MovieChat Forums > The Exorcist (1973) Discussion > Damien name meaning...

Damien name meaning...

posted 7 years ago by apollo86
18 replies | jump to latest

After a recent re-read of the novel I noticed a really neat bit of foreshadowing when Merrin is explaining to Chris the origin of the name Damien-a Catholic priest who devoted his life to helping lepers on the island of Molokai until he contracted the disease himself. Of course, this is a direct parallel to Karras's story, as he put all his devotion into helping cure Regan, eventually taking her "disease" into himself and making an ultimate sacrifice to save her.

It's very cool how Blatty put so much thought into some character's names, to the point where it ties in with their fate and/or personality (Kinder-man? + The dual nature of the brothers Kane in the Ninth Configuration, I'm sure there's more). Little details like this is why I always come back to such literature.

[–] bastasch8647 7 years ago

Yeah. And in the book Merrin explains his first name, saying he thinks he was named after a shio, maybe a bridge, probably a bridge. Of course, Merrin's experience and faith function as a kind of "bridge" for Karras to step out on, on his way to receiving faith again. Merrin's presence is a bridge to hope for Chris. Etc.

[–] 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bastasch8647 7 years ago

the demon got played by God

Beautiful Blattian irony. Almost makes me feel sorry for the demon!

[–] blaydes 7 years ago

The Demon got played, in the sense that it is a pawn on God's chessboard. But then so is everyone and everything. In and of itself, evil is an illusion. A mask of God, interpreted as evil by the mind of man. In truth, both good and evil are illusion, though they seem as quite real in our experience. Christ saw beyond this veil of illusion, and demonstrated and taught how we may all do the same; though it is very complicated and takes many years of devotion to get anywhere near his level because it involves erasing all that we have been brainwashed to believe. But that too is part of the process. In the book of John, they asked Jesus when he was approached by the blind man: "Who did sin, that this man was blind?" He answered "NEITHER HAS THIS MAN SINNED NOR HIS PARENTS. BUT THAT THE WORKS OF GOD BE MADE MANIFEST IN HIM" If God is Omnipresent (one presence; only presence), Omnipotent (one power, only power), and Omniscient (one intelligence, only intelligence), then there can be NO OTHER power, presence, or intelligence. If God created all, then nothing else exists. Therefore, the BELIEF in a power, presence, or intelligence OTHER than God is a LIE born from the allegorical story of The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. A belief in a pair of opposites. There is only one. God.

[–] bastasch8647 7 years ago

A belief in a pair of opposites. There is only one. God.

But as Jung and J. Campbell - and many others - have pointed out, if God is also a "Creator", then "He Himself" is a "Taoistic" Oneness that is however composed of the coincidence of opposites - good and evil, light and dark, etc.

Certainly Yahweh, the Hebrew Creator, combines opposites in his nature and behavior, which combine sublime good with the most vicious, petty, and random evil, as is attested in the Hebrew Bible from Genesis through Deuteronomy to the Psalms to the book of Job.

You propose that Christ is beyond the wall or veil of earthly opposites (and their attendant evils), but still, even Jesus seemed to believe in a light-dark God who can "lead us into temptation", and who permits Satan to reign as "the Prince of this world".

If God created all, then nothing else exists.

That doesn't necessarily follow, if you're thinking of Yahweh-God. The early Hebrew Bible not only has Yahweh admit the existence of other gods; it actually depicts Yahweh as being only one of a heavenly/angelic host, who received Israel as his "portion" when the one true God, El-Elyon ("the Most High"), was dispensing territories to the lesser gods. Thus there can be many worlds and things created besides those called into existence by Yahweh, who was only one of many sons of the Most High.

If, however, you want to argue that the Most High (in contrast to lesser God Yahweh) - or some functional equivalent of a Highest Creator - is the ultimate God, then perhaps nothing exists that the Most High did not create.
That makes a kind of sense - one Creator, with one seamless Creation. No secondary Creators.
But what does that do to the religious concept of free will and sin? If the Most High created sin and evil, and humankind can do nothing but follow that "karma" as decreed by the Creator, doesn't that mean that no human being has free will, and/or is responsible for his/her actions?

More to the point in this thread/board, what does it do to - what does it say about - Damien Karras' deliberate self-sacrifice for Regan MacNeil? If he, the girl and "Pazuzu" were merely the karmic, predestined pawns of the Most High, this would speak volumes about the Most High's utterly corrupt nature - in which his moral status would automatially and inevitably degrade and sink into the functional equivalent of Gnostic Christianity's "Creator as blind, evil Demiurge-Creator". Not very complimentary to God or to humankind... unless I am reading you incorrectly.

