[00:00:00] Speaker A: Hi everybody. My name is Brendan Malone and you're listening to the Dispatchers podcast every single Friday from the end of December until the start of February. We're giving you the chance to sample just some of the awesome subscriber only podcast content that our five dollar monthly patrons have been exclusively enjoying over the past twelve months. If you like what you hear in this episode and you want more of it, then all you need to do is become a patron of the dispatchers with $5 or more per
[email protected].
Left foot media or even easier, you can just click on the link in today's show notes and sign up. That way. All of our subscriber only episodes of the Dispatchers podcast are now available on Spotify as well, which makes the listening even easier. One more quick thing. Before we start this free episode of the Dispatchers in 2024, we're going to be launching an awesome new website called the Forge. The Forge is an online platform that will offer lots of new, high quality video, audio and live stream content to help you shape your life and your intellect in the fires of goodness, truth and beauty. The website is still being built, but there is a splash page that is live right now. So head on over to theforge.org NZ and leave your email address so that you can be the first to know when the forge is live and the fires have been lit. The link is in today's show notes right? Without any further ado, let's jump into this free edition of the Dispatchers podcast. And until next time, don't forget live by goodness, truth and beauty, not by lies. I hope you enjoy this episode.
Hi, my name is Brendan Malone and you're listening to the Dispatchers, the podcast that strives to cut through all the noise in order to challenge the popular narratives of the day with some good old fashioned contrarian thinking. You might not always agree, but at least you'll be taking a deeper look at the world around you.
Hi everybody. Welcome along to another patrons only episode of the Dispatchers podcast. It is great to be back with you again. My name is Brendan Malone. I hope you have all had a blessed and holy Christmas day yesterday. For those who are tuning in on Tuesday, Boxing Day, or whenever it was previously that you celebrated Christmas Day, I also hope that you're enjoying a bit of a break. This is the second to last of our planned podcasts for 2023. The final episode is coming up this Thursday. It will be the last of the podcasts for the year, and it's a special interview that I recorded almost a year ago, actually, to the day, with two awesome leaders. Anna Abraham, she's a theologian, and Gemma Brunton, who's a leadership expert. And we talked about leadership and woman in the church. And so this sort of often controversial, sometimes highly politicized issue. And, yeah, it was a really great and enjoyable conversation. So that's going to be the final episode. It's going to be put out on Thursday, and then that's it. We take a break. Now, there may be some unplanned podcasts, but it is not guaranteed. And I'm not planning anything at this stage. So this will be, this week is the last of the podcasts for 2023. So just let me say a huge thank you to you guys. It's just been an absolute privilege to be on this journey with you this year. It's been a blessing to have you in our corner. Your patronage is just so graciously and gratefully received. We're really, really appreciative of all of that. I really hope that this has been an enjoyable podcast for you to be able to consume and devour each week. And that it's not just been something that's entertained you, but hopefully something that's been informative, something that's challenged you, something that has also equipped, encouraged, and maybe at times where things were a little bit of a struggle for you, it might have even kept you in the game a bit longer and kept you going and given you a bit of encouragement along the way. Don't forget also theforge.org nZ, our new website, which will be going live sometime in 2024. If you haven't already been there, go to the splash
[email protected] nz and make sure you chuck in your email address. Right, let's get into it. Today's topic of conversation, the Exorcist. A profound work of christian theology and philosophy that you just can't recommend to anybody. Now, let me be very clear. This is a very, very important caveat up front. This is a very, very important statement, and I want this to be heard loud and clear. So no one at all is under any misapprehension here. I am not recommending the exorcist film. If you haven't seen the exorcist film, I'm actually going to talk about exorcist one. And then the second film, the third. They're actually a trilogy of films. I'll talk about all three in just a second, but in particular, the first one I'm not recommending it. If you have seen it already, you'll probably know why I'm not recommending it. There is content in that film. It is a very graphic and a very confronting depiction of the reality of diabolical, demonic evil and possession. And I just want to be very clear, I'm not recommending it. So if you haven't seen it, don't rush out and go, wow. Brennan said, this is a really great film that we should have a family movie night with. I'm definitely not recommending that. Absolutely not in any way suitable for children at all. If you've seen it already, you'll know exactly why. But what I want to do in this particular episode is I want to explain why the film is the way that it is. And it's a bit of a shame, actually, because in many ways, this film has developed a bit of a popular reputation for a couple of scenes in particular.
Well, one scene really in particular, what was a perceived gratuity, like a gratuitous scene, and also the obscene language. This young girl, Reagan, who is the main character or one of the main characters, and she's possessed by a demon called Pazuzu. And her language is just absolutely shocking. And what happens often is this film gets remembered for those particular aspects of the movie. But in actual fact, this is a very well made film as far as filmmaking goes and the technical craft. This is a phenomenally well made film by William Friedkin, who is an excellent, or was an excellent filmmaker. He's passed on now. And there's also this really deep and profound christian philosophical and theological depth in this movie, the Exorcist, and then the other two follow up films that are part of the storytelling universe. And I want to talk about that today. That's the aspect I want to explore. And I also, secondly, I want to explore how the Exorcist has basically become a franchise which cinematically reflects the absolute collapse of western thought and western art. This is a franchise which depicts from the exorcist, which I'm going to unpack in a bit more detail in a moment, this profound depth of grasping at these hugely important questions around evil and suffering. And where is God in the midst of all of that? Because that's the theme of this film. In fact, that's the theme of all three films in this particular trilogy. And it's this profound, deep exegesis, examination, questioning and even apologetics, lots of christian apologetics in these films, defending the existence of God in the face of evil and suffering and death and depravity. And everything else. And it went from that to the very latest film in the franchise, which was released just a couple of months ago called the Exorcist believer. And the Exorcist believer is an absolute dumpster fire of a film. It's not well made philosophically, it's absolute garbage. Theologically, it is a reflection of a bankrupt culture that no longer has a sacred vision, has completely lost touch with what it is, who it is, and exactly what it is that we are supposed to be subservient to. There's no sense of the goodness, the truth and the beauty that this very dark film. There's no getting away from the fact that the original Exorcist was a very dark film, but it was grasping at goodness, truth and beauty. And if you've read the novel, you know, in particular, really the depth of what's going on there and all of that's missing in this latest film. But we'll get to that in a second because this is actually a very, very well made film. The original exorcist, it is still a film that actually is plagiarized and imitated right up to this very day. I'll actually talk about a recent release from earlier this year, which was an exorcism film, which plagiarized, which lifted wholesale concepts and story points directly from the exorcist. So this is a film that really did completely shift cinema. It's a film that, like Star wars, was a momentous change in cinema, particularly in horror storytelling and supernatural thriller type storytelling. And it's kind of like in the way in which Star wars changed cinema. So did this film. But it really doesn't get the same popular credit for doing that. Again, I think a big part of this is people get caught up in the gratuity. And this was the scariest film ever type stuff. And what gets lost in all of that is all this other depth and important stuff that's going on there as well. Basically, I've talked about this before in public quite a bit. If you've heard me speak about mythology and storytelling and what's wrong with our culture today, you will know, because you've heard me say this, that a culture that doesn't have a big story, a sacred, transcendent vision of reality, is actually incapable of good mythology. And this latest film in the franchise, the exorcist believer, is the perfect object lesson in this. It is an example of how over a series of a couple of decades, this one cinematic universe, this one cinematic storytelling arc, if you like, because that's really what it is, completely collapses under the weight of a culture of death, a culture of confusion, a culture that has no moral or sacred compass. Now, here's the basic plot of the exorcist, the original film. It tells the fictional tale, which was inspired by a real exorcism. But this film is fictional. So there was a real exorcism and it involved a young boy, and that was the inspiration for the story. But it's a fictional tale of the demonic possession of a young girl named Reagan. And the story is set in Georgetown, in Washington, D. C. Where Reagan's mother, Chris McNeil, who happens to be a famous actress. So in the film, in the story, she's actually an actress, and she's there in Washington, D. C. In Georgetown to shoot a big budget Hollywood film. That's the sort of the opening part of this story. Now, in between shooting the movie and holding dinner parties for her elite liberal friends, like the most elite and I guess the celebrities, the people who want to hang out with the celebrities, the elites of society. She's this sort of Hollywood type who's moving in the top circles and holding these dinner parties. And her associates are all like that as well.
