| |
|||
 |
|||
|
|||
|
|
Exorcist: The Beginning
The only positive thing I can say on Exorcist: The Beginning’s behalf is that it makes complete good of its tagline: “God is not here.” It is a film entirely devoid of morals, taste, and respect for human life, and it has absolutely no reason to exist, except to trample violently on our senses and maim our spirits. It’s been a long, long time since I have been so depressed and so outraged as I walked out of a theater. This is a prequel to the original Exorcist (1973), and it details the adventures of Father Lancaster Merrin’s (played by Max von Sydow in the original film and Stellan Skarsgård here) first encounter in Africa with the demon who will eventually become his arch nemesis in the subsequent film. Since we are told in the original that Merrin successfully exorcised the demon, one wonders why this prequel is needed at all, as we already know how it will end. I suppose it is to learn more about Merrin’s journey and the nature of the demon, though the film is more concerned with its gory story than creating interesting characters out of either. But these quibbles hardly matter—the film is so disjointed and meandering that it might as well take place on some other planet, far, far away from the rest of us. The characters all talk the talk, but everything here is recycled from other films. As they mutter their biblical clichés (“I don’t believe in the devil,” “I’ve lost my faith,” etc.), there is no sense of anything new, no sense of excitement, wonder, or horror. Everyone simply walks around like they’ve seen The Exorcist and know how to act in a movie about demonic possession. For that matter, there really is no plot to speak of. Director Renny Harlin and writer Alexi Hawley piece the film together as if they are on auto-pilot. It is a collage of the psychological thriller, period piece, and slasher film, and has all of the according clichés. There is no sense of coherency or timing; characters walk around a lot, mumble lines about the apocalypse or their tortured memories of World War II (the film takes place in 1949), and are placed in typical false-jump scenarios. You know what I mean by “false-jump scenarios” if you’ve ever seen a Friday the 13th film, or the like: Characters hear a noise, they go to investigate, the music builds, they get scared, and something jumps out at them. They scream in terror, but wait—it’s only a cat, or a radio, or a villager. The person breathes a sigh of relief, thinks they’re okay, and then, the real terror jumps out at them. It’s a cheap shot that is as old as the movies, and it’s used no less than twenty times in Exorcist: The Beginning. That we’re watching this film at all is something of a miracle, if that’s the right word. It has had a shaky start, and was in pre-production for years before it finally got released. Lots of deaths and false-starts took place before it got in front of cameras. I wonder if God was trying to tell us something, or maybe even Satan, who probably doesn’t like the bad, watered-down name this film gives him. Most of us know that the late John Frankenheimer was attached to direct before he died. After his death, the writing and directing responsibilities went to Paul Schrader, the man responsible for writing some of the greatest American films ever made, namely Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, and The Last Temptation of Christ. He shot a full-length film that was evidently an art-house, character-driven story about Merrin’s struggles with his faith. The horror in the film was strictly psychological; it contained no gore, and the exorcism was essentially a verbal battle of wits between Merrin and the Devil. Morgan Creek, the production company in charge, was not happy with Schrader’s film, citing that they wanted less art and more gore. They subsequently fired Schrader, and brought in Harlin and Hawley to start over from scratch. Morgan Creek certainly got what they wanted. Less art, more gore. This film is caked with blood—it oozes out of every corner and serves no purpose, except perhaps to attempt to create images as sensational as the possession of the little girl in the original. What Exorcist: The Beginning fails to understand is that the original film is effective in its gory, demonic images because it has an immense respect for the characters in the film, and for human life in general. We cringe at the sight of the young girl being overtaken by the Devil because we have come to adore her as a character, and we know and respect her mother and the heroic priests likewise. That film was about a clear-cut battle between a loving God vs. a sadistic Satan, with the frail human soul as the battle arena. In the end, the people involved are strengthened by the ordeal. Exorcist: The Beginning, on the other hand, is more concerned with Satan vs. Human Weakness, with God’s name being tossed about like some sort of distant, half-effective magical spell. In the end, no one in the film is better off than they were. In the meantime, dozens and dozens of characters are introduced that serve no purpose except to die horribly: An innocent boy is eaten alive by wild hyenas; people are impaled, shot, and crushed in pointless battle sequences; a troubled man blows his brains out; a little girl gets her face shot off in vivid detail, a drunkard’s skin falls off and he is eaten by birds; a baby is born dead and covered with maggots; another man carves a swastika into his bare chest, only to immediately cut his own throat a few minutes later. The list goes on, but I won’t. The point, then, is clear: Morgan Creek wasn’t interested in producing an intelligent sequel to a great horror film—they wanted a run-of-the-mill gorefest with no discernible originality, purpose, or respect for precious human life. In fact, I have rarely seen such degradation of human life in a movie. When you produce a film with no plot, themes, or original characters, there is little doubt that you are making a bad movie. When over 80% of that movie is devoted to introducing characters and watching them die horribly as the camera lingers on their squirting blood, you’ve passed the bad movie mark and have descended into some type of sadistic, pornographic violence. Exorcist: The Beginning has the nerve to give us a graphic shot of a mother birthing a child, only to have the doctor hold it up and reveal that it is rotting and covered with maggots. If a filmmaker intends to force an image on us so disturbing in nature, they’d also better provide a great payoff, (note to Morgan Creek: See the final moments in The Exorcist as a superb example of such a great payoff). But no character discusses the scene again—no one reacts sadly to this terrible event. It doesn’t even factor into the plot in any way, as none of the gory scenes do. I am forced to conclude that this scene, and the rest of the film, serves no purpose but to rape our senses with shots that glorify bloody, gruesome, human suffering. If that is its goal, then it succeeds. I
haven’t seen Paul Schrader’s version, so I cannot
speak for it. But William Blatty, the man who wrote the original
Exorcist as well as the thoughtful and character-driven
Exorcist III, has seen it, and he called it “first
class.” That’s good enough for me; in any case, I
have hard time imagining a film much worse than Harlin’s
version. Now that Exorcist: The Beginning has finally
been released, its only justification to exist is to be forgotten.
All prints should be destroyed, and its memory erased from our
minds. God is most certainly not here. Cast: Warner Brothers presents a Morgan Creek production. Directed by Renny Harlin. Screenplay by Alexi Hawley, from a story by William Wisher and Caleb Carr. Rated R, for graphic violence, gore, innuendo, and language. Running time: 114 minutes. Original United States theatrical release date: August 20, 2004. Questions? Comments? E-mail me: danel_the_tinman@hotmail.com |
||
