MovieChat Forums > The Exorcist III (1990) Discussion > If Friedkin had Directed Ex III

If Friedkin had Directed Ex III

posted 9 years ago by bastasch8647
24 replies | jump to latest

First, would you have liked Friedkin to have directed this? Blatty was open to others directing the film before he took the helm.

Second, let's base our opinions on the film as we have it. I think that Blatty probably should have been the director of the original story before the studio-coerced exorcistic changes. But once those changes had been made, and Friedkin theoretically became director, what do you think might have happened?

Third, and more explicitly, what scenes would Friedkin have kept the same, which would he have changed - i.e., how would he have handled Blatty's post-studio screenplay? We know that he kept re-writing Blatty's original Exorcist screenplay, so what would Friedkin have done with Blatty's (already revised for the studio) Exorcist III screenplay?

Fourth, how do you think Friedkin's filming of the exorcism might have differed from Blatty's? Would he have made Fr. Paul Morning a more central character with more screen time and more lines? Would he shoot a brief scene of Morning officially seeking an "emergency permit" from the bishop (in the current film, Morning just shows up - we don't know how he knows that Damien "is inside with us" in Vennamun's body, and we don't know how Morning got exorcism permission).

Would Friedkin have re-written Scott-Kinderman to make him more resemble the "real" Cobb-Kinderman from the original film? Would he have Scott wear a hat and moustache for the sake of resonance? Would he have softened Kinderman's brusque, sometimes brutal lines and outbursts? Would he have avoided the incomprehensible Kinderman line that Karras "was my best friend"?

Would Friedkin have toned down Blatty's excesses, starting with the intrusive, silly musical score and growling "demonic" sound effects, weird looking nuns in hospital corridors, the irritatingly goofy "Joker statue" hallway scene in the university president's office, the not-scary/not-jump "scare" when "Alice" delivers the president's speech papers...etc.?

Would Friedkin's directorial touch have made Exorcist III a better film than the one that we now have?

[–] somesunnyday 9 years ago

Good question. Let me see....

First, yes I would have loved Friedkin to direct this.

Second, I would hope that Friedkin would have enough swing and balls to to pull off telling the studio to drop the exorcism scene. Those who have read the book would know why, it just doesn't belong.

Third, that's a hard call. I'm sure he would have kept the carp scene. As far as anything else goes it's impossible to know what he would or wouldn't have changed. What I do believe is he would have somehow included the incredibly interesting side story of Dr Amfortas which greatly adds to the book.

Fourth, Friedkin's filming would have been completely different IMO. He would have toned it down more and given it a more realistic feel. As far as Fr Paul Morning goes, see my second response.

Fifth, I believe he would have taken a lot of Kinderman's strange ramblings from the book and added them in a more subtle way, not as brusque as Scott's performance (I do love Scott though). Not sure about the physical resemblance, I don't think it really matters if the actor has captured the essence of Kinderman. I always found the "best friend" thing weird both in the film and book. Although an initial strong rapport is built between the two, Kinderman certainly doesn't get the chance to become that close to Karras.

Sixth, yes absolutely. The film would have a completely different tone as I mentioned before. Much more subtle and subsequently more effective IMO.

All in all, Friedkin would have made it a better film. He is one of the great directors so I think that's a no brainer.

In saying this though, I do enjoy Blatty's The Exorcist III for what it is and although quite hollywood, it does contain one of the best jump/scare scenes in horror history. You know the one.

[–] bastasch8647 9 years ago

Let me thank you for your sharp and intelligent post. Agreed on most of your points. It's way past my bed time here but I just wanted to take a minute to thank you before I retire. I was feeling that nobody was going to reply, and I hadn't been hoping for as good a one as you've contributed.

:)

[–] somesunnyday 9 years ago

Your welcome, good topic

[–] 5535 9 years ago

Great post bastasch!

Funny as just before I read your post, I was watching the scene from the movie where Dr. Temple is rehearsing his speech to Kinderman. Great scene!

First question, well, seeing as I'm 32 and didn't see the original movie until the age of 11 in 1993', it's hard for me to I am Pazuzu say whether I would have wanted Friedkin back or not. I didn't know much of his work back then. Considering that I love The Exorcist III, I'm perfectly happy with Blatty having directed it.

Now, it would have been interesting to have seen where Friedkin would have taken the movie, as it was his cattle mutilation scenario that apparently dissuaded the producers from hiring him again.

As for the novel, well I must confess that I've only read five or so pages from it at a book store many years back, but you're probably right that Friedkin would have done the original If you're reading this, you are now possessed book adaptation, with some possible changes. Considering the producers wanted the big exorcism heavy FX ending in 1990 when Blatty filmed it, they probably would have wanted the same changes from Friedkin had he made the movie earlier.

