Editorials
Special Feature: Exorcism: An Overview Part 2
In Part 2 of our series on exorcisms – in anticipation of Warner Bros.’ The Rite, releasing January 28th – B-D reporter Chris Eggertsen briefly discusses how a Roman Catholic exorcism is performed, what the standards are for determining demonic possession, and the ways in which the practice endures even in modern times. Just make sure not to try this at home – these acts are to be performed by seasoned exorcists only and not attempted on younger siblings or crotchety old relatives.
Also Read: Exorcism: An Overview Part 1
Its cinematic interpretations aside, however, what is an exorcism ritual really like? While with the advent of modern medical and psychiatric theory the practice is far less utilized than it was previously, it is still (controversially) sanctioned by the Roman Catholic Church by being included in the Rituale Romanum, one of the official “handbooks” followed by priests when performing rites. Indeed, every Catholic Diocese around the world technically has a priest specifically designated to perform the rite of exorcism on persons who meet the standards outlined for possession.
Determining whether or not to go forth with the exorcism of a disturbed individual is a process that in modern-day Catholicism includes evaluation by medical and psychiatric professionals to see whether the symptoms of disturbance can be attributed to either mental illness or undiagnosed physical problems. If these possibilities (not to mention the possibility of outright fraud) are fully or at least partially ruled out, a Church-sanctioned priest can then theoretically be cleared to perform the exorcism rites. Some of the more surefire symptoms of demonic possession, as outlined by the Catholic Church, include:
1) Knowledge of future events or obscure concepts the allegedly possessed person couldn’t have possibly known about;
2) Speaking in languages either unknown to the person or so arcane as to have fallen out of use in the modern world;
3) Physical feats outside the realm of possibility given the person’s physical size and/or abilities; and
4) A physical aversion to sacred objects.
Interestingly, while most people associate the word “exorcism” with demonic possession, this is not the only reason an exorcism is performed; there are actually three different categories of exorcism that are utilized for different purposes. In fact, anyone who has been baptized in the Catholic Church has technically been exorcised in order to cleanse them of original sin, in a rite officially known as “baptismal exorcism”. Another type is “simple exorcism”, in which an object or physical place is blessed in order to rid it of evil influence. The sort of exorcism we all think of when we hear the term is identified simply as “real exorcism”, which involves expelling a demon or demons from a possessed individual.
During a Church-sanctioned “real exorcism”, the designated priest – dressed in official surplice and purple stole – employs various methods to try and drive the demon out. The ritual consists mainly of a series of prayers that both implore God to free the possessed person from the Devil’s influence (“the imploring formula”) and demand that the demon leave the possessed individual in the name of God (“the imperative formula”). At particular times the priest will also perform actions such as sprinkling holy water, making the sign of the cross upon the possessed, and touching the possessed with Catholic relics, often those associated with a saint (the actual physical remains of saints, including bone fragments and hair, are also known to have been used).
The “real exorcism” ritual is considered to be an incredibly dangerous and demanding spiritual and physical task, and while all ordained priests are technically eligible to perform an exorcism, only a select few of them ever actually do, at least in any official capacity (though the modern world is filled with those claiming to be exorcists, many of them scam artists). The priest performing an exorcism sanctioned by the Catholic Church must actually be appointed by a Bishop who believes that the man in question is up to the rigors of the task before him, as it is believed by many in the Church that if the priest is not strong enough in his religious convictions he may be susceptible to possession himself.
Interestingly, Vatican-affiliated school Regina Apostolorum University in Rome now offers a class on exorcism entitled “Exorcism and the Prayer of Liberation”. In the course, priests (and some non-priests) learn about the historical and theological basis of exorcism and hear lectures by experts in satanic cults, criminology and other areas related to Satanism and demonic possession, as well as by authorities in the psychiatric field, whose role is to educate students about the mental illnesses that may be confused with “genuine” demonic possession. The fact that the class is only six years old (it began in 2004) is a sure sign that the practice of exorcism, while not nearly as prevalent as it was in the earlier days of the Catholic church, is still alive and well in the modern world.
There’s even an organization named the International Association of Exorcists that was founded in 1993 – that’s just 17 years ago – by six Roman Catholic priests who still believe demonic possession to be a prevailing problem in the world and dedicate themselves to training and supporting priests who engage in exorcisms. Indeed, the U.S. Catholic Church reportedly receives about 400 inquiries every year from people who believe themselves or someone they know to be possessed by the Devil, and according to a 2005 Gallup poll 42% of Americans still believe in possession. Even if you’re a skeptic, that’s quite a startling number, and it should give pause to anyone who may be under the impression that exorcism is confined to the past and Hollywood fright movies.
College kids, strippers and vampires—those were Donald P. Borchers’ only requirements when he approached Richard Wenk about writing and directing a movie for New World Pictures. As requested, Wenk cooked up Vamp (1986), a tailor-made blend of the decade’s teen movie craze as well as its horror boom.