This demonic position of her daughter starts to unfold and it spirals ever more out of control until, in a state of total desperation and helplessness, she ends up seeking the help of two catholic priests. And that's not something, we'll get to that point in just a second. That's not something she would ever normally do either. This is another important part of this story that's like the way in which it's exploring a modern culture that thinks it doesn't really need God. And really Chris McNeil is the character who sort of represents that. The elites, the people who have the money, the wealth, the connections, the status, they think they've got it all figured out. They're not like they're superstitious people, technology, highfalutin art house type philosophy and all the rest of it. But in actual fact, they still need God. And so in desperation, she seeks out these two catholic priests. Well, initially it's one, but then by the end, it's two who conduct the christian rite of exorcism and cast out and save her daughter from the demon. Pazuzu. That's the name of the demon in this film. Now, the film culminates with both of the priests sacrificing themselves to save Regan from the demon. So one priest, he actually goes into the exorcism knowing that he is going to die. He has a heart condition and he has traveled all the way from the other side of the world for this particular showdown. He knows that this is his particular calling to give of himself in this way. And he dies. His heart gives out during the exorcism. The other priest, well, we'll get to his ending in just a second. But he also dies. The younger priest dies in the process as well. Now, the film was directed by the great William Friedkin, and upon its release in 1973, it became an instant success. Not just that, but it actually became a cultural phenomenon. It was just one of those films that people talked about. There was also, around this movie, a lot of urban mythologizing that went on around this particular film. You might have heard some of the claims that have been made about this film. Oh, there was all these demonic things that were happening on set, and there's all of these. One of the particular myths was this claim that there were all of these unexplained deaths associated with this movie. In actual fact, that's not correct. The list of quote unquote unexplained deaths are actually just very typical. You got a large group of people working on a project. Some of them are older people, have a car accident, or someone dies of old age, has a stroke.
There's nothing actually unusual about any of this. But what it really did was it suited the producers and the production company and the studios to have this whole mythology built up around this film, to try and convince people that this film wasn't just a film which told a story about demonic evil and questioned, well, where is God in the face of this demonic evil? But it was also maybe a gateway. It was some sort of supernatural event in and of itself, because, again, that added to the mystique and the mythology. And what does that do? It sells tickets. It makes people want to go and see the film. But there's no doubting that this was a massive success. It was a cultural phenomenon. And as I said, it's still to this day. It is being imitated by others. Now, I've mentioned this already. The film developed a popular reputation for some of the more shocking elements of the story, in particular, the very obscene language that is used by Reagan when she is demon possessed. We'll talk more about this, but what's really going on is the author of the book is trying to actually depict the true gravity of diabolical evil. And it's a no holds barred depiction. That's why it is the way that it is. And then there is that scene. I'm not even going to describe that scene to you. If you've seen the film or you know anything about this movie, you probably know what I mean when I say that scene. And this film has a reputation because of those kinds of things. People tend to focus on the more shocking elements of the story. But here's the thing. If that's all that people see in this movie, then they have completely misunderstood and they have missed all of the depth that's actually going on in the storytelling here. And it's not accidental. It is very, very deliberate. What a lot of people don't realize about this movie and also the novel that it was based on, it's pretty much a very faithful adaption. There are some differences. We'll talk about those in just a second. But it's a fairly close adaption of the original novel. But what a lot of people don't realize about the story is that it's actually a trilogy of books and films called the trilogy of faith. And it is all about the christian faith and exploring the question, where is God? In the face of suffering and evil and depravity, how can you claim there is a God? It's exploring that question. The problem of pain, the problem of suffering, the problem of evil. One of the age old philosophical challenges that is put to believers in Christianity or believers who have a religious faith. How can you believe when there's all this evil and suffering in the world? And that's exactly what these three films and novels are grappling with. So the first is the Exorcist novel, which was published in 1971, and it was written by William Peter Blatty. Now, William Peter Blatty was actually a Christian. He was a Catholic, and he's a very devout man. And I know this might sound strange because the reputation of a film like the Exorcist is. It just seems like it wouldn't be someone devout who's written this, but it really, really is a film which goes deep. And there's some really strong christian apologetics in this.
Well, across these three books, actually. So the first is the Exorcist, and that's 1971. The book gets published. And then 1973, just two years later, it is made into a movie and it's directed by William Friedkin. As I said, freakin is an agnostic. But these two guys, William Peter Bladdy and Friedkin, we'll hear from them in just a second, actually, an interview that they gave before their deaths. And they were very, very good mates by the end of it all. They had a few little struggles up front at the beginning, but they were very good mates. And you'll hear that in the banter between them when we play this interview in just a second. But freakin was an agnostic. William Peter Blatty is this Catholic, and he's really trying to delve deeply into these questions. The second film is not the Exorcist two. We'll talk about that in just a second. It's called the 9th configuration, and that came out in 1980. And then the third film is the Exorcist Legion, which was originally published as a novel in 1983, but then released in 1990 as a film. Now, before I unpack this trilogy in more detail, I just mentioned to you the Exorcist two, which is called the Exorcist two heretic, which came out in 1977. This is not anything to do with this trilogy at all. In fact, this is an absolute shocker of a film. Basically, what you've got with this trilogy is you've got William Peter Blatty's creative works versus the studio's awful cash grab creations. And the Exorcist two was a cash grab creation. It was just weird. It is not a well made film at all. It's not uncommon, in fact, for this to be referred to. To be known as the worst sequel ever made. It is like a completely different film. And it is a completely different film because William Peter Blattie, who wrote the other three films, had nothing to do with this. And William Friedkin, the great William Friedkin, who directed the first film, had nothing to do with this movie either. So the storytelling or the making of the film, it was literally the studios going, holy moly, we've got a cash cow on our hands. We need to get a film out. And there was a bit of an issue going on with lawsuits. William Peter Blatty and William Friedkin, lawsuits with each other and with the studios and other things. And these sort of financial wranglings and contractual issues can sometimes get quite messy in the world of filmmaking. And that's exactly what was going on. And so the studio just plowed ahead anyway and made an absolute piece of garbage that has nothing to do with these other three films. So the trilogy of faith, let's get back to that. All three of these films are grappling with the question of the existence of God in particular. How can it be rational to believe in God when there is evil and suffering and pain and death and depravity and all these other things happening? In the world. It grapples basically with what is sometimes in theology and philosophy called the silence of God. Where is God in the face of all this stuff? And it actually, interestingly enough, presents philosophical and theological arguments over the three films directly from the works of Thomas Aquinas, C. S. Lewis, even, in fact, C. S. Lewis's argument from desire. If you know Lewis, you will know the argument from desire. If there is no God, then why do we have a universal human desire for there to be a God? And Lewis rightly pointed out, this does not make any sense at all unless there actually is a real object that can satisfy that desire. And that real object would be God. And if there is no God, why do we have this one desire that doesn't have a real object that can satisfy it? Every other fundamental desire we have, like thirst and hunger, there is a real object, food, water, et cetera, which can satisfy that desire. So why would we have evolved with one desire that has no real object? That doesn't make any sense? And so that argument is found in, for example, the Exorcist three in legion. In the novel, it's lifted directly from C. S. Lewis, G. K. Chesterdon, the great G. K. Chesterton also features Bigley, as Trump might say, across this trilogy he's referenced directly, and some of his arguments are presented quite explicitly across this trilogy. And as I said, he's named throughout the trilogy as well. So the first film in the trilogy, the Exorcist, focuses strongly on the problem of evil and a particular depravity. And this is why some of the more shocking stuff is actually in the film. What William Peter Blatty is trying to do in the story is he's trying to depict the reality of pure evil, where good is totally absent.
It's not simply that you're dealing with someone who is a person who still has even, like, a small ounce of good within them, even a psychopath, you can still recognize that there is like. There might be slithers of goodness still present, because they are not like no human person is a black void of depravity where they have absolutely zero good. But demons are. They are the very privation of good. There is nothing good about the diabolical. And so this film is trying to depict that. And William Peter Blatty does not hold back. He just presents it as it is the depravity of the total absence of good, what this would look like. This is one of the things why the film really did shock people, and it really stood out, because it's so different to previous films where you got the sense that even with the bad guys that there was a certain sympathy for them because maybe they could actually repent or convert. But the truth is that that isn't possible for demons who have abandoned good in its totality and have now become the very privation, the very absence of the good. And that's ultimately what evil is. And so this film shows you, well, this is what this looks like. This is the reality of it. There is nothing good here. There's nothing to love. There's nothing to like. There's nothing at all that you see is even remotely possible of redemption in this demon. And that's the whole point. It is a very real and a very deep christian understanding of what the absence of good would actually look like if God left the world. This is what the world would look like, is what we're meant to take away from this. And in the midst of that, though, it's also trying to explore some really deep themes around that deprivation. Let me play you an audio clip now of a scene that was filmed but it never made it into the final theatrical release of the film. And it's expounded on the scene in a little bit more detail. If you've read the novel, you'll know this. There's a little bit more detail around this scene in the novel. And it's partway through the exorcism.
They're over halfway through. I'm just trying to think now about the timeline on my head, but they're sort of getting into the sort of crescendo of the exorcism. And these two priests are in this house where the exorcism is taking place. And they're taking a little break. They're sitting on the stairs and they are talking to each other while they have this very brief respite from this battle with the demonic. And the voices you hear are of the younger priest, who we'll talk more about in just a second. And the older priest. And he's asking. He starts by asking the older priest, well, why is this happening? Why do this? And it's short, but have a listen to this, because it's quite a beautiful little philosophical and theological exploration of this question. Well, what's going on here? Why is this demon targeting this young girl, this beautiful young girl and turning her into this depraved vision of the absolute absence of the good? Have a listen to what we hear in this scene.
