‘That Was a Franchise?’ is a recurring feature that looks at classic horror films that you might not have realized actually spawned entire franchises. This feature is meant to shatter that notion and explore if in the end these classics should be remembered as a franchise or solely as the original film
We throw holy water at the five films in the ‘Exorcist’ franchise and see what comes screaming back at us!
“What an excellent day for an exorcism.”
Without question, William Friedkin’s The Exorcist is considered to not only be one of the most successful horror films of all time, but also one of the scariest. It’s even one of the few horror titles that has the prestigious honor of being nominated for an Academy Award for Best Picture (and winning a few others, like Best Screenplay). So regardless of your opinion on The Exorcist or where the film ranks for you, it has earned a certain reputation that more than precedes it. Of course there are many horror films that have this sort of relationship with their audience, but few of them then go on to spawn a series of less than fortunate sequels. Surprisingly, there are a number of sequels to Friedkin’s classic, with each picture seeing production problems in their own way. With FOX having currently revived the Exorcist property once more with their new series of the same name, it seems appropriate to re-visit each curious film in the Exorcist franchise and break down how we got to this point. The power of Christ compels us to.
The first Exorcist film came out in 1973 and helped set the standard for demonic possession films in the first place. The picture charts the findings of Father Merrin, as a teenage girl, Regan MacNeil, undergoes the possession of a Satanic force. Something that I truly love about this movie is that it’s really all about turning your back on religion. The film is full of men who have seen it all and done everything, yet the events of this picture are their turning point. It breaks them. Seeing these former men of faith react accordingly makes for a very compelling horror film.
You didn’t come here for a major primer on The Exorcist though because you’ve probably seen it enough times to practically have it all committed to memory. If not, pop culture has jumped at the opportunity to parody the film enough times that you probably feel like you’ve been possessed by Pazuzu yourself. The real interesting story here is how such a mature, isolated horror film could bleed out a litter of silly sequels.
Once more, The Exorcist is an Oscar winner and therefore something that you might not want to sequelize and milk its concept dry. Not only that, but the film doesn’t even really have a story that necessitates a sequel in the first place. There aren’t really a lot of threads left hanging from the first film. That being said, even after a number of false starts, as well as the creatives and crew behind the original picture turning their backs on the idea, the corpse would begin to stir and The Exorcist II: The Heretic would become more of a reality.
There’s almost a legendary reputation behind The Exorcist II. One that feels practically like the karmic yang to the original film’s ying. This film has such a bad reputation. Like people truly flipped out over this. If you thought audience’s reaction to the recent Blair Witch sequel was lukewarm, people were responding to this with literal riots. People hated what they were seeing so much that the first showings were met with audiences throwing stuff at the movie screen. At a showing that William Friedkin, director of the original Exorcist, attended, he said that he and other producers were actually chased out of the theater and through the streets by an angry mob of audience members shortly into the movie upon learning of the team’s presence there.
In spite of the intense vitriol associated with this film, it actually did manage to turn a profit (making it the only one of the Exorcist sequels to do so), albeit still drastically underperforming. In fact, the re-release of The Exorcist at Warner Bros. released in the ’90s would still manage to perform better at the box office than Heretic did. Warner Bros. did happen to release Exorcist II only a few weeks into Star Wars’ release, which surely didn’t do it any favors. Even if the film had been a colossal hit at the box office, it was still the most expensive film that Warner Bros had made at the time, making any real success more of a battle to determine.
It’s perhaps even more devastating that the production of The Exorcist II would begin with the right ingredients, turning sour along the way, rather than being a clear debacle right from the start. Warner Bros. had hired John Boorman to helm the picture (They originally extended an offer to Stanley Kubrick to direct, who declined the opportunity. The mind reels at what sort of film he would have ended up turning this hodgepodge of elements into…), assumedly hoping that Boorman would be able to conjure up the nerve-wracking tension that filled his previous picture, Deliverance. In spite of the anxiety-filled magic that Boorman populates his other films with, his work here feels more like an off-putting acid trip. Boorman arguably does make a more visual, colorful film than the original—something that Scorsese (ahem…and also Jeffrey Dahmer) praised it for over its predecessor—but as Boorman shifts into trippy Zardoz mode, it feels like the film’s not even trying to be scary. Just existentially eerie.