Third question? Not a clue! I'm sure he would have altered quite a few things, probably even adding another exorcism himself, but I don't know what else would have been changed.

Yes, I think he would have added a few quick establishing scenes to introduce Father Morning to us and make him feel important. Maybe some stronger and earlier foreshadowing to us about his appearance in the finale. FX wise? Probably about the same, maybe with less lighting and fire/brimstone, without the peeling off the ceiling moment perhaps.

As for Kinderman's appearance, tough call. My ultimate GUESS is that Friedkin might have tried to write Kinderman out of the movie, and make him a different character, even a similar detective, but not Kinderman. Friedkin strikes me as the type of person who'd not want another actor the power of Christ compels you in the same role, because it's not the same actor, because the original actor did such a great subtle performance, and because Cobb is dead. He might find it disrespectful to cast someone else. I don't disagree at all with how Blatty handled it, but it's just my view as to how Friedkin could have felt. As for the personality, well I'd guess it would have remained the same as how Scott delivered it, aggressive, powerful, grumpy, smart, hardheaded etc.

Friedkin wouldn't have had the growling sound FX, but I think he would have kept everything else the same, because other than the growling and forced scary voices, it wasn't much different in style to the original. The original had jump scares to, with the woman in the carriage in Irag, the attic scene with the flame going out and the butler frightening Chris, and it also had a similar Joker statue moment at the beginning when the priest notices the defamed statue with the horns and paint job.

Today, I'd LOVE to see either Friedkin or Blatty do one more Exorcist film! The budget would have to be small, because I'm not sure the box office would be big for it, but it still would be a blast to see what they could come up with.

:)

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bastasch8647 9 years ago

5535, thanks for your comments ...

I would love to hear what you think of the book, should you get around to reading it... some of it still mystifies me.

Yes, I think he would have added a few quick establishing scenes to introduce Father Morning to us and make him feel important. Maybe some stronger and earlier foreshadowing to us about his appearance in the finale

Yes, if he kept Morning + exorcism. Also we would want to know how Morning knew that Damien was trapped by Vennamun and "Pazuzu" in the first place - he knows to show up for the exorcism, and he cries out Damien's name. Did he know about this through Dyer? The two priests could have talked, but Dyer has no idea about Karras' plight. How does Morning know Damien's name? Were they "best friends" (and of course that would be the film's second "best friends" mystery) sometime in the past? How does Morning know anything about Damien's plight - not even Kinderman was able to put a call through to Morning, as the university president suggested he should.

FX wise? Probably about the same, maybe with less lighting and fire/brimstone, without the peeling off the ceiling moment perhaps

Yes - no fire and brimstone, no snakes. Yes, the studio wanted a gripping exorcism at the climax, but I think Blatty seriously overreacted. Friedkin could have directed it without all the pyrotechnics. One book blurb for the Exorcist novel made some remark like, "but here, in an icy little room in Washington DC, the ultimate battle between good and evil takes place...". So Friedkin surely could have directed the exorcism as taking place in an icy little asylum cell in Washington DC - to much greater effect and with much more maturity, much more density/intensity than all the fireworks Hollywood sfx could provide. Definitely the exorcism could have been, to put it ironically, a subtle, low-key blockbuster. I really don't know why Blatty hired snake trainers and tossed in cgi thunderstorms - perhaps this was his hurt, angry reaction to the forced rewrite - I hope not, though.

Agreed that WF could have kept some of the jump scares, but imo he should have changed others:

Definitely keep THAT hallway scene, of course.

But in another hallway scene, photograph the decapitated Christ statue in a way that doesn't make Kinderman look senile in his inattention.

Drop "Alice delivers the president's speech" non-scare scene, as well as the pointless Joker statue non-scare.

Perhaps - just perhaps - keep the decapitated Fr. Kanavan confessional scene - briefly.

Drop the silly nuns in the hospital corridor - the first one whose headgear looks like The Flying Nun, the second one who makes a strange head-hand gesture that makes her look just plain nuts.

Also make Nurse Allerton a little more sympathetic and less aggressive ("Will you please LEAVE! PLEASE JUST LEAVE!!!").

Also rework the old lady-cum-Gemini patient attacking the Kindermans at home - I mean come on, a surgical shears in an attack on Julie that the cgi was too incompetent to make realistic? The old lady could still be used, but in a much more psychological and Hitchcockian manner.

And ... people really differ on this next point ... Keep the "Miss Clelia'" ceiling spider walk - it made me jump out of my skin when I first saw it - and it does conform to the film's other demonstrations of the demon's telekinetic powers, as when it hurls the cop across Kinderman's kitchen, and wreaks havoc with the Gemini's cell.