[00:26:14] Speaker B: Why this girl makes no sense.
[00:26:23] Speaker C: It.
[00:26:25] Speaker B: I think.
[00:26:28] Speaker A: That the point is to make us despair, to see ourselves as animal and ugly, to reject the possibility that God could love us.
Now, how profound is that? And you contrast that with what we've seen in the latest edition of the film, or the latest edition to this franchise, the Exorcist Believer, which was released earlier this year. And you realize what utter garbage this new film actually is. So here's a film, and you hear it in that scene.
And by the way, the audio is a bit weaker in there because, as I said, this is a deleted scene. It was not fully polished, it wasn't completed and released. So that's just the audio they grabbed before it was cleaned up. But you get the gist of what's going on here. Here's this priest explaining that this demon is trying to lie to us. It's trying to make us believe that we can't be lovable by God. And the novel really expounds on this in a bit more detail again. But that's the depth, that's the reality of what's actually going on here. Now, the Exorcist also explores the theme of christian doubt. And this is done through the character of Father Damian Karras. You just heard him actually there in that scene I played to you. He's the younger priest. Now, he's one of the main characters in this film. And Father Mirren is the other priest that you heard in that scene. He is the older priest. So it's Father Mirren and Father Damien who conduct this exorcism. And Father Damien is a younger priest. He is also a qualified psychologist and he's a former boxer. And he has a special ministry that he does to broken priests, priests who are wounded in some way, who are burnt out, who are suffering in some way. Psychologically, his ministry is to care for them and they send him these cases and he provides care to them. And basically he begins this story undergoing this quiet crisis of faith, which actually starts to expand. His mother dies very early on in the story, and there's issues associated with that that have a bearing on his faith. This is a theme that sort of keeps haunting him. There is the exorcism. There is also his own doubts. There is also coupled with this, the fact that he has, like, a psychology degree. And so that whole aspect, the scientific, materialistic view of the world, is starting to sort of dominate his thought and his outlook on life. And it's really sort of attacking and undermining his faith. And what the novel does is it really captures this, like the crisis of faith depiction. The film is not quite as strong in this regard, but the novel really captures the depth of all of this and it really does so, so much more deeply than what the film does. And what happens is you have this priest who's grappling with this quiet doubt, this quiet crisis of faith, and then through this story, through events in the story, he's dragged into the orbit of this demonic possession. And so he is forced in a very, very stark and confronting and no holds barred kind of way, to grapple with his own doubts in the face of this insurmountable seeming evil, this problem that can't be easily or quickly solved. And in many ways, the story is actually a bit of a priest procedural. You might have heard of police procedurals, films that depict the ordinary, everyday procedure of what it is to be a police officer and to solve crimes and stuff like that. Well, this is a priest procedural and a lot of this is actually the life, the outworking, the living of the ministry of an ordained minister. And the exorcism is actually really only the final and smallest part of the story. It actually happens at the end and it's the big crescendo and everything's working towards this. But in actual fact, it's not what consumes most of the story. If you think that's what this is, because maybe you've never seen it before. And again, I want to be very clear. I'm not recommending the exorcist. I'm not saying go out and watch it. And if you haven't seen the film, you might not be aware of this fact, that in actual fact, the majority of this film is not the exorcism. That's the bit at the end. And you really get that in a very deep way with the novel, because the novel unpacks and expounds on this story even more. What it does is, through this sort of procedural story, it explains really to you in great detail how the catholic rite of exorcism actually works. And what normally happens is this. Every diocese has an exorcist and it's a priest who is appointed by the bishop to be the exorcist for the diocese. And the exorcist operates under the spiritual authority of the diocesan bishop. And what they do is they are given special training and they understand the right, the prayers that are involved in the rite of exorcism, the christian rite of exorcism. And what happens is, if someone comes seeking an exorcism, in actual fact, something like 98% of people who come seeking an exorcism don't actually end up with an exorcism because the church takes a really, I think, a very beautiful, holistic and authentically good approach to all of this. It builds on this idea that grace builds on nature. And so the first thing that happens is if you come to the diocese or to a priest seeking out an exorcism, there are a couple of different types of testings or testing regimes that you go through first to actually double check that this really is a legitimate case of exorcism. So what would normally happen is they have to rule out, like, medical conditions that could be causing things that look like the manifestations of the demonic. So you might have, I don't know, a brain tumor that is affecting you in a particular way, that actually seems like this might well actually be something demonic when it's not. Or you might have a psychological issue, you might be suffering from mental illness. And so those things are ruled out first. And once those things are ruled out, and if particular types of manifestations, what you might call symptoms in the world of medical assessment, if those manifestations are present and the other things are ruled out, natural explanations are ruled out, then there would be the process of the christian rite of exorcism. And basically these are guardrails that are there to protect vulnerable people from religious mania, because without them, it would be very easy for people who experience mental illness or who have other issues, people who are vulnerable, not necessarily to be exploited, but to find themselves in a situation where there is like a delusional mania that's actually taking hold. And it is not a genuine demonic possession at all. And it's only obviously going to make things worse if that is the case. And so this film is really unpacking that and sort of presenting that process to you as well. It also has father Damian Carras researching demonic possessions and acts of demonic desecration and Satanism from different eras of christian history. And what's going on here is there's a sort of interesting battle that is playing out throughout the story. And it's part of the struggle here is the modern psychology versus christian theology and the world of modern psychology, which wants to pin this down solely to a brain problem. It wants to deny the supernatural versus christian theology, which understands that supernatural is very real and must also be considered as part of the human experience and therefore a possibility in situations like this, whereas modern psychology would effectively want to rule that kind of thing out. Basically, it's like superstition.
And that struggle is very much part of the story as well. It's a very much a subplot that's sort of, in a sense, sort of boiling away underneath all of this. Now, at this point, it seems appropriate to come back to that scene in the Exorcist. Now, if you have read the novel or seen the film, you will know what I mean when I say that scene. I'm not even going to describe it to you. It is a depiction of something that a demonic entity would do. So someone who's possessed by a demon, in this case, that demonic entity taking control of their body would do. It's a scene of blasphemy and a scene of obscenity. And that particular scene often gets talked about in relation. People see the shock factor in it. They see it as a gratuitous thing. And I remember thinking originally when I heard about this and saw this scene many, many years ago, when I was younger, thinking, oh, this is just gratuitous, and not actually understanding what was going on. And it wasn't until I really heard William Peter Bladdy talking about this that I understood, in actual fact, what he was doing here.
What you have here with Chris McNeil, Reagan's mum, is a non religious, very wealthy, very elite, liberal celebrity who is basically looking for a naturalistic, materialistic, scientific explanation.
And basically she's looking for a scientific, a medical cure that can solve this problem as quickly as possible. And that scene serves the motivations of both Regan's mother, Chris McNeil, and father, Damien Carras, and what happens next in the story. So, like I said earlier, this film, this story is trying to depict the total privation that is demonic evil, the total privation of good, no good whatsoever. Total depravity. And that's what this scene does. And it really does do that.
Now, I should say, too, for those who haven't seen it, this particular scene, not a lot is seen. It's fleeting. Basically, a lot is left to the imagination. But, you know, there's no equivocating on what is going on in that particular scene. And it relates back to that scene that we played earlier, that deleted scene where the two priests are on the stairs and they are talking about, well, why would it be doing this? Why would this demon be doing this? It wants to debase the human form to make us think that we are nothing more than unlovable beasts. If this beautiful young girl is nothing more than an unlovable beast, then what hope is there for someone like me to be loved by God? That's what the demon is trying to do. It's trying to lie to us in this way. Unfortunately, that scene has become the focus of the story. And it's such a brief moment in the film. It really is. And I actually think William Peter Blatty would probably be quite frustrated by that fact, that that scene has become like a point of fixation. And as a result, people often miss the fact that what that scene does is it forces Chris McNeil to do something that she would never normally contemplate. She is forced into a situation of desperation, where the reality of what's going on with her daughter and what's confronting her is so unsolvable, so overwhelming and so horrific that she, even this wealthy, non religious, elite, liberal artsy celebrity type, is willing to actually go down the quote unquote superstitious route and actually get a priest, a christian priest, of all people involved, to carry out an exorcism. And it also has a bearing on Father Damien Karras, because what that then does is it drags him into the story. And he goes along this journey, too, with Chris McNeil. He's doing it out of sympathy. He sort of thinks this is just. Maybe this will help her, because he sees the desperation of it as well. And it's essential for moving the story forward and motivating these characters. Could William Peter Bladdy have found another way to do this? Yeah, I think quite probably that he could have. But at the same time, I understand why he did it that way.
