The question: can one of the worse reviewed films be redeemed? Almost 50 years after its release Exorcist ll: The Heretic is considered a peculiar concoction of 1970’s New Hollywood when filmmakers were given more creative control over movie making. Director John Boorman known for his break out film Deliverance was handed a $14 million production from Warner Bros studio for the follow-up sequel to the blockbuster The Exorcist. The outcome, a tortured production more about the endurance of filmmaking than the inspiration. Upon release, the horror drama was laughed off the screen, without exception, a complete artistic, commercial failure. What went wrong?
In Boorman and The Devil, David Kittredge explores the making of The Heretic, talking to the director, key actors and production members. The documentary gives audiences an inside view of the poorly received 1977 work not based on seeking redemption but on explanation.
A Black and Paper interview with filmmaker David Kittredge.
Given the infamous reputation of Exorcist ll: The Heretic, your empathic approach to directorJohn Boorman telling his side of the story, were you nervous about him taking a victim outlook or sugar coating his role?
No, not at all. That isn’t John’s personality. If anything, he’s harder on his own work than anyone else is. When I first approached him about this project, I felt I needed to make sure he understood I wasn’t out to mock the film or do some sort of “bad-movie” documentary. We talked a lot before the shoot over emails and then over Skype, and he knew what I was after was to really dig into his creative process at this moment in his career: what was he looking for the film to achieve, how did he come to the choices he did, and where was his head during the traumatic production of the film.
If you look at his body of work, you can pretty much see how profoundly THE HERETIC affected not only the way he made films, but the way he approached cinema as a whole.
Why did you choose this film to make a movie documentary?
EXORCIST II: THE HERETIC is a fascinating and flawed work, wildly ambitious thematically and visually as well as tonally far afield from its predecessor, THE EXORCIST. I think it takes a massive amount of courage— his creative associate Rospo Pallenberg even called it “hubris”— to ask an audience to journey with a film so far away from the film they thought they were coming to see. In addition, the fact that this film, which feels more like an experimental art film than a big-budget sequel, had the highest budget in Warner Brothers’ history and one of the biggest releases ever at the time made telling this story all the more intriguing to me.
Film critic Pauline Kael in her book The Age of Movies said “Boorman is an aestheticizing director” would that term fit his approach on the look of the The Heretic?
Oh certainly— Boorman is a visual stylist and every frame in THE HERETIC feels like it was out of a dream. It’s far from the naturalistic muted vibe of THE EXORCIST.
While watching Boorman And The Devil for some reason I had a feeling John Boorman did not understand the horror genre or decided to ignore the rules. Did I misunderstand?
No I think that’s probably fair, though I’m not sure what John would say about it. I think that he viewed THE EXORCIST kind of like a well-made carnival funhouse— lots of shocks for the audience but maybe a bit shallow or juvenile. For the record, I think THE EXORCIST is one of the greatest horror movies ever made and one of the best movies of the 1970s period, but I don’t feel John really felt all the great character work in that film, which is what makes it really effective.
John viewed THE EXORCIST as a negative experience focusing on evil; he wanted THE HERETIC to be a positive and uplifting experience focusing on good. And anyone who knows horror knows, to do that and be able to scare an audience is a pretty high bar to clear.
The film’s actors and fellow filmmakers had a less harsh view than the ticket buying public. Were you surprised by the professional sympathy for the work?
Considering the sheer amount of work and craft that went into THE HERETIC from its entire crew, which featured people who are among the best in their fields in cinema history— I’m not surprised at all the crew felt they could be making something great and wished it hadn’t been taken the way it was. Everyone on that set believed in John and believed in the project. And when it failed, it hurt. These are people who take great pride in the work they do. If the documentary does anything, I hope it shows that.
As far as the filmmakers go— I think EXORCIST II: THE HERETIC is very much a filmmaker’s movie. It takes huge creative swings, and even if some don’t work, the swings alone are kind of awesome to experience. It’s a film you can dislike but any real filmmaker seeing that film would have to respect it because it’s completely clear how much thought and work went into its creation.
New Hollywood, directors had a lot of creative freedom, but the movement became “Give them enough rope”. They had big budgets, final cut, etc, yet by 1980, it was period over. Did the directors lack discipline, believing the press?
Some did for sure. I don’t think anyone sane could defend Cimino’s behavior on HEAVEN’S GATE for example. (That said, it’s quite an interesting film.) What I think really happened was audiences were shifting away from the audacity of the New Wave of Hollywood into something more escapist and kid-friendly. So much of cinema is cyclical, so at that moment it’s no surprise STAR WARS took off like a roman candle and SORCERER couldn’t even muster up a million dollars at the box office.
American audiences were in a cultural and economic malaise in the late 1970s and people wanted to go to the cinema to forget their troubles. And it’s this same audience only a few years earlier had movies like ALL THE PRESIDENT’S MEN, ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO’S.
Boorman and The Devil hits cinemas in New York City and Los Angeles on August 28th.