How do you think things would have played out at the ending when Father Morning helps Damien temporarily overcome the demons power, and the demon possesses Kinderman right then and there? Similiar like in the first movie. Any in depth detailed speculation and opinions are welcomed! pazrags
shareKarras survived if Kinderman, possessed, didn't shoot him. Kinderman ran amock, shooting up hospital staff; Kinderman taken into custody possessed; possessed, Kinderman is violently sick, insane (as Blatty depicts possession victims as being); Kinderman himself will now be in need of an exorcism, and he is trapped because, unlike Karras and Morning, he is not strong or experienced enough to throw off the demon.
Soon after Kinderman's rampage, Karras and Morning were found in cell 11. Together they made a case that the possession by the demon/Vennamun was real, and Karras was finally identified as who he said he was through dental records, Morning's testimony, the witness of the university president. But what then? What would "rational" society do with this seeming proof of the reality of demons, the return of dead souls, corpses demonically resuscitated, the vacuous minds of the elderly being mass-posessed in order to commit murder? Could such horrifically shocking news ever be publicized and integrated into society - or would it simply end in another coverup, challenged only by conspiracy theorists?
Meanwhile, Karras and Morning (both now recovered enough to do it) would go to Kinderman's cell and try to exorcise the demon from the possessed detective (Exorcist IV: Kinderman Possessed?).
That's the only outcome I can see of a possessed Kinderman and a Karras who was not shot to death by Kinderman as a favor and a duty. But it's highly problematic. Poor Damien - after all he had gone through in the original story, saving Regan, dying in the fall down the steps, being trapped by the demon, forced to endure fifteen years of imprisonment with Vennamun, and then only to see Vennamun use Karras' body for a vicious crime spree... after all that, would Karras remain sane? It would seem that the God he rediscovered at the original story's climax had abandoned him into the hands of the demon and the Gemini. What would fifteen years of torment do to Karras' delicate, vulnerable rediscovery of faith made in Regan's room all those years before? Would the newly liberated (liberated from the Gemini's/the demon's grasp) be grateful - or would he turn on God and be a bitter man whose only best hope would be suicide?
As flawed as the filmed ending was, it seems the "cleanest" solution that Blatty could have come up with: Karras is finally dead and released to the heavenly reward out of which it had been so unfairly cheated; the demon is finally defeated; Morning is spiritually victorious and possibly survives the ordeal; Kinderman finally receives "the eyes of faith" via personally witnessing the reality of the supernatural; Damien Karras' body is finally given repose in its proper grave.
That's the thing. I think what happens in the first film is just a freak-occurrence. I don't think it would particularly happen again. Things would have to unfold the exact same way again. We can assume the demon is any number of things in the first film. It might be winded from Karras's interaction with it. It could be weakened from the exorcism. Karras's faith and willpower having a revolutionary moment in his character could be coming in full swing and delivering a spiritual blow to the entity. Or the piece around Karras's neck could be key, as the demon does not enter him until that chain with the piece on it is snatched from off the priest's neck.
Either way, the unfolding at that climactic moment is pretty unique. Just like what happens at the end of TEIII is a unique occurrence as well.
One thing's for sure: These films are pretty well written and executed. Even the moments Blatty was forced to write into this film are well executed, even if they damage the film's overall integrity as a slowburning, atmospheric Horror gem.
I'm not a control freak, I just like things my way
I agree that Blatty did a pretty good job, considering that he was virtually coerced to write-in an exorcist and exorcism. I think his handling of Fr. Paul Morning was exquisite, bordering on poetic (e.g., the completely wordless introduction of Morning in his simple, saintly room, with visuals conveying impressions of Morning's character). The exorcism was over-the-top, but once it's understood to be mostly allegorical, and that the broken concrete, lightning bolts, serpents and flames are only mental phenomena, it comes off a bit less silly than would a literal reading of those events...
shareThe thing to remember is that we're talking about two different possessions here with Exorcist I and III. It's established in the first Exorcist that Regan is possessed after playing with a Ouija board. And this demon that has her is some kind of multi-headed creature - many damned souls who inhabit her body. Thus the array of voices and screams and groans we hear from her through the course of the first movie.