Look, I'm not a writer of fiction. I'm not a filmmaker. If I was, I'd like to think that maybe I could come up with another creative way to do this that didn't actually involve that scene. But I understand why he did it. It's not actually just a gratuitous thing at all. He wasn't thinking, oh, what can I do that will shock an audience? What he's thinking here is, how do I make sense of these characters next steps? How do I explain why they would take these next steps that normally they would want nothing to do with? And this is why this scene exists in the film. One of the other things that I really liked about this story was the profound way that it presented the strategy of demonic powers. And there is one scene in particular, and again, in the book, this is just so much clearer, because in the book, you can actually read the description of the characters, their thoughts, what's actually going on in their heads. And obviously, you can't really depict that in a film. It's a lot harder to do that. But you really get the sense of this scene in the novel, and it's quite profound, because what it does is it shows you very accurately exactly how demons work to try and do their most effective work. The reason that Reagan is possessed by a demon is because Chris McNeil brought a Ouija board into her home that her and another character she's associated with, a director named Burke Dennings, who's a bit of an alcoholic reprobate that she has been working with for years. They brought this thing into the home. They were playing around with it. And then what happens is Reagan finds the Ouija board, and she actually starts using it. And she thinks she's made a friend.
She's talking to someone called Captain Howdy. But in actual fact, Captain Howdy is the demon puzzle. She doesn't realize that because the demon is trying to trick her, to trap her. And so she is communing with this demon. She doesn't realize that that's what's going on. Her mother being the very wealthy, elite liberal that she is, the very art house type liberal who doesn't believe in all that superstitious stuff, does a bit of new age stuff and talks deep postmodernist philosophy and all that kind of stuff, but has no time for religious stuff. She doesn't think that this is real because, of course, she doesn't believe like that. So she thinks Captain Howdy is just a made up imaginary friend, basically. And so when her daughter says, well, do you want to play with us? And sit down with this Ouija board? And she's sitting there with the Ouija board, and she puts her hand on the planchette, and what she thinks is going to happen is that her daughter is going to move the planchette with her hands. And remember, she thinks this is all just a game. She thinks this is just made up, imaginary play. She has no concept of the gravity of the evil that she is dealing with. And she has allowed to come into her home and in particular, to take control of her daughter. And so she asks a very innocuous question of the Ouija board. Something along the lines of, is your mother? This is to Captain Howdy, is your mother the most beautiful mother in the world? Something silly and light like that? And what she expects to happen is she expects her daughter to move the planchette over to, yes, my mother is the most beautiful mother in the world. Because, of course, if this was all just an imaginary, made up game, that's what you would expect to happen. But remember, it's not made up. There is a real demon. And Reagan doesn't move the planchette because normally when she does this, it's not her moving the planchette, it's the demon. And so what she does is she waits. And what does the demon do? Pazuzu, masquerading as Captain Howdy. He doesn't do a thing. He does not move the planchette. Reagan is sitting there with her fingers on the planchette, waiting, and nothing happens. Chris McNeil is sitting there with her fingers on the planchette, waiting for her daughter to move it, and nothing happens. And what happens in that moment? The book is really great in the way it describes this. Chris McNeil actually starts to get overwhelmed by a sense of pride and anger. And basically, this division is sown between her and her daughter in her mind, because she thinks, how dare my daughter not say that I am actually this beautiful woman? Doesn't she care about me? Doesn't she realize all that I do for her? Why wouldn't she move it and say, yes, my mother is this lovely person. And the demon knows this. And the demon plays on her weakness. And he has sown this deep division. There's no fire or glowing red eyes or horns or smells of sulfur. But this really destructive division is brought this seed of confusion. This seed of division is sown between a mother and her daughter. And this is a perfect depiction of the christian vision of reality and the christian understanding of how these things actually work. And it's so simple, but it is so, so spot on. There's another scene later on where the demon is manipulating Father Damien Karras, the young priest. And again, it's much deeper in the novel because it plays out over a few more pages. There's a bit more depth to the story. And what happens is the demon knows that Father Damian Karras is struggling with a crisis of faith, and it knows that he is a trained psychologist. So what does the demon do? It starts playing on this. And what it does is it starts doing certain things. So he's observing Reagan, who is possessed, and she's speaking, for example, in this voice that there's no way she could ever speak in, she shouldn't have. And she's speaking languages and saying things she doesn't or couldn't possibly know. But then the demon turns around and out of the mouth of Reagan says, but what if this is how she really found out about this? What if she's heard this on her mother's film set? And this is how she's learnt to say this or she knows this. And so what he's doing is the demon is manifesting its power and it's also doing what it really wants to do, which is to lead a soul away from God. And so what he wants to do is he wants him to doubt what his very eyes, his very senses are telling him. This demon is now using as an opportunity to make Father Damien think it's not really demonic. There is no demonic because there is no God.
It is just so well written. And again, you will hear more about this in a moment, but you contrast this with the latest addition to this franchise and it is just a hot mess of garbage, this new film. There's no depth. All of this depth is missing. I guess the point I'm really trying to make here is that this is not a cheap, gratuitous shock horror. It's actually underpinned by a deeper truth. And I guess what makes this all the more frustrating is this isn't a film that you can recommend. I can't say to people, hey, you should watch the exorcist. And here's the themes that you should consider when you're watching this. Because of the shocking stuff in the film. Can't recommend it. But, man, there is still some real profound theology and philosophy going on here in this film. It's just so frustrating. I don't know of any other film quite like this one, actually. There are films that I say to people, hey, you need to be aware that this film contains this or this film. The ending's quite shocking, but you can still say, look, if you're okay with that, this is something that will actually unpack a particular theme. This movie, though, the exorcist, it's a whole nother kettle of fish. Basically, what's happening here is William Peter Blatty is trying to show us the reality of what a world without God would truly look like. And he's also trying to show us that evil does not win in the end. And it's actually quite simple and straightforward what he's doing here. But it's actually a really important apologetics lesson. Apart from all of the other spoken apologetics moments you get in this film, where you have actual characters who enunciate the christian philosophical defense of the problem of evil, the problem of suffering. And what you have here is a novelist, a storyteller, who is responding to the problem of evil by saying, you are claiming there is no God because you look around the world and you see suffering and evil. Well, let me show you what the world would truly look like if there was no God. The fact that the world does not look like this awful, demonic, depraved manifestation you see before you in the story is actually proof that there is still good in the world, even though there is also suffering and that good. If you're going to say that suffering points to the absence of God, then why wouldn't you say that? The presence of good might actually be a pointer to the presence of God. And he does all of that without words. It's quite a profound thing. Have a listen to this interview that was filmed with William Peter Blatty and William Friedkin before they died. And they are talking about the Exorcist. And I need to give you a little bit of an explanation here before I play you this little clip. The first person you're going to hear talking here, by the way, is William Peter Blattie, who wrote the novel. And he is having a conversation with William Friedkin. Friedkin's an agnostic, and he is the director of the Exorcist film. And they've clearly got a really great relationship and a good rapport, you'll see and you'll hear in this conversation as it unfolds. But basically what they are talking about is this. There was an end scene that was written. There's a final conclusion to the book that was written by William Peter Blattie that was filmed but never, ever made it into the final version of the movie because William Friedkin felt that it wasn't quite what he wanted to present. And this scene involves Detective Kinderman, who's one of the main characters. He gets called in to solve a murder during the exorcist story. And he's also a guy. He's an agnostic jewish detective, a really interesting and funny character. Here's some great dialogue. And he takes center stage in one of the future films. We'll talk more about that in just a second. He is the main character of a future story in the faith trilogy. But basically he loves going to the movies. He loves the cinema and he gets free tickets to the movies. And he tries to convince Father Damien Karras to come with him to go to the movies. But Father Damien's not really that interested, and so it never takes off. But then he meets this new priest at the end of the film. Father Dyer also actually enjoys cinema as well. And at the very end, they walk off together after Detective Kinderman has said, look, do you like the movies? Let's go and get a bite to eat. And I've got free tickets to Casablanca. I think it was Casablanca in the original when they shot the film. And I've got free tickets to Casablanca. Let's go and watch this film together. And basically, it's the start of a really good friendship. And actually, no, sorry, I don't know if it is Casablanca.
I'm trying to think what the film is.
But the point is that he quotes Casablanca as they walk off. I've got a feeling this is the beginning of something big. And they become friends. And that friendship plays out in a future part of the trilogy. Now, that scene did not make it into the final cut of the film. William Friedkin felt it just wasn't quite the interpretation, the spin he wanted to put on the story. So it was left on the cutting room floor. And that's what these two guys are talking about in this particular conversation. So have a listen. William Peterbladdy is the guy you hear first in this conversation. Let's have a listen.
[00:51:10] Speaker B: I thought, and I may have been wrong, that the scene from the novel between Kinderman and Dyer accomplished that. So that without understanding it, you knew Dyer now is Charis. Charis really lives on forever. This relationship that Charis had with Kinderman lives now through father Dyer and everything. God's in his heaven. All is right with the world.
