TNMC
This site’s design is only visible in a graphical browser that supports web standards, but its content is accessible to any browser or Internet device.
The Exorcist vs. Princess Mononoke. Sort of...
Hollyfeld, here. Welcome to the latest (and long-awaited) edition of Look Closer... Yes, I know it's been too long. Well, you're sweet to worry, but everything's fine. Hollyfeld's been a little busy lately is all - I've had a lot of personal business to tend to, I'm writing my new script, I've started a new column, and besides, I've been waiting to do this special double-sized edition of the column.
Today (and any other day you might choose to read this column) Look Closer... is perhaps more true to its name than ever before, because today John Shea and I are looking closer at two critically-acclaimed films we originally very much disliked. The goal? To see exactly what everyone sees in these films that we failed to latch on to upon our first viewings. I for one have never, ever been a big fan of The Exorcist (a film John loves), whereas John is quite well known for his overwhelmingly negative review of Princess Mononoke (one of my all time favorites). Let's Look Closer... shall we?
The Exorcist
My brother screwed me up as a kid. While my parents were showing me Mrs. Miniver and The Philadelphia Story, he was showing me Evil Dead II and Fist of the North Star. So I grew up on a rather eclectic series of filmic entertainments. My favorite genre was, however, the diverse world of horror, from the works of James Whale to the oeuvre of John Carpenter. But like everyone who is a movie fan, there are just some movies that fall through the cracks; classics you haven't seen but know you should have. The Exorcist was one of these movies - a quote, unquote "classic" horror film whose fans insisted it would have me afraid to turn the lights off for a week. The Entertainment Weekly Guide to the Greatest Movies Ever Made (although now technically out-of-date, still the best book of it's kind... period) assured me it was, as of 1994, the 27th best sci-fi/horror film of all time, adding that, "you'll wonder how it ever got an R rating - today's more uptight ratings board would slap an NC-17 on this thing before the first 20 minutes were up." (Incidentally, after watching the first 20 minutes of this thing, I sort of doubt that last statement.) Hell, the American Film Institute placed it among the Top Three most heart-pounding movies of all time. So in hindsight, perhaps I was going into my first experience with The Exorcist with my expectations a little too high. It's happened before, and will no doubt happen again. The point is, when I finally saw it, I was underwhelmed.
Friedkin's direction was slow - intentionally so, I had no doubt even then, but for my own personal taste it seemed downright lethargic. The build-up to the possession seemed pointless, as I never really seemed to find anything to connect with in the characters. The possession was never explained (although that was certainly the point, the omission of vital information didn't do anything for me), and although the actual scenes of violence (the infamous crucifix scene, etc.) were interesting, I was never particularly "scared."
Flash forward a few years - I now work for an internet news site, and am finally surrounded (electronically) by people who love film as much as I do... occasionally even more. And still they insist that I see The Exorcist again - apparently I missed something the first time around. So when it came up once more in the forum about a month ago, I finally just buckled down and said, "Fine - I'll see this film I REALLY didn't like again, but I'll be DAMNED if I'm not going to take someone else with me." So I issued an open challenge to John, stating that I'll take a closer look at this film that he defends so vehemently, if he does the same for a movie I love. And here we are.
I rented the DVD of The Exorcist a little while ago, waiting for a time when I would not be disturbed (though I left myself open for the movie itself to do so), and began to watch. And I've got to be honest - I like it a bit more. I can even appreciate now why others like it so much. But does it do anything for me? Not especially. But that's fine - not every film has to touch you on an intimate level, after all.
The Exorcist stars Linda Blair as Regan, a little girl who is somewhat inexplicably afflicted with a demonic possession. Or is she? Most of the film is occupied with her mother's (Ellen Burstyn) attempts to explain and cure her daughter's afflictions (ranging from green skin to violent shaking to doing unspeakable things with a crucifix and then - quite literally - shoving her mother's face in it). Finally, after eliminating every scientific possibility, her mother seeks out Catholic priest Father Damien (Jason Miller), who is having problems with his faith, to perform an exorcism. To aid him the church sends the aging Father Merrin (the great Max Von Sydow), the only man known to have actually performed a successful exorcism, to assist.
