What's Happening?
A new documentary titled 'Boorman and the Devil,' written and directed by David Kittredge, offers an in-depth look into the making of the 1977 film 'Exorcist II: The Heretic.' The documentary explores how the sequel to 'The Exorcist' became one of the most
critically panned films of its era. Director John Boorman, now 93, narrates the production process, maintaining a belief in his original vision despite the film's widespread failure. The documentary highlights the numerous bad decisions and misfortunes that plagued the production, including Boorman's illness, budget overruns, and continuous script rewrites. The film's initial sneak preview in Pasadena was met with laughter and audience outrage, leading to a rapid decline in box office attendance despite a wide release.
Why It's Important?
The documentary is important for its examination of creative hubris and the challenges of filmmaking, particularly in the New Hollywood era when directors often had significant creative control. It provides a case study of how a highly anticipated sequel, following a massively successful original, can go spectacularly wrong. The film's failure, as detailed in the documentary, illustrates the disconnect that can occur between a filmmaker's artistic vision and audience expectations, especially when dealing with established franchises. Furthermore, it touches upon the phenomenon of 'Movie Disaster Rehabilitation Culture,' where critically panned films are later re-evaluated by some cinephiles, raising questions about how cinematic legacy is formed and reinterpreted over time.
Beyond the Headlines
Beyond the immediate narrative of a film's failure, 'Boorman and the Devil' delves into the deeper implications of artistic ego and the subjective nature of critical reception. Boorman's continued belief in the quality of 'Exorcist II' years later highlights the psychological aspects of creative ownership and the difficulty artists can have in objectively assessing their own work. The documentary also implicitly critiques the trend of re-evaluating cinematic 'disasters' as misunderstood masterpieces, suggesting that some films are simply bad, regardless of their ambition. This raises questions about the criteria for artistic merit and whether a film's initial reception should be the sole determinant of its long-term value, or if there's a valid space for re-appraisal, even if controversial.