Anyway, that's all I can think of right now - thanks again for your thoughtful comments.

[–] 5535 9 years ago

Exactly, it's as if Father Morning already knows who Damien is and where Patient X/Gemini killer is being held, despite nothing shown to us or alluded to.

Yeah, I think Friedkin would have still been forced to do some kind of FX show for the finale, but just a little less flashy than what Blatty did.

I agree about the hallway decapitation jump scare! That's a keeper!

Yes, Kinderman not noticing the severed head was a litte dumb LOL

I agree about the Joker non scare shot. That was lame. I actually didn't mind the Alice jump scare where she bumps into Kinderman, but it was the forced growling that ruined it.

I loved the confessional scene!

The nuns did look a little odd. The nuns walking in the original past Chris looked more effective, and creepier with the wind blowing their head pieces.

Good point about Nurse Allerton. She was an odd one, but I've see some like her before, so not entirely unrealistic, just a little unprofessional.

50/50 on the home attack with the psycho patient nurse. It's a very fun scene to watch, as is watching Kinderman speeding home and yelling at people. I LOVE the reaction of the mother when she fears her daughter's head is going to come off, but there are some issues, sure. The shears do look a little silly with that average FX (Still creepy because of it), and the growling ending with the patient lowering to the floor was half scary and half silly. I liked seeing her travel to the home though, sitting in the cab with that unnerving expression!. You're right though, less is more, and I wonder if this scene was another case of the producers telling Blatty to make it more big, or if Blatty wanted it this way.

50/50 on the ceiling. I could do with it, or without it. I do love the way she cranes her head down to have a look!

BTW, did you spot my cryptic messages to you in my first response to this topic? I was just trying to mess with you, by putting some words into my comment at odd places ;)

[–] bastasch8647 9 years ago

did you spot my cryptic messages to you in my first response to this topic? I was just trying to mess with you, by putting some words into my comment at odd places ;)

I wasn't sure if they were typos keep away the sow is mine or if my eyesight finally deteriorated to the point of no it wants no straps return!

the forced growling that ruined it.

Amen to that. I know that Blatty and de Vorzon were/are friends, but I think it was sloppy of Blatty to approve of the growling, whether or not it was a product of de Vorzon's artistry, or of the sound department. He should have known better - Friedkin didn't rely on cheap, cliched sound effects. I suppose Blatty was trying to please the studio by making the film "scarier", but we both agree that the growls were silly, not frightening...

[–] 5535 9 years ago

Glad you spotted them :)

Yeah, Friedkin wins that once since he didn't use cheap sound FX. That is true.

[–] bastasch8647 9 years ago

Yeah, his sound effects were mostly successful... the only sound effect that worked for me in Exorcist III was the dripping water in the Gemini cell's leaky sink...

[–] 5535 9 years ago

That dripping water was VERY unsettling!

I have to say, that with the flaws, the story idea behind The Exorcist III was very imaginative!

Damien being tapped inside the re-animated body of a serial killer, forced to watch from the killer's eyes as he kills more people is beyond disturbing. I can't even begin to imagine the in between moment when Damien was dying and then becoming one with the Gemini killer. So weird and twisted!

[–] bastasch8647 9 years ago

Blatty's original Legion novel did not have Karras in it at all. It had his resuscitated body, inhabited mostly by the Gemini and sometimes by the Gemini's "good" brother. Faithful to the first book and the Friedkin film, Damien had indeed gone on to his reward, leaving behind only the hollow bodily shell which "Pazuzu" used to carry Vennamun. But, for the rewrite, Blatty brought him back.

At first I was unhappy that the new movie scenario cheated Damien out of his victory, but then I mellowed, and came to appreciate that Damien's presence brought back Jason Miller, and that Damien himself, who had been Regan's rescuer, now needed rescue from Morning and Kinderman - which really "upped the ante" - so at the end there was a payoff wherein the two surrogate "exorcists" liberated the original exorcist from the demon's grasp.

Sadly, Damien did not have much time to appreciate this victory, because he "needed out", which opportunity Kinderman provided. Of course, that would be just about impossible for Kinderman to explain, although if Morning survived, he could have backed up Kinderman's testimony. What a weird thing it would have been, after the demon and Vennamun were expelled, if Damien wanted to go on living, or if Kinderman had refused Damien's last request...I doubt that he would have been able to emotionally survive the horror and trauma of the past fifteen years, so his and Kinderman's agreed-upon resolution was probably his best, if not his only choice.

forced to watch from the killer's eyes as he kills more people

Yes, that's what Vennamun explains in the film. However, I can't think of a specific case where Vennamun HIMSELF (carrying Karras inside him) commits a murder. Granted, we are led to think that Dr. Temple was letting Vennamun out, but that is not entirely certain. From what the film tells us about Vennamun's powers, he's able to control or possess people from a distance - he uses the vacuous minds of "old friends" to do his crimes. So I'm not sure how and when he could have been out on the street or elsewhere in the hospital because he could just as easily have carried out the murders without leaving his cell. Of course, he could have been speaking metaphorically when he said that "I" commit the murders - he could mean "I do it by proxy, through the elderly patients"...