[–] blaydes 7 years ago

What I am talking about is not easily explained and/or understood on a relative and even intelecual level. It could only be comprehended on an absolute level, when the mind is silent, and the intellect is still. Christ would not have been able to perform the multitudinous healings if he had been trapped in the same vicious cycle of good vrsus evil like the rest of us are. The light of God is all there is to experience; but, because that light is beyond even the most complex, in it's Infinite and eternal nature, it requires a steadfast dedication of minute to minute, day to day "dying" of the old self to even begin to perceive the Truth of it. Due to this, we, in our attempts to "know" all about God, we try to CONCEPTUALIZE the Truth- eat of the tree of knowledge- and so therefore bring upon ourselves the results of such action, be the results either good (on occasion) or evil (more often than not). NONETHELESS, be that as it may, this experience is what ultimately pushes us towards the higher goal, which is to be Christ-like. As for his mention of the "Prince of darkness", etc, that is a matter of for the purpose of mention for the people he spoke to. Having ears, they were not read for the full message. So he often used terms or specific forms of parable and what-not in order to plant seeds into the higher states of Consciousness of his audience. I'm ot calling him a liar, but at times he spoke in riddles. However, and this is especially true in the Gospel of John, as well as the Gospel of Thomas (from the Nag Hamaddhi scriptures), he speaks very plainly. The Sermon on The Mount is as plain as it got; especially the scripture "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your father, who is in heaven, is perfect". As for the quote from The Lord's Prayer, I amone of those who are convinced with the argument that it was added in after Christ, centuries later. There is a theory that when the disciples asked him how to pray, he actually didn't respond. This would fit the practice of Christian Mysticism (among many other forms of Mystical practice) that silence from the person who prays is the only true prayer. That any attempts to try and inform orpersuade God to doanything for us is a waste of time. True prayer is when we humbly admit to ourselves that we know not at all how to pray as we ought, and so we simply say something simple like: "Speak Lord, for thy servant heareth" as Samuel did. True Prayer is when we shut the hell up telling, or pleading, or in any way persuading God of anything and we instead listen to the inner voice; or the "still, small voice", which isn't always literally a voice (more often it is a sense of profound peace that wells up within and is felt through every fiber of our being). In the "Lords Prayer", we ask God to not lead us into temptation. How does that even make sense? Why would a benevolent and Loving creative force of all life, who asked Adam and Eve "who told you thou wast naked?", who is of too pure eyes to behold evil"...why would he do such a horrendous thing? Why would God create sin, make us capable of sin, and then torture us for committing the sin he created? No wonder atheists are confused. This explaination is pathetic and makes God, who is pure love, who told the Prodigal Son "thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine"...it makes God sound like a tyrant worse than Hitler. Manson has a bigger heart than this kind of description.

A better explaination is that "this" world of sin, sickness, hate, disease, insanity, war, poverty, government corruption, inequality, demons, etc, is not God-made, but a dream within our cocoons, of our pairs of opposites world that we have woven snugly around ourselves. It is an illusion because it is a very poor explaination for something we cannot possibly ever fully comprehend. We create "laws" and all the while break those very laws every day; all the while wasting our time reaping what we sow (drowning in Karma). St. Paul, who understood it and explained it better than even Jesus (at least as Jesus was interpreted) explained it best of all with his declaration: "without the 'law' there would be no sin". Chapter 8 of Romans also cuts to the chase on this point, especially the last several verses. "Even the creature is subject unto God". It is true that nothing can seperate us from that which creates us every second of every moment of every day (not just one time a long time ago, but right now, this moment, this place, this experience in animated form, God is forever unfolding us into expression in all His Glory and Wisdom of Being), but we, in our Adam-Dream/cocoon world of illusional good versus evil world, seem to seperate ourselves within the shadow of God. It's o.k. though because, as the Psalmsist tells us "whether (we) make our bed in hell, THOU ART EVER WITH ME".

As for Joseph Campbell, the best example he used was from the Tibetan Book of The Dead. During stages (Bardo) or states of deathe, as the practitioner guides the "victim" on through the experience, the said victim encounters first the Wrathful deities, and then the Peaceful deities. Campbell, in his classic last interview with Bill Moyer (therefore probably on youtube somewhere), he explains that the wrathful and peaceful deities were really the same deities, but with different masks according to the psychological state of the person passing on (dying). At first the dying patient is "afraid" of God, and so sees God as wrathful...something to fear, and so he interprets horrible and mean demonic looking creatures sticking their tongues out with wild eyes and sadistic expressions (not much unlike Regan's appearance in The Exorcist, in fact); but then, once the practitioner has guided the patient further, the deities become peaceful as the psyche of the dying victim becomes more aware and clear of the evoution occuring throughout his passing on phase. The negative karma is cleared away, the fear is gone, and so the projection given forth sees now instead feminine, lovely, angelic creatures with loving smiles and forgiving eyes, etc...