The possession in Exorcist III is an entirely different matter. The Gemini Killer has just been executed when Damien takes Regan's demon unto himself. Damien then throws himself out the window to expel the demon once and for all. In that moment, the demon is expelled, which enrages...Satan, I guess. So in revenge for this sacrifice, The Gemini's soul is slipped into Damien's body just before he dies, which keeps him somewhat alive until The Gemini can begin working on regenerating Damien's brain cells. It takes him 15 years to do this. Then, when Damien's brain is sufficiently repaired, The Gemini proceeds to enact punishment on Damien for his interference by brutally killing his friends and those connected with the investigation into Regan's case, all while Damien is forced to watch helplessly from within his possessed body.
If you disagree, well, so be it.
Nice thoughts. You wrote,
In that moment, the demon is expelled, which enrages...Satan, I guess
My own reading is that Satan isn't really part of the story, either in the first or the third film. When the Gemini tells Kinderman that the situation of the Gemini and Damien being stuffed into Damien's corpse is a scandal, he says that "certain parties were not pleased to say the least, to say the very least".
I don't invoke Occam's Razor too much, but in order not to unnecessarily multiply demonic presences, it makes the most sense for me to identify the "parties" as Vennamun's euphemism for the original possessing demon ("Pazuzu" if you will). And when the demon appears at the climax, it refers to "my son, the Gemini", and this entity strikes me as being "a" demon, rather than "THE Satan".
And earlier, when the university president and Kinderman are discussing the exorcism of "the MacNeil kid", the soundtrack plays a giggle that sounds almost identical to the giggle the demon made when Karras finds the dead Merrin in the Friedkin film. Regan's possession and the demon which caused it very much haunt Exorcist III. So, for me, it makes all kinds of sense to identify Exorcist III's demon as being the same demon Karras expelled at the end of the first story. First it wanted to punish Merrin; but Merrin died before that plan could be executed; then Karras expelled it, and now it wants revenge against Karras and his associates whose names begin with the letter "K". Anyway, it may not be that big a deal. Certainly, if Satan is the prince of demons, any defeat of one of his demonic thugs reflects badly on Satan.
Good job on delineating the differences between Regan's possession and Exorcist III's demonology.
Strictly speaking, in Exorcist III, neither Damien nor Vennamun is possessed. Damien is being kept a as a spiritual prisoner, while Vennamun is being given full rein to commit his crime spree. But neither individual is the the strict sense possessed. Rather, the only possessed people are the "old friends" whom the Gemini mass-possesses.
This consideration may make Morning's exorcism seem irrelevant because there is no possessed person, and therefore no one from whom a demon needs to be expelled. However, obviously, Morning senses that a real demon is operating behind the scenes, which he knows from his own premonitions based on the events that unfolded in his room with the dead bird, the demonic wind, the falling/bleeding crucifix. So, I think the exorcism is legitimate in the sense that the vengeful demon was lurking "just in back of" the Gemini, Morning knew it, and so proceded with the exorcism.
There is the suggestion of multiple entities all with an interest in the proceedings surrounding Damien and his actions in regard to Regan. The Gemini speaks of "certain parties" being very unhappy with their expulsion from Regan. This would seem to be that Pazuzu you speak of, or as Regan names it, Captain Howdy. But then Gemini also speaks of his friend "The Master," who wants him to continue with his work. This creature appears to have the power not only to possess bodies, but also manipulate souls by inserting them into places it wants them to be. Which suggests it has powers or abilities beyond that of other entities.
I don't know if this is supposed to be Satan or just a more powerful entity than the others. It's most likely something left to the viewer to decide.
If you disagree, well, so be it.
Gemini also speaks of his friend "The Master," who wants him to continue with his work. This creature appears to have the power not only to possess bodies, but also manipulate souls by inserting them into places it wants them to be. Which suggests it has powers or abilities beyond that of other entities.
Possibly, but I still don't have a problem with identifying "the Master" with "Pazuzu". From Vennamun's POV, any supernatural hellish entity that has such power over him - and which apparently offers some protection from other such beings, would naturally be seen as a "Master", from whose table crumbs fall for Vennamun in the form of permission to perform random killings.
It's possible that "Pazuzu" did not have the power to both possess bodies but to insert deceased souls into ... "other places" (nice phrasing, btw).
But ... if as you suggest, Exorcist III's demon is not "Pazuzu", but some other creature, then one must ask what stake this newcomer has in enacting revenge specifically on "Pazuzu's" behalf.
