MovieChat Forums > steveb1 > Replies
steveb1's Replies
I'm sure the decline of mainstream Christianity might weigh against a successful remake, but then so would modern sensibilities about, well, the explicit child molestation that the crucifix scene requires. How to re-do that? An adult stand-in? CGI? Omit the this crucial scene altogether?
Along the same lines, would Burke Dennings be focused on as a potential molester...? There is not a single hint of this in Blatty's original novel and screenplay. But again, considering modern sensibilities, it would be virtually obligatory to examine - in order to be faithful to Blatty's narrative - and then to dismiss the film director as a suspect. The narrative simply will not support two evil child abusers because the real - the only - such villain is the demon itself.
On a personal note, I would almost refuse to view a new version on principle - if the "principle" involved the use and over-use of CG. One of the glories of the original film is the absence of CG, stop-motion, "matte shots"/green screen and all the other doubtful marvels of modern cinema technology. All of the original film's effects were "live" and practical - which is why director Friedkin made Regan's room into a literal freezer in order to capture genuine fogged breath. Today this would almost certainly be done with CG, as would other effects such as Regan's levitation, spider walk, and any number of other grotesque possession behaviors.
As a great fan of Blatty's strange theology, I am open to a worthy new version of his original novel, but I don't trust any director, screenwriter - or anything associated with mainstream Hollywood - to do Blatty the justice he deserves. Of course, with the current pandemic, it is probably doubtful that a new Exorcist film will surface until the clear and present danger has somewhat receded. I guess that time will tell.
"The Exorcist is a serious film whereas The Omen is a genre movie."
That nails it in a succinct, pragmatic manner.
:)
Thanks, Paz! Nice to be back in communication with you for sure.
:)
Yeah, that was / is me.
I also had other "nyms" like Leland Palmer, Mr. Foot Grenade and Lesser Rorqual, if any of them ring a bell.
Nice to hear from you!
:)
Absolutely right!
I don't think Peck ever put in a bad performance... I never heard of one, anyway.
Yeah, in The Omen I always thought the Peck and Remick characters were scissor cutouts contrasted to even the smaller characters of The Exorcist. Shoot, in the Exorcist I even cared about Karl and Sharon, and (guilty) even about Burke (a little).
Agreed that The Omen depends on the screenwriters always needing to thwart the Antichrist's enemies - which, I guess for a certain kind of viewer, is good news, cuz it results in just that many more gory deaths!
;)
Gee, thank you very much.
I just love The Exorcist so I'm biased of course.
:)
Thank you, Ace.
:)
Yes! Damien never appears as a character in Legion - only his resuscitated body.
But in EXIII Damien cohabits his body with Vennamun/the Gemini, forced to watch as the Gemini carries on his Georgetown murder spree.
One thing I noticed in the exorcism scene: for the first time, Blatty shows divine intervention when a beam of holy light animates the injured Morning and assists him in encouraging Karras to "Fight him, Damien!" The God who was known only by his absence in The Exorcist and Legion is now allowed a small but crucial role in EXIII's climactic scene.
I think The Exorcist is better and of a completely different fabric, in that The Omen concerns the birth and early childhood of the Antichrist; while The Exorcist concerns the possession - by a demon, not Satan - of a child. In the first, the Antichrist must be killed by the Daggers of Megiddo; in the second, the demon is expected to be **cast out** by exorcism, but is eventually **drawn out** by the altruistic sacrifice of Fr. Damien Karras.
The Exorcist's subject matter, in my view, is much more serious and "realistic" than The Omen's.
There is nothing really at stake in The Omen, except of course for the success or failure of killing the Antichrist.
But in The Exorcist, much more intimate concerns are evinced: the endangered innocent child; her distraught mother; the murder of a renowned film director and the subsequent police investigation; Damien Karras's near-loss of faith and his tremendous guilt over "abandoning" his mother for his priestly vocation; and the (supposed, expected) reliance on Fr. Lankaster Merrin - a holy, brilliant, but very sick elderly man - to carry off a successful exorcism. Much is at stake.
At the end of The Exorcist, we are joyful that Regan has been saved, and sorrowful that Fr. Karras is dead. But at the end of The Omen, we really don't care that much about the deaths of the Antichrist's mother and father. We are only left with the stereotypical cliche of the monstrous protagonist/antagonist having survived all attempts against him - the same kind of discount ending that so many 50s horror sci-fi films finish with - the end title that says, "THE END" ... "?" A cheap trick and very unsatisfying, in my opinion.
So that's my summary of why I think that The Exorcist is superior to The Omen.
Thanks for your kind words. Movies/passionate about ... ummm ... Aside from The Exorcist and The Exorcist III, there are:
Lonely Are the Brave - modern Western - Kirk Douglas RIP
Paths of Glory - WWI horrors - Kirk Douglas - Kubrick dir.
Spartacus - slave rebellion - Kirk Douglas - Kubrick, Douglas dir.
The first and third Nightmare On Elm Street installments
The Entity - "true story" of demonic harassment - Barbara Hershey
The Quatermass trilogy - British sci-fi - first two Brian Donlevy, third Andrew Keir
Ride the High Country - Western - Joel McCrea, Randolph Scott, Mariette Hartley - dir. Sam Peckinpah
Beckett / A Man for all Seasons / Anne of the Thousand Days
... and too many more to list here.
Thanks for your comment. I do view the film as a flawed gem, but for me it works more cinematically than what has survived from Blatty's original film that was much more closely based on his Legion novel.