It’s a considerable shame that Boorman starts the film off on the wrong foot because the assembled for the film is downright amazing. Seriously, watch this thing and I defy you to not lose your shit over the potential of this film. Even after seeing the movie this trailer will still trick you into thinking The Exorcist II is horror gold. Sure, a lot of this goodwill is based off of Ennio Morricone’s excellent score work, but the trailer works as this quick distillation of the picture. It’s crazy how collecting all of the film’s craziest moments in succession and editing them into a “fever dream sizzle reel” not only gives the impression that this movie works, but that it’s actually damn good.
Also to the film’s credit, it has a great cast consisting of the likes of Richard Burton and James Earl Jones, not to mention the return of Linda Blair as ‘Regan MacNeil’. But in spite of the talent at disposal here, Exorcist II just feels like an unnecessary, blatant cash grab, providing answers that no one is interested in. The plot of this thing sees Regan in psychiatric care, still coping with her possession from the first film, as well as the aftermath of Father Merrin’s death.
What this amounts to for the most part is lots of hypnotherapy sequences (including the notoriously laughable “synchronizer” scene), some beautiful aerial shots and locust POV shots of Africa (Pazuzu travels by locusts, because of course), and James Earl Jones in a giant insect costume as the film attempts to go for that level of surrealness. Boorman also takes his time with this film, giving it a feeling of aimlessness and not pacing it at all like a horror movie. It’s clear he’s going for something else. Plus, you get Richard Burton giving such an off the rails, Shatnerian performance that you really need to behold. Like, Burton used to be a great actor, so what’s going on here? Apparently Burton got progressively drunk during the production of the film as tensions on set increased, too. This was all also going on during the height of Blair’s troubles with drug addiction, with her being notoriously late to set most of the time.
Burton’s Father Lamont gets lost in the desert, hunting for Kukomo to put an end to Pazuzu…On that note, the of Pazuzu and Kukomo in this film is borderline ridiculous and robs practically all the fear from out of these demons. Yes, I’m aware that these names are pulled from “history” but did we really need to define what was in Regan? I guarantee that no one is more scared by any of this simply because they know the demon’s title. This isn’t Rumplestiltskin.
With these issues starting to mount up and be apparent during filming, Boorman was given one million dollars by Warner Bros. to re-shoot the ending. This is where the absurd “Regan Locust Dance” sequence comes from (which was again changed for the international release) which is still a mess, and a nonsensical one at that (although the house destruction effects aren’t bad…). What’s even crazier is that Boorman was still so frustrated and upset by audience response’s after the film’s release that he actually pulled the film from the theater twice to do more editing on it and try to appease more people. That is insane. When has that ever happened before?
After all of this, Boorman seems to still have ultimately failed, with Friedkin having this to say about the sequel to his masterpiece:
“…I thought it was as bad as seeing a traffic accident in the street. It was horrible. Its just a stupid mess made by a dumb guy—John Boorman by name, somebody who should be nameless but in this case should be named. Scurrilous. A horrible picture…One of the worst films I’ve ever seen. That film was made by a demented mind.”
Demand for more Exorcist was understandably curbed and it’s easy to see how another Exorcist film wouldn’t be attempted for another 12 years. However, with expectations being set so low accordingly, there was nowhere to go but up. Even if that wasn’t the case though, Exorcist III does not disappoint.
While there was still really no need to make another Exorcist film, this movie is perhaps so terrific because it didn’t really start out as one. It was just the author of the original film (and novel) trying to do something scary within the same world and with an impressive cast. In spite of Exorcist author William Peter Blatty ultimately directing this film (it being one of the only two moves that he would make), he offered it up to John Carpenter first! Carpenter liked the script but backed out when he saw how clearly into the project Blatty was himself.
Exorcist III almost operates with the opposite sensibilities of The Heretic. The production notes from the film contain Blatty’s mission statement for the project, which eloquently sums up the picture and how it differs from its predecessor, “This is my idea of terror. This is what frightens me—creaks and shadows, not turning heads and all the rest, which have their place, but not in this film.” Furthermore, the acting approach that’s brought to the table here from George C. Scott as he inhabits Lieutenant Kinderman is so damn good, especially when he’s losing his temper. It’s like the antithesis of Richard Burton’s hammy performance in Exorcist II. Blatty creates characters that you truly care about, with the dynamic between Kinderman and Father Dyer connecting super well. It’s like you’re watching two old friends just hashing it out, rather than the talking plot conveniences that are the characters in The Heretic.
