Exorcist III: Legion (William Peter Blatty, 1989)

[HerrSchreck]

I was just noodling thru the "serious horror films" thread and was absolutely thrilled to see that other folks regard this film as highly as I do. Since the other Exorcist films have their own individual threads I thought this neglected gem deserved one of it's own.

First off, I love the original. I know the film can be hit or miss with the current generation who don't respond to some of the eerie psychological subtleties, and regard the special effects with a touch of skepticism... but I think the film is an all-cylinders-turning masterpiece. It's stone seriousness and devastating literalism just rivet me each time I watch it. It's shock factor wore off for me a long time ago, but the heavy sense of hauntedness running beneath everything.. the sense of, beyond the vomit and Reagan's flailing and obscenities, this hidden malevolent personality peeking thru the unfolding, that we glimpse here and there in snatches and the subtlest hints via very fleeting moving camera... impresses me to no end. Personified of course by the quick 1/4 second glimpes we catch of the demonic face in Damien's dream, and during the Exorcism itself. It's a fully formed, yet mostly hidden personality-- the main character of the movie. Pizzuzu or whatever you want to call it. You feel him among the ruins in Iraq, he's there behind the woman's face who almost runs over Merrin in Nineva, the one-eyed guy hammering, he's there with the old beggar in the subway, you feel him everywhere in the burnt out streets of Manhattan where Damie's mother lives. Where he is, the atmosphere becomes heavy, bleak, and sad. Other times you wonder if he's in unexpected places-- is he one of the nuns in the cold windy afternoon light of Georgetown where the trees are dying (when Chris walks home from the shoot)? I feel its personality hugely in a particular scene: when Kinderman is by himself down at the bottom of the steps at M street, and rifling through the weeds after Burke's murder. He picks up one of Reagan's little sculptures near where the body of Burke came to rest, subliminally echoing Merrin's picking up of the Pizzuzu head in Nineva. You know that Kinderman is picking up on the presence of something uncanny about the murder, and you feel this demon hanging in the air, watching him... and on the soundtrack is some of the mosr stone-serious music you'll hear: these thumping throbs of a stand-up bass, way way down in the bottom register. Just a single note-- "thoooom...." spaced almost 10 seconds apart. The demon watching his new domain and all who move thru it... how the hairs stood up on my neck when Kinderman is sitting in his car, surveilling the house, sees Karras leave, peers up at Reagan's window, and sees her silhouette float sideways by the window....

And in the murder itself, more peeks at the identity-- the condition of the body, caused by the manipulation of the head and neck via the force of a "powerful man", and the hinted obscenity of there being a very strong, masculine murderer within the body and persona of an innocent little girl. Th eerie hints, building up, never entirely identifying the full personality behind the defacement of the child.

This is what I find so frightening about the movie, is this sense of an authentic entity, marked by a bleakly frozen aura of seriousness running beneath all the ugliness that it is causing. If the movie simply operated on the ugliness of the vandalizing of the child, the film would be, I believe, worthless. And it's Friedkin's uncanny ability to translate the personality pulling the strings of the child, while only providing little touches of glimpses, via practically (but not quite as has been claimed) subliminal means-- it's a virtuoso performance.

This is what I get out of Exorcist 3/Legion-- this is why I went on at such length about the original. I saw it when it came out in 1989 and I loved it. Not as excellent as the first film, of course, but I've slowly come to realize reading reviews that other people also give the film a lot of credit. Although the film never quite entirely succeeds in painting as compelling a picture of the entity residing behind the attacks (and also has to squeeze in some clumsy narrative issues concerning the return of Fr Karras AND the Gemini Killer/Venamun), it pretty effectively creates, bit by bit, this sense of there being something more than just the killings and the killer, the sense of something eternal with an I.D. of stone seriousness pulling the strings behind the scenes. And it helps, when trying to flesh out in the imagination of the viewer the character of a demon that is never truly identified in physical space, to place it within vessels that represent the greatest contrast in both physical and psychological terms. In Exorcist one, it's a small girl. In Three, it's the elderly and the infirm.

And it adds to this sense of peeling away 'hidden truths' via the conceit of words behind the words of Venamun ("Invitation to the dance", "Traveling man, one who moves," "Friends, OLD friends," etc), not to mention the genderless nature of the entity (of course, the attempt to reproduce the brilliant effect of Merceded McCaimbridge's voice is one of the biggest mistakes the film makes). It's kind of Ex3's version of the backwards talk of the demon in Ex1. Never exposing directly, always peeling away, with hints and peeks and snatches.