Vennamun contrasts "his" demon - "MY Master" - with "those Others over there on the other side...They can be cruel..." It seems strange that the demon we know - "Pazuzu" - who has a strong, understandable reason to punish Karras and associates - would simply vanish from the narrative, only to be replaced by an anonymous "Other" who makes "Pazuzu's" vengeance his own.
Again, what personal stake would one of those "Others" have in avenging itself upon Karras, Kintry, Kanovan, Dyer, and Kinderman-and-family? It's doubtful that Satan as "prince of demons" would bother with such small change (not to mention that the Gospels never portray Satan as possessing anyone). And why would some random "Other" take up "Pazuzu's" cause? Sure, that newcomer could have been a former "friend" of "Pazuzu", but if so, the screenplay owes us this explanation. Otherwise, it would seem that we are almost required to fall back on "Pazuzu" as default demon.
Catholic lore, which these movies reference heavily, frequently speaks of Satan's servants and how they all answer to him and his whims. So I would imagine Pazuzu is merely another name for the demonic hoard, none of which is distinct or separate from the rest. They're all the damned in service to Satan, frequently as his mouthpiece on Earth. They no longer have their own minds or choices to make, which is why Gemini talks about being allowed to do this or that.
Thus any expulsion of one of Satan's servants is interpreted as a direct challenge to Satan, as is the attempt at thwarting Gemini's aims or any another supposed servant of Satan. Again, this is all speculation. However, the characters in the film are perfectly willing to accept these possessions as the work of Satan. And their methods of eliminating these demons seem to be effective (holy water, incantations, crosses, etc). This further encourages the viewer to accept these implications as truth. Therefore, when an exorcist's actions directly hinder the possession of these characters, it paints a rather large target on the exorcist's back as far as Satan and his servants are concerned. Satan cannot allow these challenges to go unanswered. Which may be why he keeps coming back for the priests who defy him.
If you disagree, well, so be it.
Except that it's not Satan who keeps coming back, it's a demon, and it only comes back once, for the specific purpose of avenging itself vs. Merrin for being cast out by the elderly priest some twelve years earlier in Africa. Granted, a loss for a minion of Satan is a symbolic loss for Satan, but I am not convinced that the Exorcist demon is a minion of Satan. I get the idea that Merrin is fighting with the only tools given him by the Church, but that doesn't mean that the demon is vulnerable to the Ritual.
Quite the contrary, the Ritual - even though it does of course invoke Catholic lore - has no effect on the demon except perhaps to infuriate it. It certainly is not weakening the demon and certainly not expelling it. So then the question becomes, what is the demon's real nature? Just as it has proven to be "wider" than psychology, neurology and medical science, so too it is proving to be much too great for doctrinaire religion. The demon acts like an undomesticated alien force, unresponsive to traditional science and religion. Next to it, Satan seems a rather domestic, even tame, character. Satan is bound to follow certain rules, but the Exorcist demon seems to be bound by none.
Perhaps that is why Merrin apparently does not know its name. He calls it neither "Satan" nor "Pazuzu", but only "the demon". He may as well have said, "the possessing, evil spirit entity".
Sure, the demon could be Satan or Pazuzu or one of Satan's imps, but its behavior goes far beyond that of the Biblical Satan, which is probably why it is beyond the reach of both science and religion.
This is all viable speculation. However, I would posit that to understand the story, one has to understand who wrote it. Blatty is a well known Catholic and takes many of his writing queues in these movies from his knowledge of that religion. For instance, if you read the New Testament, you'll see that Satan uses possession as a means of tormenting humanity. Only with Jesus does he make an in person appearance. Jesus was also the first exorcist, at least according to the Bible. This is counter to Old Testament books where Satan, or the entity referred to as Satan, is more like a cynical counter to God, always challenging Him and the validity of his creations.
The nature of the New Testament Satan is one of constant rage from the cast down angel, looking to take his revenge on God by punishing his creations, namely mankind. But he rarely does so in person. He sends out his minions, which prior to Jesus seemed to have free reign to take possession of humanity. After Christ, it becomes Satan vs. God in a proxy war fought between demons and men.
Assuming Blatty uses these Biblical stories as a framework for his books and scripts, I can only assume Satan figures into the proceedings somehow, even if it's only in a tertiary role.
If you disagree, well, so be it.