Here is a movie that is very scary (including what I consider to be one of the better scares in horror) but tenuously connects to the greater mythology of the Exorcist series. In fact, it wasn’t until deep into filming that the studio decided to change the film’s name and willingly force more of a connection to the Exorcist, simply because this film had been gathering so much good will (it’s worth noting that in Blatty’s recent director’s cut the film retains its original title of Legion). The film was based on Blatty’s Legion (written in ’79), which contains several characters from The Exorcist but it’s by no means a sequel, nor does it contain any exorcism; an element that was forced into the final act of the film. In spite of this, Blatty makes the most of it and portrays the sequence as aggressively and graphically as anything from out of the original film.
There is also the simple fact that this film obviously doesn’t have the same expectations and sense of grandeur in place that the original Exorcist does. This ends up imbuing the film with a certain power and makes its impact hit harder accordingly. This film barely even has a reputation (although this has been quickly changing throughout recent years), whereas Exorcist is spewing reputation across the room. There’s also the idea that you maybe need to be a little older to appreciate The Exorcist, whereas this is just straight-up scary and going to affect you regardless of age or life experience.
Once more, what makes this film work differently than The Exorcist—and arguably more effectively—is that everything in the original film is being presented from an outside perspective. You’re left to take all of this in objectively as an audience, whereas here you get to experience the horror and madness on a personal level with the characters. There’s no barrier this time around. This more intimate perspective is more conducive to horror and it’s why this film manages to work even better, in my opinion. It builds dread in an alarming, more methodical way while having a much more emotional core rather than a more intellectual one.
Blatty chooses to wrap the spiritual elements of the film around some engrossing crime fiction that boils down to a serial murderer mystery in the end. It’s a little surprising to see how Blatty connects the Gemini Killer into the greater mythos of the franchise, while incorporating demon possession into the mix, too. This fixation on crime and serial killers sees the level of violence in the film ramping up accordingly. There’s one particular moment where the death of Father Dyer is described in great detail, explaining to the audience how he has had all of his blood drained out, and then placed in cups all around him in a room. Like come on. That’s just messed up to a crazy detail.
Blatty also shows off his ability for creatively acting on the fly, as his original version of the film—due to behind the scene drama—has both Jason Miller and Brad Dourif playing the possessed Patient X, with the actor that’s playing him depending on whether the character is cognizant or possessed by the Gemini Killer. It’s an interesting technique that highlights Blatty’s creativity, but in the new director’s cut it’s Dourif the whole time with Blatty stating that he believes this take on the idea is actually stronger. Regardless, it still shows the sort of ambition that this film isn’t afraid to embrace.
Exorcist III successfully banks off of tone and atmosphere but when it comes to the more dependable jump scares of the genre, it also delivers some of the of the technique that have ever been done. It shows how even this “cheaper” style of horror is still being executed with precision. A lot of this comes down to Blatty’s extreme confidence behind the camera. He relies on editing, the geography of the camera and its framing, and sound design to perfectly cultivate these jump scares rather than resorting to cheap tricks. Blatty hangs on the mostly vacant hallway from a distance for almost a painfully abnormal amount of time. Just when you’re wondering what the point of all of this is, sound, editing, and camerawork operate in tandem to push you over the edge. In spite of the appreciation this cult film now sees, it didn’t make many waves upon its release and effectively led to the series hibernating for 15 years until 2004 when reboot and prequel fever would possess the frail body of this limping franchise.
While it might seem like the craziness was already in the water for The Exorcist’s two sequels, things didn’t really begin to fly off the rails until the idea of a prequel story began to percolate. Believe it or not, a crazy, tumultuous backstory and a fairly grueling production hell would ultimately lead to two Exorcist prequels getting made, with the two features practically existing solely to act as rival products each other.
The original Exorcist prequel production saw John Frankenheiner (The Manchurian Candidate, and the absolutely mandatory Seconds) running the show, but after the director’s unfortunate passing, Paul Schrader took over the reins and became in charge of the production. Schrader was looking to create something more psychological than graphic, seemingly consciously trying to avoid blood and gore. Dominion ends up feeling like a Schrader film, believe it or not. It hits on that Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, Bringing Out the Dead level of angst. Even the religious overtones he touches on in The Last Temptation of Christ are all too appropriate here.
Schrader’s directing experience also fits in appropriately enough here with his harsher works like Hardcore, Auto Focus, and even more genre-y horror stuff like Cat People. Much like the talent assembled for Exorcist II, this all should have worked. Weirdly enough, Schrader makes an Exorcist film that feels like a synthesis of all the previous efforts, with touches of Friedkin, Boorman, and Blatty being seen throughout his picture. Whether or not this is intentional on Schrader’s part, it’s a nice way of honoring the original films in a new context.