As for Carl Jung, it would take volumes to go into for me. I am not as fully informed on him, except to speak of his explaination-on the anima-animus factor; and how the dark/light work together in unison to ANIMATE, much like Yin and Yang of Lao-Tzu and the Tao, all life into form. Yes the dark and light exist, but can only be seen as good versus evil by the mind of man when attempting to fixate on one or the other; or one AGAINST the other instead of dark/light as a unified team (so to speak). When we refrain from trying to determine life as "right or wrong", when we keep from judging if something is good or evil, if we rise above the tree of knowledge,and return to the garden where nakedness (or sin) doesn't exist, and live in our natural state, THEN will we be aware of our TRUE relationship with God. Reward and punishment has nothing to do with it. God is giving just as much love to the sinner as he is the saint. It is our ignorance of that love, which we can overcome at any time, that keeps us from experiencing that love in all it's fullness and glory. God is thesame today as yesterday and tomorrow. It is we who must srise from slumber. We must return from the second chapter of Genesis (when mortal material man is created; and the "Lord Jehovah" is first mentioned), to the first chapter of Genesis (when the Spiritual man is created "in His image and likeness", and only the word 'God', without the prefix 'Lord' is mentioned). If you don't believe me qbout the change in God's name from simply "God" to "Lord God", from first chapter to second, look into it in King James (at least; not sure about later interps.). And it does matter.

I hope that explains how I view it.

[–] bastasch8647 7 years ago

Thanks for your detailed reply, and the clarifications.

[–] blaydes 7 years ago

Thank you, sir.

[–] bastasch8647 7 years ago

u r beddy beddy welcome.

[–] apollo86 7 years ago

Readers of the book definitely get the idea that this is "round 2" between Merrin and the demon, but the film leaves it more ambiguous- while the demon's hatred for Merrin is obvious in both, it's the book which suggests more so that Regan's possession is to lure Merrin into one last confrontation to even up the score by Merrin bearing witness to Regan's death. Hence the raging of the demon after Merrin's death in the book as he is now beyond witness and has denied the demon its moment of triumph. This isn't even an issue in the film, as the demon seems pleased at Merrin's death and begins giggling when Karras fails to resuscitate him.

My understanding of the movie version is different. Friedkin went out to just depict these events, and let the viewer come to their own determination on how they came about and what they mean. To that end, I view Regan's possession in the movie as a random intervention by a malevolent, nihilistic entity who acted on the opportunity to possess the body of an innocent and wreak havoc on her and every person around her who bears witness to this. He could have easily expanded Merrin's lines to "There is only one. And I have met it before..." or something to that effect if he wanted to beat us over the head with the idea that the demon is on a revenge mission.

Of course, the ouija board is how this entity was summoned in the first place as the board is believed to open a "gateway" of some sort, with the rub being that we don't know if what's coming through this gateway is naughty or nice! Regan was the perfect target- young, naive, lonely and vulnerable due to the breakdown of her family and neglect by her father. All of a sudden she unwittingly gives this demon an inroads and so begins the "grooming" by Captain Howdy until he has manifested strongly enough to overtake her personality completely (one of the story's creepiest elements imo), the proverbial wolf in sheep's clothing.

The movie is quite a different beast from the book. Friedkin simply jettisoned anything he thought laboured the point of why this happened to this girl. The movie demon's vendetta is against whatever we consider to be good or pure, to put doubts in the minds of Regan's onlookers about the value of humanity, "to make us despair, see ourselves as animal and ugly", as Merrin says. It never entered my mind that God is engineering all of this, to me God is somewhat conspicuous by His absence in the novel and movie.

[–] bastasch8647 7 years ago

It never entered my mind that God is engineering all of this, to me God is somewhat conspicuous by His absence in the novel and movie.

Yeah, I don't think Blatty was saying that God was manipulating the events. Otoh, Blatty did say he wrote the story as his contribution to the Apostolate, i.e., the Church's mission in the world. So God wasn't too far from his mind, if not present in the story's events.

As I wrote in another post, in the novel, God "appears" as an Absence, and as a radiant, longed-for memory in Damien's mind. And Blatty invokes the cliche that God can bring good even out of evil, e.g., in the book the evil of demonic possession is a means for Karras' return to faith and for his sacrifice to save Regan.
As Dyer tells Chris in the novel, "But if all the evil in the world makes you believe in the Devil, how do you account for all the good...?"
But of course, as you said, Friedkin's film is a horse of another color. He didn't brow-beat the audience with any blatant, overt theological questions. He left it to the audience to formulate such inquiries.

That's why I made that other post about the beam of divine light appearing to save the day at the end of the Exorcist III film: is this bringing-in of God via direct intervention a sign that Blatty's own view is larger than the one of "God manifesting as an Absence"...? Or was the light beam a lazy, cheap way to end a film over whose denouemant he had lost significant control...?