Thanks for your thoughtful comments. You and I differ in our view of Blatty, who I do not view as a highly orthodox Catholic. For example, in The Exorcist and Legion, he added quasi-Gnostic and mystical themes to the Catholic understructure - e.g., Merrin's association with Teilhardian thinking where the universe will culminate in a kind of "Omega Point" (de Chardin got in lifelong trouble for this view); and Kinderman's speculations about humankind's identity with "the Angel", who Blatty describes as a co-eternal being of light in a dyadic relationship with God, until the Angel split off from the Godhead in order to experience the world by being the world, and who is slowly making its way back to God (Blatty also realtes the divine dyad with the dyad of James and Thomas Vennamun, and with the dyad of Dr. Amfortas and his Doppelganger). And, as already discussed, he depicts the Ritual as being virtually impotent against the demon - hardly an orthodox Catholic scenario.
So I do not in the first place perceive Blatty as a classic, traditional Roman Catholic. Yes, he has of late been righteously assailing Georgetown University for its consorting with groups and guest lecturers who Blatty thinks are anti-Catholic, but his objections, afaik, are only ethical/moral, not dogmatic/doctrinal. If Blatty treats Teilhard and Gnostic notions about the Angel at all seriously, to that extent he has moved away from official Church teaching.
Agreed that this is all viable speculation, and fun to kick around...
Agreed, Blatty is not coming at these stories from a traditionally Catholic perspective. Although I'm not sure one can derive his actual faith from what he writes in his books. For instance, at the time he was writing these books, Catholicism had disavowed the entire notion of exorcisms as a viable tool of the church, as well as all the pseudo religious and philosophical notions he references. So it's possible Blatty separates his faith from his writings in these cases. He may have been using the combination of all these different spiritual notions and non-canonical Catholic traditions simply as a way to tell a more interesting story.
On the other hand, I can see how some would consider what he writes in Legion as almost preachy. The all too frequent moments devoted to Kinderman's distracting musing on the nature of the universe frequently serve as a hindrance to the flow of the book - almost as if Blatty is pausing to discuss his own thoughts and notions, using his Kinderman character as a surrogate for himself. It could be Blatty was just working some things out through his writing which he later disavowed. Or he could have long ago formulated a belief structure from all these disparate notions. I hate to speculate on things I'm not entirely informed about, but these seem like the two most likely situations.
If you disagree, well, so be it.
Nice observations. The books are not necessarily reflective in all ways of what the author believes, as you said.
Completely agreed on Legion. I could hardly get through all of Kinderman's (Blatty's) theological ruminations. Some "clicked" for me, but most did not. Moreover, these speculations themselves are, as you said, preachy - and worse, they seem to almost fall into a Creationist/ID paradigm. Blatty doesn't exactly deny evolution, but he does have Kinderman "needing to believe" that a supernatural agency lurks behind evolution, nature and the cosmos. I don't think Blatty has been seriously exposed to science, and his penchant for championing teleology certainly places him in a minority.
Worse, Blatty seems to skip over the moral implications of "payment" for evil acts. He permits Vennamun to get off Scot-free after all the Georgetown murders. Vennamun's father dies and he spiritually joins hands with "good twin" Tommy and they assumptively go off into the Beyond hand in hand. What about the murders? What about the victims' families (Mrs. Kintry et al)? Fr. Kanovan, Fr. Dyer, the nurses...what about the question of spiritual rape via mass possession? For Vennamun, no question of karmic or divine judgment even enters the picture.
This is almost the same as pertains to Dr. Amfortas. His Doppelganger reminds Amfortas - and reveals to the reader! - that the "good" doctor Amfortas (not the creepy Dr. Temple) has been signing patients out of the ward in order to kill at Vennamun's bidding. He has even, with partial concord, taken part in the killings. Yet all the Doppelganger can say is that there will be a period of purgation for Amfortas. So all the moral obscurities of the Vennamun case pertain also to Amfortas, who actually helped and participated in the ghostly serial killer's crime wave. For all of Blatty's preachiness, I'm shocked that he didn't address these obvious, central moral questions.
It's been years since I read Legion, but I do recall enjoying the film far more than the book. It shows how nicely the book might have read, had Blatty not wasted so much time with his bizarre musings.
If you disagree, well, so be it.
Yeah...the book would have been more a short story with the pages of Kinderman's ramblings removed...!
share