Schrader’s goal with Dominion was to make a deeply introspective, contemplative film about religious angst that would explore one pious man’s fight against Satan, and personifying this eternal struggle that has existed through history. Admirably, this film about questioning faith and possibly rebelling against religion are the sort of ideals in place in Friedkin’s original movie, only in this case they’re pushed to the absolute extreme. This isn’t one random exorcism case shocking some priests to their core; it’s literally a man of God having his beliefs tested by the Devil. William Peter Blatty himself has even gone on record for liking this version of the film a lot, going as far as calling it “a handsome, classy, elegant piece of work.”
The issue with Dominion comes down to—much like in Exorcist II—the film providing backstory that nobody really wants, leaving you with a drab, meandering film that stumbles through Africa. Yes, it features some exorcism, but what’s the big deal in 2005? Nobody needs an origin story on the Devil, and whether this is the film’s intention or not, it’s how things comes across. In our age of increasing superhero yarns and avalanches of origin stories, this angle becomes especially tired.
Schrader sets most of Dominion within a cave, where a boy is possessed by Pazuzu and becomes a floating sort of malevolent being. In spite of this talk-y, pretentious picture, it’s at least cohesive and has a foreboding, eerie tone that the film can coast on if you squint real hard. Schrader also removes the smoke and mirrors of exorcism and puts you right in it all, showing you that it’s a real thing that’s coursing around you. He just does too little with this degree of “honesty” on the subject.
Due to Morgan Creek Productions fearing Paul Schrader’s practically finished Dominion: Prequel to The Exorcist wouldn’t do well due to its more sophisticated (ie. boring) approach to things, they brought in Renny Harlin to re-work elements and make a new film from out of this. However, due to Harlin’s film meeting such a negative response in the end, Schrader was given $35,000 to finish his film and release it after all. Dominion would still do poorly, but not as bad as Harlin’s take (35% on Rotten Tomatoes versus 11%…).
Funnily enough, by the studio holding back Dominion, Schrader’s version of the Exorcist prequel story began to earn a reputation and air of mystery over what could possibly be kept from eager audiences. Of course, when Dominion finally did see release, such expectations were appropriately put in check, but it was a nice little period of possibility. Even now, the Blu-Ray version of the film is only available in the “Complete Anthology” boxset and the film has continued to hold onto a certain notoriety.
As mentioned before, due to studio panic over Schrader’s exorcist art film, Renny Harlin was brought in, with Exorcist: The Beginning being his contribution. Hiring Harlin isn’t the worst idea in theory, with him coming from Nightmare on Elm Street 4 fame, so he knows his way around a horror film. That being said, this is also a long way from Carpenter and Kubrick being contenders at this point. Harlin came along with Alexi Hawley as the writer, re-writing most of Schrader’s script, re-shooting the bulk of the film, and both removing and introducing a number of characters. The film still centers on Father Merrin’s exorcism of a young boy in Africa, but beyond some hyena carnage, some “neat” stuff with scorpions, and a reasonable twist ending there’s really not much to talk about with this mess. Exorcist: The Beginning doesn’t work because Harlin just rushed in and cobbled something together. He has no real passion for any of this; his goal is to be economical. This was a project that Schrader not only wanted to do, but was in love with, whereas Harlin is just a hired hand and that’s abundantly clear as the film bears on.
At this point so many Exorcist knock-offs have happened, that these canonical knock-offs just don’t pack the same impact. Exorcisms aren’t sacred territory—they’re fair game—and so when the motherland strikes out on the topic, it feels especially empty, not just “B-horror empty.” So that raises the question, how do you do an Exorcist prequel that works? Do you need to show Merrin in Africa dealing with the genesis? What about something more modern? How about a case that’s a month or two before the original film—right before they visit Regan—that’s a false alarm that turns into something else?
We’ve seen these sequels deal with serial killers and crime mysteries, so why not throw those aspects into here, too? You get Father Merrin investigating a supposed possession, but in the end he actually finds a twisted parent with some hidden murder basement where Merrin wishes some evil demon was responsible for the actions here. The presence of Satan would be comforting over the thought that some men can just be so evil. You don’t need to blow things all out, go to Africa, and investigate the origin of evil. Just play with these themes in a refreshing, scary way. FOX’s “The Exorcist” series, whose season recently concluded, seems to finally be tapping into the potential of this property and actually exploring this territory in some really inventive ways. If the series gets to live on, hopefully it will be more of a Hannibal situation and less of a Damien one because as you’ve seen, The Exorcist is long-deserving for a hit at this point.
Previously on “That Was A Franchise?“…
| The Exorcist
