 |
| Scene from The Exorcist |
Welcome to a new column called Channel Surfing, in which I sporadically look at current TV shows and talk about them. These are not ones that I care to write weekly recaps for and are instead reflections either on the episode, the series, or particular moments. This will hopefully help to share personal opinions as well as discover entertainment on the outer pantheon that I feel is well worth checking out, or in some cases, shows that are weird enough to talk about, but should never be seen.
There has become an unspoken rule in modern TV pop culture: if you were a popular horror film, you have to have a TV series. While sometimes this results in acclaimed hits like Hannibal or Bates Motel, they can also go the other way with shows like Damien or Rosemary's Baby. The spectrum isn't the best for serialized scares, and it's easy to see why. The idea of a reboot seems inherently lazy, especially since a few tweaks can make any generic series into something original and possibly more engaging. It's when you add the sense of familiarity that comparisons will begin to be made, and soon a show can be bad without actually having anything terrible because it isn't as good as the film. Purists would even nitpick the differences meant to isolate the series from the film.
Enter Fox's The Exorcist. The new series has the unfortunate hurdle of being disowned by the film that influenced it. Director William Friedkin stated that he didn't actually give the show a blessing of any sort. While he isn't the most specific voice that matters (that's writer William Peter Blatty), it does paint a picture of obsolescence. It is also based off of Blatty's original novel, but serves more as a sequel series that takes place after the events of Friedkin's film. In fact, reference to the original is slim at best, with even the central cast being predominantly new characters. To the few who likely will care that the show is on (Friday night time slots are rarely encouraging signs), they likely will see it as a series in name only. Even then, is it worth its weight?
Considering that this is the second major series of 2016 to feature priest protagonists (Preacher), it does feel like an odd trend. Father Ortega (Alfonso Herrera) is the central character here, and he has the familiar shtick. He is grappling with his faith while having to deal with possessed individuals whose faces are TV-levels of horrific scarring with demonic voices booming from children's bodies. The episode plays up the intensity, hoping to show how scary exorcisms really are. While another component that made the film scary was its use of medical practice, the show feels more geared towards a story based around a travelling healer. It isn't a terrible idea for a plot, but does run the risk of growing redundant quickly.
That isn't to say that the show isn't without some bite. The aforementioned exorcism scenes do have gripping visuals. The third act is itself a wonderfully insane twist for the rest of the season. The stories manage to work absent of The Exorcist moniker, and it is for the best. Ortega is a compelling character, though he needs to develop more personality to elevate the overall show. Its balance of religious themes and demonic imagery is exciting for a horror series on a basic cable channel. As long as watched without concern of it being Friedkin-level good, it might actually be worth checking out. It likely will disappear fast and have at best a cult audience thanks to Netflix, but at least the creators have something compelling to work with while it lasts.
Is The Exorcist good? Yes. It isn't a great show that reinvents any genre and has yet to have a great character moment. However, its visceral energy and writing is good enough. While the closing scene set to "Tubular Bells" may remind audiences of how inferior the series is, it will at least serve as a fun little blast, especially if exorcism stories fascinate you. Much like Fox's other reboot TV series from this week, Lethal Weapon, there's still a question as to why it has any connections to the superior movies. The only difference is that The Exorcist has more promise to do something different than its source material and be seen as its own entity, for better or worse.
Enter Fox's The Exorcist. The new series has the unfortunate hurdle of being disowned by the film that influenced it. Director William Friedkin stated that he didn't actually give the show a blessing of any sort. While he isn't the most specific voice that matters (that's writer William Peter Blatty), it does paint a picture of obsolescence. It is also based off of Blatty's original novel, but serves more as a sequel series that takes place after the events of Friedkin's film. In fact, reference to the original is slim at best, with even the central cast being predominantly new characters. To the few who likely will care that the show is on (Friday night time slots are rarely encouraging signs), they likely will see it as a series in name only. Even then, is it worth its weight?
Considering that this is the second major series of 2016 to feature priest protagonists (Preacher), it does feel like an odd trend. Father Ortega (Alfonso Herrera) is the central character here, and he has the familiar shtick. He is grappling with his faith while having to deal with possessed individuals whose faces are TV-levels of horrific scarring with demonic voices booming from children's bodies. The episode plays up the intensity, hoping to show how scary exorcisms really are. While another component that made the film scary was its use of medical practice, the show feels more geared towards a story based around a travelling healer. It isn't a terrible idea for a plot, but does run the risk of growing redundant quickly.
That isn't to say that the show isn't without some bite. The aforementioned exorcism scenes do have gripping visuals. The third act is itself a wonderfully insane twist for the rest of the season. The stories manage to work absent of The Exorcist moniker, and it is for the best. Ortega is a compelling character, though he needs to develop more personality to elevate the overall show. Its balance of religious themes and demonic imagery is exciting for a horror series on a basic cable channel. As long as watched without concern of it being Friedkin-level good, it might actually be worth checking out. It likely will disappear fast and have at best a cult audience thanks to Netflix, but at least the creators have something compelling to work with while it lasts.
Is The Exorcist good? Yes. It isn't a great show that reinvents any genre and has yet to have a great character moment. However, its visceral energy and writing is good enough. While the closing scene set to "Tubular Bells" may remind audiences of how inferior the series is, it will at least serve as a fun little blast, especially if exorcism stories fascinate you. Much like Fox's other reboot TV series from this week, Lethal Weapon, there's still a question as to why it has any connections to the superior movies. The only difference is that The Exorcist has more promise to do something different than its source material and be seen as its own entity, for better or worse.
Comments
Post a Comment