[–] 5535 9 years ago

Good point, it doesn't seem as if he was out and about, killing, but controlling from his cell.

Imagine a double POV shot where we see what Damien is seeing, with only an outline of Vennamun that is shown to us, giving us the sense that Damien's watching while inside of someone Vennamun's body/mind. We hear a little reaction from Damien when Vennamun kills someone, Damien completely with no control over him. After completing a kill, Vennamun says to himself/Damien "You can go back to sleep now Damien", as if only waking Damien up when he's committing the murders.

Would have been fun and creepy to see something like this on screen!

[–] bastasch8647 9 years ago

That's a clever gimmick that would show Vennamun's crimes from the trapped Karras' POV. .... We should get together with some other sympathetic critics of the film and write a new screenplay.

;)

[–] kurt7825 8 years ago

this is my favorite Exorcist movie and i wouldn't change anything

[–] bastasch8647 8 years ago

That's great. But didn't any of the above-mentioned objections ring a bell with you...? The overdone soundtrack/sound effects, perhaps? How about Kinderman saying that he and Damien were "best friends" - something not concludable from the book or the Friedkin film? I love this little jewel of a film, but it's a flawed gem in my view.

[–] 5535 8 years ago

True bastasch, it is flawed in those areas.

However, I kind of watch it as a separate entity, even though it's connected to the original movie. That helps me enjoy it more and pretend the continuity flaws aren't there.

With the sound FX though, I still hate most of them, that growling etc. Too forced, which is surprising considering how subtle much of the movie is.

Can't wait for the Bluray and director's cut!!!

This could end up being one of the most interesting and rewarding DVD releases yet, especially for horror/thriller fans!

[–] bastasch8647 8 years ago

Yeah, Friedkin never relied on cheap, cliched "horror" sound effects - he was confident that his film was scary enough without recourse to cliches...

Yes, the new DVD is exciting news...we've all been waiting a long time for it.

:)

[–] 5535 8 years ago

True.

I actually think that Blatty is equally as smart and clever as Friedkin, but for some reason either decided to or was coerced into adding the sound FX.

:)

[–] bastasch8647 8 years ago

I hope he was coerced by the studio - they do seem over the top for the kind of movie he really wanted to make...

[–] 5535 8 years ago

I agree.

October can't come fast enough!

[–] kurt7825 8 years ago

well to be honest,

"Kinderman saying that he and Damien were "best friends""

that has always bothered me since i saw this movie when it came out. i wish that line wasn't in there

"in the current film, Morning just shows up - we don't know how he knows that Damien "is inside with us" in Vennamun's body, and we don't know how Morning got exorcism permission"

that bothered me to. i always wondered if scenes we cut explaining this

"Would Friedkin have toned down Blatty's excesses, starting with the intrusive, silly musical score and growling "demonic" sound effects, weird looking nuns in hospital corridors, the irritatingly goofy "Joker statue" hallway scene in the university president's office, the not-scary/not-jump "scare" when "Alice" delivers the president's speech papers...etc.?"

i actually liked all those things. i wish the original Exorcist had some of that in his movie. Blatty's movie just seems so weird yet awesome

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bastasch8647 8 years ago

I'm sorry, but they were not best friends in the original novel. Granted, they met more times in the novel than in the film. They were friendly, bantering acquaintances. Each saw in the other certain affinities and even certain needs. But they still remained two ships passing on (a very dark) night and in (a very stormy) sea.

The point of Blatty hooking up Kinderman and Fr. Dyer at the end was not to underscore that Kinderman and Karras had been best friends, but rather to hopefully continue that nascent, brief friendship in a new bonding whose style and form would nurture their memory of Damien Karras. As they walk off together, Kinderman quotes the famous Bogart-to-Raines friendship line from Casablanca to Dyer and Blatty puts this coda on the new friendship: "In forgetting [Karras' death], they were trying to remember [Karras' goodness and self-sacrifice]..." If Karras had a best friend in the novel and the Friedkin film (and in Legion and Exorcist III), it was Joe Dyer. They shared much more together than Karras and Kinderman ever did.