Not to mention the Nurse's Station scene scares the beejeezus out of anyone and everyone who sees it.

[cinemartin]

I agree with you completely on the first Exorcist. I watched the third one recently having only faint memories of it. I really want to love it - I think there are brilliant ideas in it. But I can't help but disagree with you completely about its execution. I think none of the mystery and hints of the ever-present supernatural is there in this film. Of course, there is the problem with Karras and Dourif as you mentioned, but beyond that I just felt the film lacked all those wonderful qualities you mentioned of the original (which you put into words wonderfully). I felt myself very bored by the movie, which - no matter how ridiculous a movie it may be - I can never say about the second one (NOT a defense).

[Antoine Doinel]

I've long been wary the Exorcist sequels, but your recommendation for the Exorcist III has me curious. Does it continue at all from part II, or was III a "reboot" of the franchise?

[domino harvey]

It continues from the first one and ignores the second

[HerrSchreck]

Exactly. George C Scott plays Kinderman, some other guy plays Father Dyer. Father Karris (played by Jason Miller again) reappears.

But the McNeils are in the past, it's a totally new story merely faintly echoing the past one via thin threads. Blatty, who directed from his own screenplay from his own book (his adaptation of his original Exorcist novel-- which I personally feel is even scarier than the movie.. the first one I mean; those who are fans of the first excorsist film, I can;t recommend the book to you enough-- is a work of art), didn't even want the film to carry the Exorcist name, despite the fact that there are associations with the first novel. Of course the studio wouldn't hear of simply calling the film Legion.

Of course III isn't anywhere near the ballpark of I-- but I think it's a very good horror film.

Friedkin's contribution to the genre cinema of today just can't be overstated... the modern buddy-cop streety crime drama, via The French Connection; and the special-effects based (missing the point of the greatness of the film of course, but still) horror spectacle.

Too bad he started Really Sucking as a director not too long after. He really had it going on there for awhile, and with a very-- formally-- restrained style.

[cinemartin]

I read somewhere the Blatty felt The 9th Configuration was a sort of Exorcist 2, claiming that the astronaut that appears in the film is the same astronaut from the original Exorcist. I've never seen the film, though, so I can't really comment.

[cdnchris]

This film has probably one of the freakiest few seconds out of any horror film I've ever seen and every time I see the sequence, which I'll just say involves someone/something quickly moving across the screen, it sends a chill through my body even though I know it's coming.

This is an underrated film. Not up to the first one by any means, but it's a solid horror movie, has some good ideas, and I thought Scott was fantastic.

(I also notice Scott seemed to have been the default Lee J. Cobb replacement since not only did he replace him in this film but also replaced him in the 12 Angry Men TV remake.)

The ending seems slightly out of place but my understanding is that the studio forced certain changes on Blatty, including a louder "action packed" like ending, and even added the priest played by Nicol Williamson (I think that's who it was anyways) who tries to perform the exorcism, just to have some sort of exorcism in the film. Up until that, though, the film's pretty effective.

[HerrSchreck]

This film has probably one of the freakiest few seconds out of any horror film I've ever seen and every time I see the sequence, which I'll just say involves someone/something quickly moving across the screen, it sends a chill through my body even though I know it's coming.
.

Nurses station sequence? Can you put spoiler tags on if something'll be given away?

[exte]

Yes! I haven't seen that since I was a kid, and it scared the hell out of me! Thank God for youtube!

[exte]

Too bad he started Really Sucking as a director not too long after. He really had it going on there for awhile, and with a very-- formally-- restrained style.

Can you explain this? How was he restrained? Compared to whom? If he wasn't "restrained," what would it have been like?

[cdnchris]

This film has probably one of the freakiest few seconds out of any horror film I've ever seen and every time I see the sequence, which I'll just say involves someone/something quickly moving across the screen, it sends a chill through my body even though I know it's coming.
.

Nurses station sequence? Can you put spoiler tags on if something'll be given away?

Spoiler

Yes, the nurses station sequence. Just didn't want to give away where it was.