Maybe it didn't, but that was the intention. And that's something I think that the film could use.
[00:51:46] Speaker D: I think you're right to this extent. I think what we should probably do with this new version is have you come on at the end and say to the audience, this film's not a downer, folks. This is not a downer.
[00:51:59] Speaker B: I'm ready.
[00:51:59] Speaker D: Okay. And Dyer lives on. My feeling. Even though I just got through a lengthy. Which will probably be cut. Explanation of interpretation. And where I varied from the written text.
All of that gets put aside, I think. Because what I really was feeling was, we're trying to tell the audience this very thing that you're saying. And my feeling was, if they don't know, what are they doing in the theater?
If they can't take a joke, then the hell with them. No, but my feeling is.
Because this relates to certain other cuts in the film. The dialogue between Marin and Karis. In a kind of a break in the exorcism scene. Which in the film now is just a two shot of two guys sitting on the stairs. But which you had written a quite beautiful dialogue for the two of them. But my feeling was that. That was explaining to the audience. How they should feel about this experience, telling them what this is about, which always seemed to me to be inherent in the story that you wrote. The meaning of that was inherent to me, and anything that stated it suddenly became like we were trying to teach the audience a lesson, which I think is the difference between your approach and mine. And I think if the film is successful, it's where your approach and mine both end and meet.
You really believe that there is a specific meaning on these events and that the audience must understand it to have a full experience.
My feeling is there is a specific meaning to these events that the audience should discover for themselves.
[00:54:07] Speaker B: I agree to an extent, Bill. I certainly believe that the film, as it is, delivers a positive message about faith and spirituality and transcendence. On the most basic level, there are spirits. Good ones, there are bad ones. There are works.
I wanted the explanation from Marin. I'm talking about the film now. It's not why I put it in the novel. I thought it would be good in the film for Marin to explain to Karis that, listen, this is not about this little girl.
We are the target. Yeah, everyone in this house. And the object is to make us despair of our humanity, to feel that we are vile, putrescent, bestial creatures, and that even if there were a God, he could not possibly love us.
Now, while I feel is absolutely true, on a theological level, it also has a dramatic function, I think, Bill, and it's this.
It gives you a core, a reason for why all of, let's face it, the shock and the obscenity that are in the film and in the book are taking place. Does that make any sense?
[00:55:45] Speaker D: Indeed, it does put to mind the anecdote of the french impressionist painter Bonar, who, in his later years, after his works had already hung in the Louvre in his lifetime, was arrested in the Louvre with a little palette and a little brush, standing in front of one of his paintings and touching it up. And he was immediately grabbed by security guards who said, what are you doing? And he said, I am Bonar, but I'm Bonard. They said, the painting is in the Louvre. It's finished. And every time I've had an impulse to try and satisfy you, if it hasn't been the financiers who have defied us, it's my own memory of what the security guard said to Bernard, which is, it's hanging on the walls of the loo, pal. It's over and out. Walk away. It's flawed.
It will never be perfect in your mind. Or perhaps my own. Although I have to admit, if I can take myself out of my own contribution, having seen it recently, I honestly feel it is as close to a perfect film as you can make.
[00:57:04] Speaker B: Well, it has the same impact today. I've heard that from many sources.
[00:57:08] Speaker D: But people actually believed what they saw on the screen. Some of them maybe had a different interpretation of that. That's always bothered you. I've always rejoiced in it, frankly, that everyone who sees it has a completely different interpretation of what they've seen.
[00:57:27] Speaker B: I don't want them to think the devil won.
[00:57:29] Speaker D: Well, to me, it's. How could they possibly think that?
[00:57:34] Speaker C: I know.
[00:57:34] Speaker B: Well, the problem is, the audience is. I long suspected.
[00:57:38] Speaker D: I know, Bill. And what we should try to do on the re release is have the audience pass by. No, no one gets in the theater until you've questioned their veracity, until you've questioned their philosophy.
[00:57:53] Speaker B: It doesn't work. I've been on a million talk shows that explained everything to everybody.
They don't hear it.
[00:58:00] Speaker A: Isn't that an interesting dialogue? And what it shows you and why I put this in this episode, I thought this would be a great little clip to play, is because it just so clearly shows you the intent of William Peter Blatty and the depth of philosophical and theological thought that he's trying to put into this and what he wants you to see from this film. Unfortunately, this also happens to be a film that, despite all of that, you can't recommend to people.
And it's. Oh, gosh, it is quite frustrating. And the other frustration here is that people really only tend to see the gratuity. And like you heard William Peter Blatty there at the very end, saying, no matter how much he's tried to explain this to people, often they just aren't seeing it. They're not getting the depth of what he's tried to do here in this particular story. Now, there's one other thing before we move on and talk about the other two films in this particular trilogy, and that is the death of Father Damian Karras, who is the young priest. Remember, he was having the crisis of faith. Now, his death is actually quite a profound one. I know there might be some theological questions around all of this. That's totally fine. You have debates about this because basically what happens is that he's now on his own. The demon has killed Father Mirren, and now it's just him and the demon, and he's really frustrated, and he knows they've got to do something. He's at the end of his tether. Because what the demon does is the demon confesses to them that at one point, know, you know how you guys have been giving this young girl sedatives to actually put her to sleep and to rest her heart so this won't actually do serious harm to her? Well, I'm going to keep her awake now. And the sedatives have basically got to the point where she's become tolerant of them. And this demon is going to keep her heart going until it can't go anymore. So the demon has now told them it's actively trying to end the life of this young girl. And so there's this desperation. Father Mirren has died. He's had a heart attack and he has died. And now it's just Father Damien Karras and this demon. And finally he says to the know, why don't you pick on someone your own size? He sort of goes back into the boxer mode. He started as a boxer, remember, before he was a priest. And he goes back into that sort of brawler, that street brawler type mode. And he says to the demon, possess me. Pick on someone your own size. And so the demon jumps at the invitation and Pazuzu leaves Reagan and jumps into Father Damien Karis. And the intention at that point of Pazuzu is now that it's got the body of this fit young priest, is that it will turn around and it will strangle to death. It will kill young Reagan. And so it still gets its way. And it also claims another soul in the process, father Damien Karras. But what happens is father Damien Karis, in this instant, in this moment, pushes back and he sacrifices himself. He throws himself out of the window of this multi story home. And then he also falls down that very steep flight of stairs, which, you know, if you've seen the film or you know anything about the film, you'll know that these stairs are a sort of famous trope. They are part of the film. And he dies and he sacrifices himself and Reagan is saved, and that's the end of the film. Now, what is so interesting and important about that moment is it's the polar opposite of the death of another male who entered Reagan's room earlier in the film. And that is the character of Burke Dennings. Remember, I talked about him. He's the director friend of Reagan's mother, Chris McNeil. And he's the guy who is the alcoholic reprobate. Now, it's not explicitly spelled out in the film, but there is this theory. And certainly it sort of feels like maybe it's hinting at this, that Burke Dennings might actually have abused Reagan. There's nothing explicit in the film or this novel that sort of spells this out. But the demon keeps taking on the Persona and the voice of Burke Dennings in these various possession fits of obscenity. Burke Dennings was at home alone in the house with the girl at the time he died, and he was in her room. And Burke Dennings is thrown from this top story window by Reagan. Well, it's by Pazuza, obviously, who actually possesses Reagan at the time and throws Burke Dennings out of the window and kills him. And that's the murder that Detective Kinderman is there to investigate in the story.
