Even as someone who, when all is said and done, really liked the recent Halloween trilogy, I was still sceptical about David Gordon Green’s next choice for a horror franchise that needed a fresh start. While the Exorcist series hasn’t been through quite as much turbulence as the latter days of the Halloween franchise, it has developed some highly divisive features (both Exorcist II and III have garnered cult statuses over the years, in comparison to the still-universally beloved original), and as I’ve been making a habit of saying this past year, modern exorcism films are starting to back themselves into a corner. The Conjuring craze has led to some particularly unnecessary features, both in and out of its actual continuity, and 2023 marked the year when it felt like I had somewhat lost faith in this sub-genre.
Basically, not only is this going to have to be a saving throw for the larger franchise, it’s also gonna have to save its entire sector of horror cinema. No pressure or anything.
Talking strictly as a horror film, this really doesn’t hold a candle to the original. The first Exorcist is one of the scariest films ever made, and a lot of that is down to atmosphere, particularly during the climactic exorcism scene. The chilled blue tones, the nerve-wracking soundtrack, the damn-near-suffocating tension with Regan’s life hanging in the balance; it’s a classic for a reason. By contrast, this doesn’t show the same level of fidelity to its predecessors that, say, Halloween 2018 did to old school slasher flicks. It comes closer to a Mike Flanagan feature than anything else, with its emphasis on the emotional drama of the story than pouring everything into the scares. While I’m not necessarily against that approach in principle (as I’ll get into), it’s not the best fit for this specific IP.
But with that said, much like with the Halloween trilogy, there’s a lot about this film textually that I really got into, and it starts with the increasing problem I’ve been having with modern horror films that take cues from the original Exorcist: The uncritical appraisal of Catholic iconography. Admittedly, this is likely a result of me getting more in my anarchist ways, exacerbating my already-ingrained issues with organised religion, but it’s only over the last twelve months that it’s really sunk in how much this sub-genre, more times than not, acts as free advertisement for the Church. ‘We are the good guys, we will defeat the evil, we are the only ones you can turn to’, that kind of thing.
I’m going to share something with you to (hopefully) make my point a bit clearer on this. I briefly got into this when writing about Kevin Smith’s Dogma way back with my initial Favourite Films list, but I’m not sure if I’ve gotten into proper detail about what exactly happened with that conversation I had with a youth pastor that got me, at the time a believing Christian, to leave the faith behind me. It basically boiled down to me asking him a single question: “If someone does nothing but good in the eyes of all, but doesn’t believe in God, does that person still go to Hell?” Without even blinking, he said “Yes”, and honestly, part of me still wishes I had told him to go there himself. Then again, part of me gets the urge to yell “Hail Satan!” whenever I pass by street preachers outside Town Hall, so I’m not saying that’s a healthy impulse or anything.
What I’m getting at with this is that that moment formed a core aspect of my own belief system: The worth of a person’s deeds should come from the deed itself, not the creed it was performed under. It’s part of my ‘results over intentions’ mantra that I occasionally get into, and it’s also part of the reason why I have such a major problem with the Christian collectivist mindset. The missionary mindset. The way of practising one’s faith that puts emphasis on what everyone else thinks and does, rather than just being between them and their godhead. That actually doing good isn’t as important as making sure everyone follows the exact same path, in the exact same way, so that one’s good deeds ‘count’.
Right from the start, it seems like DGG understands the problem with that mentality. Opening in Haiti, with a pregnant woman being given a Vodou protection ceremony for the unborn child, the script actively bucks against Catholicism and Christianity as a whole as the be-all-end-all of purging demons. When Angela (Lidya Jewett), the grown-up little girl who received that protection blessing, and her best friend Katherine (Olivia Marcum) become possessed by Pazuzu, Angela’s sceptic father Victor (Leslie Odom Jr.) initially shrugs off the idea of getting a priest involved because… well, he isn’t a believer. This isn’t his world. And rather than admonish him for that, he instead is surrounded by those from different walks of life, Christians, Serviteurs, agnostics, who show him that belief doesn’t have to be in an almighty higher power: Belief in other people carries its own power.
Along with smartly playing into the origins of Vodou itself, a synergy of Roman Catholicism and traditional African spirituality, it also does what I have been dearly wanting to see more of from these exorcism movies (especially after stuff like Godless) and remove Catholicism from the top of the totem pole in terms of ‘who will save the day?’. A Catholic priest is still involved in events, sure, but the actual purging is shown as more of a group effort, hybridising different belief systems and approaches to accomplish the same task.
Personally, I thought this was really cool to see unfold in one of these movies, not the least of which because it ironed out the reliance on the Church for salvation while still maintaining the legitimacy of individual faith. I may have walked away from the Church myself, but I walked away from atheism as well because I understand the worth of believing in something greater than one’s self, even if it’s unseen. Some days, believing in the goodness of other people can feel just as nebulous, and I’m not so jaded as to abandon that just yet.
Even backing away from the faith-based content, I’d still argue that this film is in the same spirit as the original film, if not exactly at the same efficacy. The first act, focusing on Victor and the town’s attempts to find the missing Angela and Katherine, taps into the same well of parental anxiety that helped make the original so powerful. Something that keeps getting lost in translation is the reason why the whole “your mother sucks cocks in hell” scene is so shocking, with most copycats insisting it’s just because of the expletives. It’s because that line highlights the corruption of innocence that is taking place. That one’s own child could become so warped, so sickened by evil, and not only do they have no idea what is happening or how to make their child well again, but finding someone who does isn’t guaranteed. The… thing in there looks like your own flesh and blood, and yet it isn’t. It’s a harrowing idea, and one echoed well here.
It even bookends the narrative with Victor being given a terrible choice, where he must pick which of two people will survive. It emphasises statements made by Ann Dowd’s Ann and even a returning Ellen Burstyn as Chris MacNeil (as… interesting as the choices for her character get) about the nature of evil, what a loving God would truly want from us, and how choosing to do the right thing, even in the face of impossible odds, is what makes us good people. It’s our deeds, not who we do them for.
Much like with Halloween Kills, I find myself torn on this one, albeit still willing to defend it in light of the heavy backlash it’s been facing. It does have some difficulties when it comes to scares, even if the ramp-up into the finale does its best to make up for that, but the thematic content is uplifting in a way I thought modern exorcism films were no longer capable of. It holds true to the faith-based underpinnings of the genre, while updating them to include everyone, not just those who adhere to the doctrine of a single church. It’s a humanist take on the material, which definitely got me emotionally invested in what’s going on, and truth be told, I’m interested to see where things go from here, seeing as this is supposed to be the start of a whole new trilogy. In these uncertain times, there are no guarantees, but if the follow-ups do indeed happen, I’m definitely willing to hear them out in good faith.
No comments:
Post a Comment