The Exorcist is perhaps best known for its disturbing level of gore, although I find this ironic because there are only two or three scenes that really push the envelope (to be fair, however, they are pretty obscene). Upon this latest viewing I found myself surprised at the level of intelligence that the rest of the film contains, particularly the contrasts and juxtapositions of atheism and faith. To hear director William Friedkin (The French Connection) and screenwriter William Peter Blatty talk about it, The Exorcist was meant to be a celebration of faith, even if it celebrates in a particularly roundabout way. The Exorcist asserts that there is more to this world than science can ascertain, and mixing spirituality and scientific reasoning is often a bad idea. Naturally, when Regan first shows unusual symptoms, her mother sends her to a series of doctors, each with their own theories of why the little girl is afflicted. They are, of course, all proven wrong. I particularly enjoyed the way that Friedkin shot the examination scenes - medical equipment were turned into scientific monstrosities, and Regan suffers more visibly while they do their work. Eventually, of course, her doctors give up, and suggest that Regan resort to exorcism as a last resort. When science fails, mankind is once again left with religion.
I was also able to appreciate the more subtle build up to the horror this time around, although I still think the pacing seems a little off. The rattling in the attic seems more ominous now, but I can't help but wonder if I would think so if I didn't know The Exorcist's complete plot. Genuine dread comes from the advance knowledge of horror in the future - if there is no advance knowledge, there is no dread. I suppose this adds to the randomness of the possession, since the characters have no idea what is going on at the time. Since I know what is to come, perhaps the purpose was lost on me. The characters are more effectively crafted than I once considered, as well. In particular, Father Damien's subplot seems more interesting, and his lack of faith seems more complete. The new version was slightly inferior in my eyes, with the only excellent addition being the added bit of dialogue between Damien and Merrin, which encapsulates the entire film's theme and mood in just a few short moments.
I still wasn't particularly scared, but I think this has more to do with me than it does with the movie. Put simply, it takes a lot to scare me these days, although it does happen (Dead Ringers, the original Night of the Living Dead). But I can see why others would find The Exorcist horrifying - the randomness of the evil, the parent unable to aid her afflicted child, and the proof positive that there are dark forces in the world. It may not be on my Top 10 horror films ever made, but I can finally say that at least I have a respect for it.
And now for something completely different, Webmaster John Shea's RE-review of Hayao Miyazaki's Princess Mononoke.
Princess Mononoke
Let's start with a bit of review. I first saw Princess Mononoke at the Virginia Film Festival in October 2000. It was the last movie to be shown on Saturday night and it didn't start until around midnight. I had been going since about 10 AM with very little to eat. I had been sitting in that particular theater for about eight hours. I was coming down off the high of watching Silence of the Lambs with Anthony Hopkins in attendance and then later meeting the man. What I'm saying is that I was dead tired by the time the movie started.
I might have shut my eyes a few times during the movie but I don't think I actually fell asleep. At least I wasn't snoring like fellow TNMCer Ultra Magnus. So I admit I wasn't in the best frame of mind for judging the movie fairly. I wrote up a review but it was not particularly flattering. Comments like "The characters were simply not engaging enough to carry the story" and "I don't know, it was pretty damn boring" littered the review.
Well I've been getting a steady stream of hate mail since posting that review. Here are some excerpts:
"I don't think I've ever, in my life, encountered someone who managed to so completely and utterly miss the point of a film."
"I just hope next time you write a review, watch the movie first and pay more attension to the movie then the little voice saying in true 4 year old fasion 'are we there yet? can I go now? Is it over yet? I'm sleepy! I want to go home! This is stupid! Cry cry cry, pout pout pout.'"
Finally in the midst of an argument over The Exorcist Hollyfeld challenged me to take another look at the movie. He was amongst those sending me hate mail. However I'm unwilling to quote any of those messages as I try not to deeply offend the readers in that manner. He really ought to watch that language. (Your mother - Hollyeld.) Anyway, in the interest of fairness I gave the movie a second shot.
Okay, I admit it. I was wrong. This movie does not suck. It is in fact pretty damn good. Do I love the movie? No but that is more a matter of personal taste. I do have an appreciation and respect for it now that will cause me to cheerfully encourage your seeing the film.
