MovieChat Forums > Dominion: Prequel to the Exorcist (2005) Discussion > did the demon change history? (spoilers)

did the demon change history? (spoilers)


When he took Merrin back to that day in Holland, was it changed for real or was it only an illusion? Seemingly those changes matched Merrin's dreams of having bandages on his head and wrist from the wounds he'd received. The demon tells him he's now past his guilt although he has committed murder now but that might be forgiven due to his defending innocents (not sure the church would welcome a priest who killed under any circumstances).

I've seen the future and I've left it behind.

reply

Excellent, thoughtful question. I have no idea how to answer it, but it's worth discussion, which I hope happens in this board :)

reply

I viewed that scene as the demon was showing Merrin that he could change the past if he was willing to submit to the demon, or meet some other demand. Merrin had those dreams as foreshadowing to his confrontation with the demon. Even though changing the past would presumably rid him of his guilt, Merrin refused, showing although he left the church he was still a man of god and wouldn't make deals with the devil. Honestly I have no idea, it's just a thought...

reply

I'm trying to word this in a way that I don't sound like an *beep*

But no the Demon did not change history, the Demon does not have that power.

To be honest I don't see how it could be a seroius question, as to whether or not the Demon changed History, but I'll treat it as legit.



In the original Exorcist, Merrin said don't listen to the Demon, the attack is psychological and powerful, it will mix lies with the truth to attack us.



And thats what plays out in Dominion, The Demon was already doing the same thing with Rachel, when Merrin found her in the cave.


reply

And the demon's "re-living the town square shootings scenario" was as hollow as any of his other "promises". In the fake scenario, Merrin gets to vent his rage/"do justice" by shooting that swine of a Nazi officer ... BUT the results are the same - the German soldiers kill everyone anyway! Merrin gets the fake "thrill"/satisfaction of killing the Nazi officer - but that's all. The demon has provided Merrin with a realistic but still fraudulent wish-fulfilling fantasy, and Merrin is no better for it - in fact, he's worse, because he has killed the officer, whereas in the real-life past situation, he didn't kill anyone...

reply

The demon was not offering to change the past. The demon was offering to change Merrin's memories of the past, to take away his guilt. Schrader did something similar with The Last Temptation of Christ: Jesus is given an illusion where he lives life as a man; the temptation is not to truly live this life, but to simply accept the illusion as truth and to "die like a man," even after he realizes it is a lie. The demon's approach here is just as psychological.... He is offering to take away Merrin's guilt for his choices, to make the sin he was forced to commit and thus live with simply go away. In short, he tempts Merrin with the opportunity to no longer feel accountable for his actions.

reply

Tin Man wrote: " Schrader did something similar with The Last Temptation of Christ"

Sorry, but Last Temptation was directed by Scorsese, not Schrader. And ... I don't think the demon is really tempting Merrin with the chance to no longer feel accountable for his actions, because even when Merrin "chooses good" in the new scenario, still "evil happens" - as is clear from the scene ending with the Nazis (minus their leader) continuing to murder all the villagers.

If the demon wanted to tempt Merrin realistically and successfully, the demon should have ended Merrin's "new decision scenario" with the villagers, not the Nazis, triumphing. As it is, the demon merely hands Merrin one more another bitter pill...unless the demon is really telling Merrin that the outcome would have been the same regardless of Merrin's actions or inaction - in which case the whole issue is moot if not empty. "Ya see, Lankester boy, there was nothin' you could do... Cheer up y'old bloke! Give a whistle!" would simply invalidate the entire story of Merrin's guilt and redemption.

reply

Yes, but Schrader wrote the screenplay.

I think the point is that the demon is offering to take away Merrin's guilt. Merrin has to choose to embrace his guilt in order to confront it and move on from it. The demon is offering to just make it go away. Hence the alternate scenario, where he shows Merrin another outcome that results in everyone's death. But that outcome is a lie. Merrin has to face his guilt, not sweep it under the rug.

reply

Which is precisely why I like that CheChe's possession was 'beatific' v a lame attempt at Dick Smith makeup (looking at you, Exorcist The Beginning). Did the demon want to become an object of worship? Pazuzu was once considered a god, although I'm willing to bet neither Schrader or the other creators really cared about a literal Pazuzu.

reply

neither Schrader or the other creators really cared about a literal Pazuzu

Probably not, but both Harlin's and Schrader's versions do contain Pazuzu statues - Harlin's has a statue virtually identical to the one in the Friedkin film, and Schrader's has a much smaller stick-frame model. I guess that was their notion of "homage" to the original story and film...

reply