At long last, I read another Book!
In all seriousness, that is basically the gist of this. I kept forgetting to get around to read many of the Books that I have that were later turned into Films. I got the Book you see below many months ago.
Hell, I watched the Film first in 2011!
So how do the two stack up?
What is different? What is the same?
To find, let's (slowly, but surely) read on...
What's the same?:
Both Films use the same basic Plot and beats.
A mysterious person is killing Priests (and one black kid) off-camera/page.
He or she does really bad stuff to us that is only described (and not shown in the Film).
Detective Kinderman suspects that it has to do with the Gemini Killer and...Father Karras.
Fun Fact: the Zodiac Killer (whom Gemini inspired) was a 'fan' of the original Exorcist. He said so himself.
What's different?:
The Film is much tighter in terms of Pacing.
For instance, when Kinderman sees Father Dyer in the Book, it takes about 10 pages. They banter about key stuff, but also nonsense.
In the Film, the Scene is much more brief.
Also, this is a random change: in the Book, he brings Dyer a toy bear with a funny shirt, but he brings him a stuffed penguin in the Film.
Why bother?!?
In the Film, Kinderman eventually sees Patient X (called Mr. Sunshine in the Book) and he can morph between appearing like Gemini and Karras.
In the Book, there is nothing that overt.
This is part of a larger feel of adding more mysticism.
A more minor, but curious change is that Kinderman's Partner (and other Cops in general) get way more page-time.
Granted- they are always just sounding boards for Blatty's curious prose as the Detective.
Even so, it's a shame that they give Kinderman a 'token black partner' and stripped away all of his identity (and most of his lines).
Is that called The Winston?
Interestingly enough (to me) is the fact that Film's arguably most famous bit is implied much more than actually happens in the Book.
We hear that a Nurse was killed and about what happened to her.
In the Film, well, you know...
On top of *that,* the follow-up attack in the Detective's House doesn't happen in the Book- at all!
Now here, of course, is the biggest change from the Book to the Film...
The Exorcism!
Father Morning is made up specifically for the Film and serves as a very literal Deux Ex Machina (by proxy). He stops the possessed woman from killing Kinderman at his home and tries to exorcise the Gemini from Karras.
Again- all of the more explicit supernatural stuff is in this Version.
In the Film, Karras lets himself be killed to end the whole thing.
In the Book, Gemini's Father dies of a stroke (not caused by him) and the spirit chooses to leave when 'its work was done.'
Yep, no random Priest to add in just to die in the Book.
Final Thoughts:
The Book is deep and cerebral. There's lots of discussions about fate, humanity and all of that.
In other words, it is pretentious as hell!
Don't get me wrong- it's quite good. It's just not the Horror story that the Film became.
It feels like a continuation of events that took place after 'The Exorcist.'
The Film is clearly a Sequel (and the only one that counts).
If you like the Film (the official or unofficial Cut), the Book is a nice companion piece that definitely has less 'pizazz' (or Pazuzu) than it.
In all seriousness, that is basically the gist of this. I kept forgetting to get around to read many of the Books that I have that were later turned into Films. I got the Book you see below many months ago.
Hell, I watched the Film first in 2011!
So how do the two stack up?
What is different? What is the same?
To find, let's (slowly, but surely) read on...
***VS***
Both Films use the same basic Plot and beats.
A mysterious person is killing Priests (and one black kid) off-camera/page.
He or she does really bad stuff to us that is only described (and not shown in the Film).
Detective Kinderman suspects that it has to do with the Gemini Killer and...Father Karras.
Fun Fact: the Zodiac Killer (whom Gemini inspired) was a 'fan' of the original Exorcist. He said so himself.
The Film is much tighter in terms of Pacing.
For instance, when Kinderman sees Father Dyer in the Book, it takes about 10 pages. They banter about key stuff, but also nonsense.
In the Film, the Scene is much more brief.
Also, this is a random change: in the Book, he brings Dyer a toy bear with a funny shirt, but he brings him a stuffed penguin in the Film.
Why bother?!?
In the Book, there is nothing that overt.
This is part of a larger feel of adding more mysticism.
Granted- they are always just sounding boards for Blatty's curious prose as the Detective.
Even so, it's a shame that they give Kinderman a 'token black partner' and stripped away all of his identity (and most of his lines).
Is that called The Winston?
We hear that a Nurse was killed and about what happened to her.
In the Film, well, you know...
On top of *that,* the follow-up attack in the Detective's House doesn't happen in the Book- at all!
The Exorcism!
Father Morning is made up specifically for the Film and serves as a very literal Deux Ex Machina (by proxy). He stops the possessed woman from killing Kinderman at his home and tries to exorcise the Gemini from Karras.
Again- all of the more explicit supernatural stuff is in this Version.
In the Film, Karras lets himself be killed to end the whole thing.
In the Book, Gemini's Father dies of a stroke (not caused by him) and the spirit chooses to leave when 'its work was done.'
Yep, no random Priest to add in just to die in the Book.
The Book is deep and cerebral. There's lots of discussions about fate, humanity and all of that.
In other words, it is pretentious as hell!
Don't get me wrong- it's quite good. It's just not the Horror story that the Film became.
It feels like a continuation of events that took place after 'The Exorcist.'
The Film is clearly a Sequel (and the only one that counts).
If you like the Film (the official or unofficial Cut), the Book is a nice companion piece that definitely has less 'pizazz' (or Pazuzu) than it.
If you like the Book, the Film is a more streamlined, but also expanded take on the source material. There's plenty of stuff missing- including a bit where Temple argues with a double- that could have been in the Film.
Both are good, but the Film is perhaps a more brisk experience that gets you to the same place. No, not Hell.
Darn?
No comments:
Post a Comment