[–] 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] apollo86 7 years ago

Good catches, but nothing that definitively confirms that this is indeed the same demon. The signs add up to Merrin knowing he will again be in conflict with an evil entity, and that Merrin is experienced in such matters.

The first and most ambiguous, when the curator says he wished Merrin didn't have to leave, Merrin responds (In Iraqi language): "There is something I must do."

Second, the way the Pazuzu statue/Merrin is filmed squaring off - classic western showdown between the sheriff and the outlaw, was heavily implied Merrin will be facing a sinister conflict. The visual symbolism along with other signs (the dogs, the old lady) was quite strong.

The whole Iraqi prologue definitely is dripping in symbolism, all prefiguring what's to come. It creates an atmosphere of foreboding and Merrin's precognition that he will be facing an evil force. For a long time I thought the statue was literally the same demon that possesses Regan (a big misconception!), but now realise it's there just to symbolise the evil he now knows he will encounter.

Third, when Karras is listening to the tape recording backwards and the demon repeats Merrin's name, well before the old priest's arrival.

The demon has some powerful supernatural abilities, knowing exactly where to pick weaknesses (Karras's mother's death) and is suggested it has powers of omnipresence ("could ya help an old alter boy Faddah?"), therefore it may use such abilities to know that Merrin will be the exorcist.

And fourth, the university president said, "Besides, he's had experience. Ten, twelve years ago I think, in Africa. The exorcism supposedly lasted for months. I heard it damn near killed him."

Again, no explicit proof this is the same entity, just some exposition to underline Merrin's experience and suitability to be exorcist. Bringing it back to the prologue, it now makes sense how Merrin was able to read all those symbols and understand that he will once again be called on to perform an exorcism-he could have had similar experiences before the first exorcism.

And this was another bone of contention Blatty was most displeased when Friedkin cut the line by the demon, "This time, you're going to lose." Blatty stated he wished he had placed that line somewhere else in the screenplay on the chance it wouldn't get cut.

Well that would have been great- that one line, delivered with suitable bile would have put us right into the mind-frame that the demon has a vendetta against Merrin for defeating it previously, and is intent on punishing Merrin for this. That first encounter between them in the house, later recounted by Sharon was a really creepy and effective part of the book. It must have really stuck in Blatty's craw as he included the line in Exorcist 3, which didn't make much sense in the context of saying it to Father Morning.

[–] 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] apollo86 7 years ago

Well in all fairness to the film viewers who had no prior info of the novel, Friedkin encouraged that belief when he inserted a flash image of Pazuzu in Regan's bedroom. (which as you know is not in the novel)

Nor was it even in the original (and superior imo, it's the version I find myself going back to more often) version of the movie, those flash images inserted by Friedkin in TVYNS were very badly misjudged, and completely went against the spirit in which he made the film. My favourite is Howdy appearing above the stove lol. He must have realised this himself and luckily cut some of them for the subsequent Blu-ray release. I enjoy some of the beefed-up soundtrack on the extended cut though.

It's a testament to both novel and movie that viewers can have different interpretations, to the point where even the author isn't totally sure about some aspects- a big reason why it still fascinates and encourages us to discuss, to critique! 😉😉

Thanks for the link, interesting to see where Blatty was going originally, and that Karras was originally called Father Thomas, as in Doubting Thomas? Blatty and his names again! 😀

[–] 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Sugarminx 7 years ago

But Blatty maintains his way of construing it, it was the demon that was used and Karras was the target, not Merrin

Ha!! That's what I've always said...well, once I heard Blatty himself explain it thusly a few years ago 

The theme is not about vendetta, it's about salvation...according to Blatty. So Karras' fate was not sacrifice, his fate was salvation.

Exactement. And ultimately why people shouldn't find the film so terrifying or be filled with despair over its ending...

God lulled the demon into a snare, the sweet nectar of revenge proved too irresistible and God puppeteered him right where he needed the demon, God's target: Karras' salvation.

Quite the crafty deity, isn't he.

Just another example of His good natured buffoonery! He couldn't have engineered Karras' salvation by performing a miracle? Turning prune juice into cognac? Multiplying a bunch of halibut? Nah - far too vulgar a display of power... 

"Puss rules!"
"It's Pus"

[–] Edward_de_Vere 7 years ago

After a recent re-read of the novel I noticed a really neat bit of foreshadowing when Merrin is explaining to Chris the origin of the name Damien-a Catholic priest who devoted his life to helping lepers on the island of Molokai until he contracted the disease himself. Of course, this is a direct parallel to Karras's story, as he put all his devotion into helping cure Regan, eventually taking her "disease" into himself and making an ultimate sacrifice to save her.

There's a good film from about 15-20 years ago about Father Damien and the Hawaiian leper colony called Molokai.