But what Father Damien Carras does is he now finds himself in this upper story room with this young girl in front of him. The demon has possession of him this time, and instead of dominating and doing harm to this young girl, he actually sacrifices himself to save her. There's like a complete 180 that's being done here in the story. Now, there's something even more important going on here. Regardless of the question of is there a subtext here or some sort of subplot that's subtly being hinted at around sexual abuse? Regardless of whether that is the case or not, there's a previous scene that you get in the novel, and Father Mirren and Father Damien are talking, and we discover that Father Damien Karis is actually named after Saint Damien of Molokai. And if you've seen the film, Molokai, which is an excellent film, and it is a film that you can watch at a family movie night, by the way. Beautiful christian movie that is highly recommendable. I think it was the australian director, Peter Weir, wasn't it, who directed it. But father Damian of Molokai, St. Damien, now of Molokai, was this belgian priest who volunteered and knowingly did this, knowing the risks that were involved to go and minister to and to care for and to work with the lepers on the leper colony of Molokai in the Hawaiiki Islands. Hawai, is it, or Hawai islands. But Molokai is one of the islands, and it was a leper colony. And there's no cure for leprosy. And he volunteers knowing the risks that are involved in this. And he truly ministers to the people with this leprosy. And what happened to Father Damien was he actually contracted leprosy himself because he wouldn't separate himself. He wouldn't keep himself separate. He believed that his calling was to be like Christ to these people who society had abandoned. And that's exactly what he did. And he contracted leprosy, and he died of leprosy. He's also quite an interesting character. He was the guy who was credited with actually coming up with the concept of basically the sugar pill test because people would regularly come to him on the island, well meaning people, and they would say, look, we've got this tonic or this medicine, and we think this will cure or will reverse leprosy. And there were people who would constantly come and do this. And basically what he would do is he would take these supposed medicines and he would give them to some of the lepers. And other lepers. He would give a tonic that was just water and sugar, and that would tell him whether the tonic or the medicine was actually real or not, whether this really was a cure. And of course, none of them were. But anyway, aside from that, Father Damien Amalekai, he dies. He contracts leprosy and he dies amongst the vulnerable people that he is called to serve. It's this very profound christ like death of self sacrifice. Here we have what in the Exorcist, another father Damien, who is named after St. Damien of Molokai. And Father Damien is doing what he is working with this vulnerable young girl who has what she doesn't have, physical leprosy. She has a type of spiritual leprosy. And what happens to Father Damien in the story? He also contracts and is killed by that spiritual leprosy in this act of self giving love. It's really quite profound what is going on in the story. And again, it's so frustrating because you can't say to people, go and watch this movie. You just can't. But it's so amazing what is going on. Now, let me quickly explain the other two films in William Peter Blatty's trilogy of Faith before we talk about the diabolical carnage that was wrought upon the world earlier this year with the Exorcist believer. Now the second film in this trilogy. And by the way, these two films are actually a bit more watchable. They're not family movie night films, but they don't have the same shock and awe and obscenity and other things that the Exorcist has in it. They're not family films, but they are films that probably a more general audience could still watch. Now, the 9th configuration is the second story in this trilogy of faith. The 9th configuration was a novel that was originally written in 1966 by William Peter Bladdy. So it's written before the Exorcist was written and then it's released as a film in 1980. Now, the interesting thing about this film is that it is both produced and directed by William Peter Blatty. So he wrote the story, he wrote the novel and then the screenplay. But this is also where he made his debut as a director. And so here's William Peter Blatti, this writer who becomes the director. And the 9th configuration is basically a psychological drama. It's not a horror, it's a psychological drama. So it's quite different from the Exorcist, but it is still focused on these same themes. And what this story is about is it's about a group of soldiers who have PTSD and they are in an institution, an asylum that's basically an old castle. And a new psychologist turns up, an army psychologist turns up to actually start treating these patients. Now the connection to the exorcist between these two films, because I can already hear the cogs in your head turning and you're saying, hold on, this sounds very different to the Exorcist. What's the connection here? Well, the connection is this. In the Exorcist there is a character who has a very brief appearance in that film, and his name is Captain Billy Cutshaw. And Captain Billy Cutshaw is an astronaut. And he is at one of these elite dinner parties that is depicted in the movie and in the story that is held by Chris McNeil. And they are standing around the piano drinking and singing a song. And Reagan McNeil, who's supposed to be in bed, she comes downstairs and she just urinates in front of everyone. She wets herself. And her mother is quite embarrassed by this. And the guests are sort of like, whoa, what's going on here? And she looks at Captain Billy Cutshaw, now in the Exorcist. He's played by a different actor to the actor who plays Captain Billy Cutshaw in the 9th configuration movie. She looks at Captain Billy Cutshaw and she says, you'll die up there. He's about to go on this mission out into space as an astronaut. She says, you'll die up there. And that same character, Captain Billy Cutshaw, played by a different actor this time, is one of the other main characters in the second film, the 9th configuration. And he is now in this psychological institution receiving treatment himself. And it's basically there's like this dialogue that goes on between him and the army psychologist. And Captain Billy Kutcher is like the atheist or agnostic who's trying to argue that God can't be real because of suffering and pain in the world. And the army psychologist pushes back against him and presents the christian philosophy as to why his arguments aren't actually that strong. Now, this film is a very, very underknown film. That's not a word, is it? It's not a well known film. That's the correct way of saying it's not a well known film. And in fact, it's really hard to track down too. The film is available in its entirety on YouTube, though I don't know for how much longer, but it is available to watch there. But you can't find it anywhere. It's actually quite hard to track down. And this film, though, despite the fact that it's not particularly well known, actually won the Golden Globe award for the best screenplay in 1981. So it's not a slouch. It's no b grade movie. It's not like the exorcist two heretic, which is utter garbage. This is actually a well crafted story. Again, and this film, this story explores the question of evil and suffering. And there is a much stronger emphasis in this particular story on the question of suffering. The emphasis in the Exorcist is really strong on the problem of evil and evil itself and what genuine evil actually looks like and why. It's not really valid to say, oh, there is no God because this world is evil. Because in actual fact, this world isn't actually total depravity. There's lots of good here as well. And so this film, though, the 9th configuration, focuses on the question of suffering. There's a much stronger emphasis on suffering and the existence of God. It also explores the question of human redemption from evil. It points to redemption and self sacrifice as a proof of God's existence. The fact that someone could actually be extremely depraved or evil in their actions and then also experience profound redemption points to the fact that something more is going on here. We're not just sort of meat suits driven by our urges and our instincts. Now, I won't ruin this for you. There is a twist in this particular film. If you plan to go out and watch it, I'm not going to ruin it for you. It actually starts this film like a bit of a surrealist film. You're watching it and you're going, whoa, this is kind of a bit trippy. It's a bit psychedelic. It is very much a product of its age, the late seventy s. And you're watching it and you're thinking, man, is this a bit of an art house psychedelic, sort of surrealist type movie. There's a reason for that, and I'm not going to spoil the twist for you because it suddenly, at the end of the film, gets very, very grounded. And what it does is it brings you back by revealing what the actual twist is.
As I said, it's very, very sudden. All of a sudden it becomes very, very grounded. Now, I can't help but suspect that this movie, I don't know this for certain, but I can't help but suspect that it actually inspired the Martin Scorsese film Shutter Island. I also can't help but wonder if this movie, the 9th configuration, influenced or was influenced by First Blood, which is the novel by David Morell that became Rambo first Blood when it was made into a film. Now, I think if there was any influence here, I think that it would have been first blood, David Morell's novel, that was actually influenced by the 9th configuration, not the other way around. And the reason I say that is the 9th configuration you'll remember was written and published in 1966 as a novel. First Blood by David Morel, which became Rambo First Blood, was not published until 1972. And the 9th configuration as a film came out in 1980. And remember it won a Golden Globe Award for best screenplay. So this is not an unknown film. This is a well known film. It received an important accolade. So that came out in 1980. And Rambo First Blood, which is the film adaption of David Morell's novel, and it's the most grounded of all the Rambo films, by the way, came out in 1982, two years later. And the reason I have suspicions about this is because it features some similar themes regarding Vietnam veterans. They are a big part, they form the sort of central hub of this particular story. And it's similar in the tone and the sense of trying to evoke within people a sense of sympathy for these Vietnam veterans and also seeing them and the soldiering and what they were called to do in this awful war and sort of trying to create a sense of sympathy for them at a time when that was not happening in America. They were being spat on as soldiers, and a lot of them too were conscripts. Remember, towards the end, they weren't professional soldiers. They were conscripted into the army to fight this war that they didn't ask or volunteer to go and fight. And then they come home and the protesters are targeting them and spitting on them. And it's just awful. They were probably certainly in american history, they were the worst. Treated popularly and publicly by the general public and then subsequently by the state as well. They were the worst treated of any american war veterans, probably. And it's often talked about. And it was one of those sort of cultural learning moments I think about we must never, ever treat veterans like this again. But this film has a very, very similar sort of tone and there's a sympathetic tone in that particular regard towards Vietnam veterans. There's also a really strong philosophy, like I said, in this. And again, it's about these proofs for the existence of God and the problem of evil. And it doesn't shy away from that. It's very much a big part of that film. Now, the third film, the third story is exorcist three legion. Now, the film is released in 1990. So this is almost 20 years after the exorcist film came out. It's based on the novel by William Peter Bladdy of the same name. And this is the second time that William Peter Bladdy is screenwriter and director. And it's this third film in his faith trilogy. Now, this story, the connection to the Exorcist is the main character of the Exorcist three Legion. And that is Detective Kinderman and also Father Dyer. You will remember that Detective Kinderman was the detective who was in the Exorcist who was there to investigate the death of Burke Dennings. Well, he is the main character now in the Exorcist three Legion. And Father Dyer, remember, is the priest that he walks off at the end of the Exorcist with to go and have a bite to eat and to watch a movie. And they become really good friends over the years. There's also another connection, by the way, too, to the Exorcist, which I won't spoil. So just in case anyone's planning to watch the Exorcist three, I won't spoil the other connection for you. But the events of this story take place about 15 years after the death of Father Damien Caris. So you remember at the end of the Exorcist, he throws himself out the window and he dies, sacrifices himself to save Reagan from the demon Pazuzu. And the events in this film begin on the exact anniversary of Father Damien Carras's death. And this one, unlike the previous film that started it all off, the Exorcist, which was a priest procedural this one starts as a detective procedural and it is a murder mystery thriller involving a supposedly long deceased serial killer. And it's a bit of a play on the Zodiac killer. It's the Gemini killer, they call him in this one. And this killer is supposed to be dead, and his reign of terror was supposed to have ended. But this film starts with the murder, which clearly appears to be that same killer, because there are certain things about this crime that the public were never told about. The modus operandi which actually happened in this murder, which kicks off the story of the Exorcist three Legion. Now, it starts as a detective thriller type film, but it actually ends as a supernatural thriller horror. And this one explores the themes of evil, suffering. And there's a much bigger focus in this one on the question of pain and suffering and the existence of God, particularly physical pain. And it also explores themes regarding philosophy of mind and the existence of God and our consciousness. And what does that all mean? And what makes this one quite interesting, and it's particularly the novel, you really get this, is the fact that Detective Kinderman is jewish, and he has this sort of cynical jewish way about him. And it acts as a really good vehicle to explore these deeper questions about the existence of God. And also it's got lots of really great humor in the mix as well.