[colinr0380]

While I'm not a fan of the first Exorcist I really liked Herr Schreck's description of it. You make me want to have gotten the same feeling from the film! I think one of the things I liked most about Exorcist III was the devilry felt present but not as 'in your face' as the first film, instead mediated through the serial killer set up. It managed to build the tension until by the time the supernatural really begins to show itself I'm fully engrossed and wanting the connection to previous events to be revealed. I know that the first Exorcist goes through a similar slow burn period but for me the first film moved a bit too quickly to literalism of projectile vomiting, which lessened the scare potential and therefore my engagement. I was very impressed by the way the third film kept events relatively low key and ambiguous for such a long time before the exorcism scene. It was also the film where I felt as if I truly went on a journey with the main character from skepticism to belief and a greater emotional investment in the situation, rather than being left behind by their conversion.

By the way The Ninth Configuration is magnificent. Slower paced, even more ambiguous and truly creepy by the end.

[foliagecop]

I agree with you, Colin. The Ninth Configuration is an excellent film. Vastly underrated, with some of the most surreal/left-field and hilarious dialogue I've heard in years. By no means a comedy, it had me guffawing out loud at times.

Ditto Herr Shreck. I've loved E3:L since it came out. The dialogue - being Blatty - between Kinderman and Dyer is again hilarious. Ed Flanders has never been better. But of course it's the psychological horror aspect and on-screen frights that are more pertinent and stay with you longer. Not just the nurses station (which everyone remembers, even if they remember nothing else about the film), but also the 'crawling' scene. Definitely a film to revisit again and again.

[HerrSchreck]

the 'crawling' scene..

You mean up on the ceiling?

[foliagecop]

the 'crawling' scene..

You mean up on the ceiling?

Yep, that's the one.

[exte]

Where in the movie is that?

[Mr Sausage]

Where in the movie is that?

When Kinderman goes to find the old woman he's convinced Gemini is inhabiting. It happens right before said woman dresses like a nurse and heads off to visit Kinderman's family, with Kinderman following in the police car (which is, I have to admit, one of the tensest 'car chases' I've ever seen, cross cutting between Kinderman's increasingly agitated and unnerved speed through the streets and the woman sitting solid and impassive in the back of the calmly moving taxi).

[royalton]

I adore the original with all its bombast, but this film is a totally separate and unique masterpiece. Excluding the Nicol Williamson reshoots.

I was thrilled to get a chance to talk to Mr. Blatty online back when the studio was promoting the dreadful "Version You've Never Seen" and pick his brain a little about EIII. Nothing people don't already know, I expect, except he clarified the confusing nature of the entities in the climax, and confirmed that Colleen Dewhurst did the voice of the demon in that scene, pinch-hitting for Mercedes McCambridge. He had never wanted to bring the demon (Pazuzu) from the original back into the fray for the finale, but Morgan's Creek demanded a big time exorcism complete with genderless demon voice. Bits of the original non-exorcism ending (apparently now lost) can be seen in the theatrical trailer - showing a rudimentary "morphing' FX on Karras/Gemini, metamorphosizing into dozens of faces before Karras begs Kinderman to kill him/them.

[HerrSchreck]

Yeah I did see that bit in the trailer and I found it eerie. I don't know why, but when that's well executed it creeps me out, the putting of one face over another... the superimpositions over Regan's closeups in the first one, where you see the white demon face very vagely, the trailer for 3, another good example would be in Wise's The Haunting, when Markway is doing his opening voice-over about the history of Hill House, and gets to the point where the daughter of the builder remains there after the death of her father.. she "grew up-- and grew old," and you see the superimpositions of several actresses of different ages moving the girl from youth to old age. The part where she goes from middle aged to old aged-- there's a spot where it hangs for a moment, distorted-- just wigs me out.

[exte]

Anyone ever read the real story behind the exorcist? The story that supposedly inspired the book? I read this years ago and it sort of makes Blatty's creation all the more "inspiring" in a way. Recently I analyzed the structure of the film and it's ridiculously simple. Yet so powerful. And the fact that as author he had so much control over the picture - as sole producer hiring the director, etc - is just phenomenal to me. I don't think any other book author exercised that much power over an adaptation before or since...

[HerrSchreck]

Forgetting about the fact that it was uploaded by that religious loon saintbirgitta, there is a doc about the original posession of the young Maryland boy, with Friedkin and others. Start with part one here and follow the links... and try not to laugh too hard at the re-enactment scenes. I guess they were doubly stuck for visual content since they couldnt use the boy or the family's real name.

