MovieChat Forums > The Exorcist III (1990) Discussion > Could have been a John Carpenter movie

Could have been a John Carpenter movie

posted 8 years ago by apollo86
3 replies | jump to latest

With Exorcist 3 back in the news it has brought up some interesting nuggets of info, such as John Carpenter being offered the film early on, his thoughts about it are here:
http://www.blumhouse.com/2016/07/08/john-carpenter-on-almost-directing-exorcist-iii/
He holds the same belief that the execs had that there had to be an exorcism scene, leads me to think he really would have went and pumped up the horror and gore elements of the story, and left out a lot of Blatty's quirkiness. After all early 90's Carpenter was a very different beast from early 80's Carpenter, though he did do Satanic horror with Prince Of Darkness in between. Imagine the film with a Carpenter synth score! :)
The casting would been a lot different also, maybe some of his old favourites Donald Pleasance as Kinderman and Tom Atkins as Father Dyer! How do you guys think the film would have fared/differed with Carpenter at the helm?

[–] bastasch8647 8 years ago

I think you're right that JC's direction would probably miss Blatty's quirkiness. Also Blatty simply has "that Catholic feel", the sense of authenticity that non-Catholic writers and directors more often than not just miss out on. I don't know that JC could convey the liturgical-sacramental sense of possession/exorcism in a convincingly "Catholic" manner. True, Prince of Darkness was filmed in a church, with some clergy, but that's a far cry from what Exorcist III profoundly and essentially requires. And - I would not want a synth score used, either, although I've gone on record that the current Barry deVorzon score and "growling" demonic sound effects really cheapen the film.

[–] apollo86 8 years ago

Good points. It seems to me that Carpenter's approach would have almost certainly led to friction with Blatty during the production, he was wise to recognise it was Blatty's baby and distance himself.

I also find that the score/ "scary movie" sound effects are a hindrance to the movie, especially the altering of Dourif's voice pitch at certain stages to make him sound "demonic". Totally unnecessary as Dourif is more than able to convey menace without artificial enhancements. It was probably a late addition with all the other various changes imposed on Blatty. It reminds me of how right Friedkin got it with his approach to music in the original, keeping it minimal and not constantly reminding the viewer that they're watching a horror film.

Like The Exorcist, the horror is inherent in the dialogue and story. For example, one of the most effective moments in the film for me is when Kinderman describes the details of Kintry's murder to Dyer. The priest's reaction is just fantastic- he expects Kinderman to either wave off with generalities or tell of a more routine murder scene, i.e. a beating or stabbing. As Kinderman elaborates, Dyer's reaction to the sheer wickedness of the crime conveys everything we need to know. Damn Ed Flanders was excellent here- A beautifully acted scene.

[–] bastasch8647 8 years ago

Totally agreed. Flanders was perfect as Dyer (although it might have been nice to get William O'Malley's take on the role/dialogue had he been available). And yes, why mess with Dourif's vocalizations, when he was fully capable of communicating everything that Vennamun is? (Not that Jason Miller was a slouch when he was speaking the Gemini's lines - deep, gravelly voice - very effective.)
And those growling soundtrack effects - as if Blatty was not confident enough that he had a scary film, so he approved those silly sounds as if to inject an added fear element... and, as you said, Friedkin showed a superior musical intuition with his selection of extant music.