I really liked his character, actually. I really, really liked his character in the story, and I liked the way that he went about sort of exploring and unpacking these questions. William Peter Blatty, it was quite interesting. Now, this film lands strongly on a theme that the previous films introduced. If we see the presence of evil as proof that there is no God, then why don't we also treat the presence of goodness in the world as a proof that there is a God? Why wouldn't we do also do that if we do the first thing? And it's really quite strongly, in fact, I will leave you. I will end this particular podcast episode in just a moment by playing you the very final end of that novel, the exorcist three legion. And just so you can get a sense of the sort of the depth and what it's really exploring, because it's quite a beautiful sort of ending, I think. Now, let's contrast what you've just heard here from me about the trilogy of faith with the abomination that is the latest exorcist film. But first, just a quick little side detour. And remember I said earlier about how the exorcist, the original exorcist film, basically became like a template that is regularly plagiarized and copied by films still to this day. Well, a quick comparison to another film that was released earlier this year proves that to be the case. And that is the recent exorcism film the pope's exorcist, starring Russell Crowe. Now, the pope's exorcist touts itself as being basically a presentation of the true life story of Vatican Exorcist Father Gabriel Amorth, this catholic priest who was an exorcist and that was his ministry for most of his life. Now, Father Gabriel Amorth wrote a couple of books and a very, very interesting man, very christian man. This film is not a presentation of Father Gabriel Amorth's life at all. They took the real man and they wrote a completely fictional fantasy tale. That's the only way to describe it. And they inserted him into this fantasy tale. What's interesting about this, though, is they stole. All of the major ideas in this movie are stolen directly from the Exorcist. And also. And by the way, I'm not surprised by that. I have a good friend of mine who is a priest who has a long time experience in this particular type of ministry many, many years of his life. And one of the things he said to me some years ago was that the exorcist actually, leaving aside some of the more sensationalistic parts that are added in for sort of cinematic effect and shock value the exorcist is a reasonably faithful sort of depiction of what exorcism actually entails. So it's kind of not surprising that this has set a template in many ways but it stole all of its major ideas from the exorcist and at the same time, despite stealing those ideas it manages to actually make them very superficial and vacuous. There is a very superficial presentation of good and evil. There is a whole lot of pyrotechnics and CGI and special effects and stuff. Like the original exorcist. Yeah, it had effects, but it's all very grounded. This one was not. This is kind of like, I don't know, Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter except the main character is a priest. There is also in this film a strong and not very subtle anti christian undercurrent particularly focused against the Catholic Church. And this is a theme we'll come back to because you also see this in the latest exorcist film. It just depicts the total collapse of culture and a culture that can't actually bring itself to accept that there might actually be something good about the christian church despite the fact that some of the members of the christian church have done evil things or have not been faithful representatives. No, we can't let this one slide. And so this film has this antichristian undercurrent going on as well. Which kind of seems like a good time to talk about the brand new 2023 exorcist film in the Exorcist franchise called the Exorcist believer. Now let me start by pointing out that William, Peter Blatty and William Friedkin obviously as well, had absolutely nothing, zip, nada, doughnut, not a thing to do with this film. And boy oh boy does it show. This story is just absurd. It is so shallow and vacuous. The characterizations, the writing, it's all just inept. It's rushed. It's the complete opposite of the Exorcist, where there's clear motivations. And this film is this slow burning, atmospheric thing that unravels itself and everything that's happening makes sense to you. Not so with the Exorcist believer. It rushes things like a b grade movie would, where all of a sudden characters go from doing one thing to doing something that doesn't really make sense. And the slimmest of deus ex machina type explanations are given for why they're now suddenly doing these things that don't really make sense. Why would you go with a total random stranger and do this? Why would you let a total random stranger into your home to tell you some great story about the demonic? All this stuff that just doesn't make sense. And you contrast that with the previous films and they're really well written. Like the 9th configuration wins a Golden Globe award for best screenplay. This film, the Exorcist believer, it ain't winning no awards for best screenplay. Or maybe I shouldn't say that the state of wokism and celebrity culture and Hollywood and the Academy, maybe they will give them an award. But basically what you see is a lot of things happening in this film where basically, hey, there's a thing happening now because we needed it to happen because we ain't got all day and we got to get on with this. And these characterizations that are inept. The writing is terrible. Now let me give you some really clear examples of this so you can see that I'm not making this up. Alan Burston is brought back for this film. Now for those who don't know, Alan Burston was the actress who played Reagan's mother in the original Exorcist. Alan Burston played Chris McNeil. Alan Burston is obviously now a lot older and she is brought back in this film. And there is a character who goes to see her because this character, his daughter, is the victim of a demon possession. And so he seeks out Chris McNeil, who he sees or treats as this world expert on exorcisms. And he goes to her, and there is this scene that happens in her house where he asks her about the exorcism. This is the original exorcism. Father Damien Carras, Father Mirren, her daughter Reagan, the original exorcist film, that exorcism. And he says to her, or he asks her about what happened in the exorcism. And this is the dialogue. I kid you not. This is exactly word for word. Harrod unfolds. I didn't actually witness it, you know, the exorcism. They wouldn't let me. And then this character who's come to see her says, why not?
And she says this, in my opinion, it's because I'm not a member of their damn patriarchy.
I kid you not. William Peter Blatty must be turning in his grave. This is just utter madness. It is a sickness of our culture, and it is just utter garbage, especially if you know anything about the original film and if you know the original story or the original film. And lots of other people have pointed this out in their reviews. People who have no faith whatsoever have pointed this out. Hey, hold on a minute. Those two priests actually died saving your daughter. They sacrificed themselves to save your daughter. They gave their very lives, and not once did they ever look down to you. In fact, if you know the story, you will know quite clearly that there was, like, a deep friendship or maybe even the beginnings of a possible romantic sort of attraction that was going on between Chris McNeil and the young father Damien Carras. No, there was no patriarchy here. No one ordered you out of the room. You didn't want to be there because of the diabolical evil that had come upon your house, and you wanted these men to deal with it, and they did. And they sacrificed themselves doing it. To turn around and say, to have a writer all these years say it's because I'm not a member of their damn patriarchy is just embarrassingly bad. Basically, it's riddled with politicized nonsense that fails miserably to tell a good and engaging story. It is, as I said, a product of the current cultural age. And the other thing that happens here is they can't remain faithful to the actual source material. Because remember now, in the modern age, Christianity, and in particular the Catholic Church, is now considered to be evil and backwards. It is considered by the progressive elites to be the most regressive backward intolerant bigoted form of oppression in the world, right? And so you can't have an exorcist film that remains faithful to the source material, where a catholic priest is called in, a good and holy priest who is striving to follow Christ, who comes and carries out the right of christian exorcism, the prayers to free you, in the name of Jesus, from the demons that have possessed you. Now, we can't have that because, my friends, that would actually paint the Catholic Church in far too good a light. So what happens in the story? The catholic priest refuses to participate and you have this absurd scene. It is just laughably bad where this priest who refuses to participate actually is talking to his fellow priests about this exorcism and about the need to seek permission. And the scene is such garbage. The writing is awful. It's so unrealistic. It's not funny. The first film went for absolute realism in regards to all of that kind of stuff. This film and this scene is just the polar opposite of that. And what you've got is this room full of priests and it literally looks like some sort of elite club, like the Auckland Club or some country club, some old timey country club with lots of mahogany. And there's two priests sitting at a table playing chess. There's another priest, for some reason, who's sitting behind a giant desk. Why are these men playing chess in his office? There's other priests who have got, like, brandies or whiskeys in hand and cigars. It's just embarrassingly bad. Even if you're not a Catholic, you'll know that such a scene does not exist in the world. And here's this priest sitting there saying, like, this is some sort of official club where all the catholic priests get together to discuss official business and whether or not they should conduct an exorcism.
