't recall that deVorzon's "score" has any real music at all...just sounds and maybe a couple of shrieking musical instruments for jump scares). I'm a film music enthusiast and at least know that a director has an infinite sea of music available for scoring, not to mention a multitude of musicians who could write a new score or at least a memorable theme...Blatty apparently just didn't put much thought into the scoring.
cheap jump scares that lead to nothing
Gawd, yes...what an insulting gimmick - a form of obnoxious directorial playfulness that plays a joke on the innocent viewer (yes, the "Alice delivers the president's speech papers" scene is the prime example in this film).
Good talking to you again - have a good one.
reply
share