In my initial review I accused the movie of being little more than a thinly veiled environmental message. That is basically the view you get from the most cursory of glances at the film. It is a far more balanced and deep film than that. What makes the movie so fascinating is the incredibly balanced view it takes of all its events and characters. Such depth of writing is rare in any movie, nevermind an animated one. Hopefully someday American audiences will learn to accept animation as a reasonable format for serious movies. Currently, the overwhelming view is that animation is strictly for kids. Animated films like Titan A.E. or even Disney's recent Atlantis that are intended for older audiences simply flounder at the box office. Sad but true. But I digress.
The film takes place in ancient times when men were still struggling to control the wild. Gods still walked the earth in the form of enormous beasts. The movie follows Prince Ashitaka (voiced by Billy Crudup) as he travels the world. As the movie opens, his village has come under attack from a demon. Ashitaka slays the demon but in the process becomes infected. He has no choice but to leave his village and seek a cure. The demon was once a boar god but he was shot by a primitive rifle and driven mad. Ashitaka goes in search of whoever might have done this to the boar god.
Basically a peace loving man, Ashitaka's right arm begins to take on a violent life of its own. Forced to defend himself from attacking samurai, his infected arm alters his aim, causing him to kill two men. He struggles mightily for the rest of the movie to control his arm.
Eventually Ashitaka comes to Irontown, a small walled city ruled by Lady Eboshi (voiced by Minnie Driver). She has been slowly taking the forest back from the wolf and boar gods in search of iron ore. It was her gun that infected and drove mad the boar god that Ashitaka encountered. It would be simple to label her the movie's villain but she is simply interested in the prosperity of her people. She employs lepers to design better guns and hires women away from brothels to work her forges. Hardly the actions of an evil character.
Lady Eboshi's plans are opposed by the wolf god Moro (voiced by Gillian Anderson) and her human daughter San (voiced by Claire Daines). San was raised by the wolves and has grown to utterly hate humans for their destruction of her forest. She will stop at nothing to kill Lady Eboshi and halt her further expansion. Ashitaka finds himself in the odd position of sympathizing with both women and he runs himself ragged trying to find a solution to satisfy both of them. He symbolizes the movie's careful approach to the story and characters that leaves it without any true villains. Nobody's motives are genuinely evil. This manages to make all the characters more interesting and sympathetic rather than demonizing one in the interest of humanizing another.
The film's artwork is first rate. It has an elegant beauty and a wealth of creativity that make it worth watching purely for the visuals. The action has a wondrous grace and energy I've rarely seen in animated movies. Watch the way San skitters over the rooftops of Irontown or the writhing skin of an infected boar god for perfect examples. It is also a film that doesn't shy away from or gloss over violence. Battles are frighteningly bloody affairs that highlight the horrors of war. That's not to say that the film endorses violence in any way. Quite the opposite actually as we follow Ashitaka's almost desperate quest to stop war that goes beyond concern for his own safety.
All in all the film is unlike just about anything else out there and deserves a couple hours of your time. Just make sure you're plenty awake first though.
So I guess we've all learned a little lesson today - classic movies tend to be classics for a reason, they just might not touch everyone in the same way. (I still hate The Cider House Rules, but that's another column.)
As always, Hollyfeld can be reached at hollyfeld_@hotmail.com
You there! You think you could do this job better than I can? Well, you might be right! Look Closer… is always looking for guest columnists, and you might as well be one of them. Just write a review of reasonable length for a movie that you think is under-rated, over-rated, no one knows, etc., and if it makes the grade we will print it in an edition of this column! Those whose reviews are published will also receive a free piece of (slightly cheesy and really inexpensive) promotional merchandise from a movie, to be sent when their review is published, courtesy of me. Just send any and all reviews to the above address. Thank you for reading and participating in the site!
Lazlo Hollyfeld is the pseudonym of an aspiring writer/actor/director located in Southern California. With one screenplay under his (collaborative) belt and more to come, he is sure to work his way up in the world with the help of his talented and close-knit group of friends, co-workers, and penguins. Yes, you heard me, penguins. A film student since before he can remember, he has devoted much of his life to the study of the silver screen and its related art forms.