He's sitting there with these two guys playing chess, saying, brothers, we need to. I think he calls them fathers. I think in the scene, from memory, fathers, we need to actually get an exorcist like this. Very serious issue. None of this would be playing out like this. It just wouldn't be. It's just utter garbage. And of course, surprise, surprise, they are nasty, evil, selfish, elite, patriarchal men. And so they don't want anything to do with it. And so, of course, he's not allowed to do the exorcism, which is not how that happens at all, by the way. The church would not refuse an exorcism if all the relevant tests had first been done. And this appeared to be the only way to bring healing to a person. The church would respond with pastoral care and would actually give permission for the exorcism to happen. The bishop would do that. But no, he's told he can't do this, so what does he do? He then proceeds to give the right of exorcism prayer book, the official prayer book. He gives it to another character who is a female ex nun who had an abortion, because, of course, she did. And to be fair, at least they treated that topic with a bit of delicacy and sensitivity. They don't really portray the abortion in the way that other films, modern films, might like. It was this no big deal as a good and glamorous kind of thing. But, of course, she's an ex catholic nun who's had an abortion. And he says to her, she should perform the roman rite. And in fact, she has a scene where she rather boldly declares to these other characters, I can perform the roman rite. And it's pretty much said like that, and it's just childish and embarrassing. Now, here's the thing. Forget about the particulars of authority and theology and liturgical norms around who can and can't perform their rite of exorcism in all of this. But just think about this for a second. How does any of this make sense if this priest cannot do an exorcism without authority? And that's true, he can't. A priest can't just go around conducting exorcisms without any spiritual authority or headship. And he certainly couldn't conduct one if the bishop had said, no, I do not grant authority for this to happen. And that would be obviously with good reason. And here's this priest, by the way, who can't do this, so how can she do this without authority? And think about this.
Here's this catholic priest who is so faithful to doing things the right way that he obeys the instructions given to him by his superiors and he does not carry out the exorcism. But then he proceeds to give the right of exorcism prayer book to someone who has no authority whatsoever and says, you can go and do it, though why would he do that? In one case, he's being obedient. In the other case, he's being completely disobedient. In one case, he is faithfully following the laws as they are laid down. In the other case, he's completely violating them. If this guy was willing to hand over the book to any old person and say, it doesn't matter, you just do it yourself, then he would have disobeyed his superiors, surely, and gone and done the exorcism all on his own. But he doesn't. Why? Why does this happen? Why does this play out this way? Well, because he's a priest and they just can't countenance the concept of a christian priest, a catholic priest saving the world from evil. No, we can't have that. So we've got to actually make sure that the church still looks evil in all of this. But it gets worse, because the exorcism in this film is a postmodern, interreligious and secular humanist exorcism. It is the most absurd thing ever. It is literally a concept that was lifted from that Leslie Nielsen comedy spoof about the exorcist called repossessed, which, interestingly, came out in 1990, the very same year as the Exorcist three was released. And at the very end of that, what do you have? You have all of these different faith leaders coming together and it's a joke in this film, because the film is a comedy. It's a spoof comedy of the exorcist and all of these religious leaders come together in the end to perform this multi faith interfaith exorcism. And the whole thing is treated like a joke. Well, in this movie, though, it's treated as real. And so what you've got is these not just different denominations, but different faiths all turning up. People who don't even believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are there. You've got pagans who are part of this. And not only that, but you've got a secular humanist who is Chris McNeil, played by Ellen Burston. And she is literally, just because she tells us this in the film, that you can basically just shout the demons out.
You can say, you're not welcome here, and they'll leave. It is so dysfunctionally absurd. It's not funny, man. This thing is just garbage. And I have seen secular reviewers who have no faith point out this particular point and say, hold on, this doesn't make any sense. I thought this whole exorcism thing was a christian catholic thing, and now you're saying anybody can do it and none of that matters. How does this make sense? Because they can see the absurdity of this. It is just garbage. Like I said, a culture that doesn't have a big story, a sacred, transcendent vision of reality, is incapable of good mythology. And this film is an astounding encapsulation of that very thing. And not only that, but it is just the perfect metaphor for the collapse of western culture, philosophically, religiously and artistically. You compare this film to the original exorcist and to that whole trilogy of faith, and it is just a laughable joke. It shows you in such a clear way, a very stark way, how collapsed our culture has actually become in the west. But let me not leave you on that point. Let me cleanse your palate, and I will finish this episode now by playing you a clip from the very end of the audiobook version of the novel, the Exorcist Three Legion. And don't worry, there's not going to be any major spoilers in this at all. If you actually want to, I don't know, watch the film or read the novel. But why I'm going to play you this is because not only do I think this is quite a beautiful little final scene to a story, but it will also give you a sense of the depth of the storytelling and the philosophy contained within this trilogy of faith from William Peter Blatty and the difference between that and what we see today with something like the Exorcist believer and just films in general, it's quite embarrassing how far things have actually slipped. So let me play you now. The final scene from the audiobook version of the Exorcist three Legion.
[01:37:46] Speaker C: Kinderman took another bite of a burger, washed it down with a swallow of Pepsi, and then turned to the sergeant. But since you insist. Are you insisting? Yes. I thought so. First, take off the tie. Atkins smiled. He unknodded the tie and slipped it off. Good, said Kinderman. I cannot tell this to a perfect stranger. It's so huge. It's so incredible. His eyes were a glitter. You're familiar with the brothers Karamazov? He asked. No, I'm not, Atkins lied. He wanted to sustain the detective's giving mood.
Three brothers, said Kinderman, Dimitri, Ivan, and Alyosha. Dimitri is the body of man. Ivan represents his mind and Alyosha is his heart. At the end, the very end, Alyosha takes some very young boys to a cemetery and the grave of their classmate Alucia. This alucia they treated very meanly once because, well, he was strange, there was no doubt about it.
But later, when he died, they understood why he acted the way he had and how truly brave and loving he was. So now Alyosha, he's a monk, by the way, he makes a speech to the boys at the gravesite, and mainly he's telling them that when they're grown up and face the evils of the world. They should always reach back and remember this day, remember the goodness of their childhood, Atkins. This goodness that is basic in all of them, this goodness that hasn't been spoiled. Just one good memory in their hearts, he says, can save their faith in the goodness of the world. What's the line? The detective's eyes rolled upward and his fingertips touched his lips, which were smiling already in anticipation. He looked down at Atkins.
Yes, I have it. Perhaps that one memory may keep us from evil, and we will reflect and say, yes, I was brave and good and honest. Then Alyosha tells them something that is vitally important.
First and above all, be kind, he says. And the boys, they all love him. They all shout hurrah for Karamazov. Kinderman felt himself choking up. I always weep when I think of this, he said. It's so beautiful, Atkins. So touching.
The students were collecting their bags of hamburgers now, and Kinderman watched them leaving.
This is what Christ must have meant, he reflected, about needing to become like little children before we can enter the kingdom of heaven. I don't know. It could be. He watched the countermen lay out some patties on the grill in preparation for another possible influx, then sit on a chair and begin to read a newspaper.
Kinderman returned his attention to Atkins. Kinderman and Atkins held each other's gaze, but then the door chime sounded and they glanced to the door as a gaunt and emaciated derelict awkwardly stumbled in from the cold, his tattered old army coat thick with soil. He shambled toward the counterman, the metal tips of the untied laces of the torn, once white dirty sneakers he was wearing making thin clicking sounds on the linoleum floor, until at last he was mutely standing before the counter with eyes meek and shiny with a silent plea.
The counterman glowered at him over his newspaper, sighed, put the paper aside, stood up, prepared half a dozen hamburgers, bagged them, and handed them over to the bum, who mutely took them with a nod and a lowered stare, then shuffled out of the shop, back out into the far more familiar world. Kinderman shifted his glance to the counterman, who had returned to his chair and his reading, then looked down into the mug of coffee he was holding cupped in both his hands, and murmured, hurrah for Karamazov.
[01:41:51] Speaker A: Now I'm sure you will agree with me that when you hear that read out, you get a sense of the depth of what was actually going on here. What William Peter Blatty is trying to do here? Does he get everything right? Is it perfect theology? Is it perfect philosophy? No, it's not. But this is exactly what theology is at its heart. It is faith seeking understanding, and it is a serious attempt to grapple with and to comprehend how God can still exist in a world despite the presence of suffering and evil. And what William Peter Blatty is trying to show us is that he firmly believes that despite the presence of evil, God is still good and God is still with us, and God is still at work in the world. Here's a storyteller who is trying to grapple with these issues with depth. This is not just b grade stuff. This is someone who is engaged in a deep philosophical and theological exploration of these themes. And as I said at the very beginning, what makes some of this so very frustrating is that you just can't recommend the exorcist to anyone, because it's definitely not one of those kind of movies. Thanks for tuning in. I hope you enjoyed this deep dive into some of the philosophical and theological themes of the exorcist and the trilogy of faith by William Peter Blattie. Don't forget, live by goodness, truth and beauty, not by lies. And I will see you next time on the dispatchers.