It was all being reported in the Washington Post as it was playing out.

[exte]

Not to get silly but has anyone ever successfully recorded EVP? I have and it was pretty scary, though nothing threatening was said. Anyway...

[Michael]

I was just noodling thru the "serious horror films" thread and was absolutely thrilled to see that other folks regard this film as highly as I do. Since the other Exorcist films have their own individual threads I thought this neglected gem deserved one of it's own.

First off, I love the original. I know the film can be hit or miss with the current generation who don't respond to some of the eerie psychological subtleties, and regard the special effects with a touch of skepticism... but I think the film is an all-cylinders-turning masterpiece. It's stone seriousness and devastating literalism just rivet me each time I watch it. It's shock factor wore off for me a long time ago, but the heavy sense of hauntedness running beneath everything.. the sense of, beyond the vomit and Reagan's flailing and obscenities, this hidden malevolent personality peeking thru the unfolding, that we glimpse here and there in snatches and the subtlest hints via very fleeting moving camera... impresses me to no end. Personified of course by the quick 1/4 second glimpes we catch of the demonic face in Damien's dream, and during the Exorcism itself. It's a fully formed, yet mostly hidden personality-- the main character of the movie. Pizzuzu or whatever you want to call it. You feel him among the ruins in Iraq, he's there behind the woman's face who almost runs over Merrin in Nineva, the one-eyed guy hammering, he's there with the old beggar in the subway, you feel him everywhere in the burnt out streets of Manhattan where Damie's mother lives. Where he is, the atmosphere becomes heavy, bleak, and sad. Other times you wonder if he's in unexpected places-- is he one of the nuns in the cold windy afternoon light of Georgetown where the trees are dying (when Chris walks home from the shoot)? I feel its personality hugely in a particular scene: when Kinderman is by himself down at the bottom of the steps at M street, and rifling through the weeds after Burke's murder. He picks up one of Reagan's little sculptures near where the body of Burke came to rest, subliminally echoing Merrin's picking up of the Pizzuzu head in Nineva. You know that Kinderman is picking up on the presence of something uncanny about the murder, and you feel this demon hanging in the air, watching him... and on the soundtrack is some of the mosr stone-serious music you'll hear: these thumping throbs of a stand-up bass, way way down in the bottom register. Just a single note-- "thoooom...." spaced almost 10 seconds apart. The demon watching his new domain and all who move thru it... how the hairs stood up on my neck when Kinderman is sitting in his car, surveilling the house, sees Karras leave, peers up at Reagan's window, and sees her silhouette float sideways by the window....

And in the murder itself, more peeks at the identity-- the condition of the body, caused by the manipulation of the head and neck via the force of a "powerful man", and the hinted obscenity of there being a very strong, masculine murderer within the body and persona of an innocent little girl. Th eerie hints, building up, never entirely identifying the full personality behind the defacement of the child.

This is what I find so frightening about the movie, is this sense of an authentic entity, marked by a bleakly frozen aura of seriousness running beneath all the ugliness that it is causing. If the movie simply operated on the ugliness of the vandalizing of the child, the film would be, I believe, worthless. And it's Friedkin's uncanny ability to translate the personality pulling the strings of the child, while only providing little touches of glimpses, via practically (but not quite as has been claimed) subliminal means-- it's a virtuoso performance.

HerrSchreck, of all pieces written about The Exorcist, this is the BEST I've ever read.

[knives]

While I can only appreciate the original as a drama this and Changeling are the reasons why I respect Scott so much. Fun hard-assed bastard. Out of curiousity is what was supposed to be the original ending in the book? If so is that worth reading?

[HarryLong]

Too bad he started Really Sucking as a director not too long after.

He started really sucking as a human being at least as early as EXORCIST. He maneuvered things so that Blatty, while still officially the producer, was barred from the set by the studio which also deferred in all budgetary decisions to Friedkin. The film went wildly over budget & the studio refrained from pulling the plug because the rushes looked so good.
When Friedkin heard Lalo Schifrin's tapes of the proposed score he pulled them off the tape deck and hurled them through an open door into the street. (There's another story which may predate the hurling or may have been part of the same meeting; Friedkin complained the music was too loud and Schifrin demonstrated that remarkable invention: the volume control knob.)
Nice man.