Grim and earnest stories were still very much a part of the ’80s horror landscape, yet Vamp is something of a comedy. One difference between it and, say, Saturday the 14th, though, is the former avoids using schtick. Wenk’s movie proves that horror comedies also don’t have to subtract thrills from their recipes. Of course, it takes a minute before reaching that point; college antics and culture shocks preface this one macabre misadventure.
Vamp‘s initial setup is apt for a typical college-set, sex-driven comedy; to bribe their way into a fraternity house, two pledges (Chris Makepeace, Robert Rusler) go looking for some adult entertainment. Without wasting time on any further exposition, the characters embark on an all-in-one-night trip that quickly detours into terror.
To procure their elusive MacGuffin—a stripper willing to gyrate for some frat boys—Keith (Makepeace) and AJ (Rusler), plus a third wheel named Duncan (Gedee Watanabe), trade the safety of their remote college campus for the seediness of some unnamed city. The setting is recognizably L.A. by day, but as soon as night falls, downtown, along with the characters, slips into a kind of surreal universe. Director of photography Elliot Davis gave this early entry on his prolific résumé an unusual yet distinctive look; that Mario Bava-esque, magenta-green lighting is omnipresent, so much so that it’s almost its own character.
Chris Makepeace and Robert Rusler in Vamp
The faint comparisons to Martin Scorsese’s After Hours are merited, although not just because of Vamp’s distinguishing nighttime aesthetic. Save for the primary characters, the supporting roles in Wenk’s movie are also quite colorful and transactional in their behavior. The difference here, though, is the additional urge to ruin Keith and his friends at every turn. Some of that harm is humorous and tolerable enough, whereas the moment Vamp dishes out its first fatality, it’s abundantly clear how this movie qualifies as horror.
Vamp falls into that category of horror movie that reveals its genre with a scream rather than a series of whispers. The opening scene can function as a hint of what lies ahead—things are not at all what they appear to be—but otherwise, Wenk is more than happy to hold off on the horror. When that time does come, though, it catches the viewer off guard. In addition to the pure shock value is that sudden decision to upend the movie’s foremost feature. Or so it would seem.
If afraid of major spoilage, those new to Vamp would be wise to stop reading here. There’s just no skirting around the fact that the central fellowship in this buddy movie hits a serious snag when AJ is killed. That development causes the story to become more of a “long, bad night” journey for Keith and his romantic interest. So while Wenk scores points for subverting expectations, there is also a touch of sadness in his decision. Because if Vamp does anything well, it’s making the characters likable.
Something that comes easily to Vamp—and other teen horror movies from this same era—is its ability to invent young characters worth caring about, or at the very least, are interesting and not so immediately off-putting. More impressive is how Wenk did all this without actually fleshing out those characters. Still and all, Keith and his kind are a grade above cookie-cutter, and in some cases, aren’t completely devoid of growth.
Grace Jones in Vamp
Vamp appeals with an assorted cast of characters. No two are the same, nor are they operating on the same wavelength. The cinematically extroverted AJ, whose actor conveyed charm and vulnerability in near equal amounts, comes alive when he’s at his most undead. Makepeace then makes the chronically cautious Keith a sympathetic fellow, even as he’s more and more affected by the night’s bizarre events. Meanwhile, Duncan is indeed the designated loser of the whole bunch, but Watanabe still manages to humanize him. As a bonus, the role didn’t require him to pull a Long Duk Dong.
As for Dedee Pfeiffer, she is plain adorable as the mysterious After Dark server nicknamed “Amaretto”. She spends all night fixing her dress strap while at the same time trying to get Keith to remember how he knows her. As their offbeat romance grows, it becomes another highlight of this movie. Whether or not Pfeiffer’s character is really a vampire also creates some welcome tension in the story.
Like a lot of its contemporaries, Vamp went on to become a bit of a cult classic. That current status is determined by several factors, but without a doubt, the casting of Grace Jones is the most considerable. The image of her writhing on that unique-looking chair, a Keith Haring original, springs to mind whenever this movie is brought up.
Chris Makepeace, Billy Drago and Paunita Nichols in Vamp
Prior to that first display of unequivocal horror, local vampire queen Katrina (Jones) took to the stage and delivered a strip show like no other. One would expect nothing less from that renowned model and performance artist. By now reports of Jones’ tardiness on set are no secret, yet it’s also hard to deny her commitment to the part of Katrina. It was, in fact, Jones who took charge of her character’s appearance—on top of Haring painting her body and that now-iconic chair, she had Andy Warhol handle her costuming. And not too many actors could seize a room’s attention without saying a single line of dialogue.
In 2022, Vamp received a retrospective novelization from Encyclopocalypse. This literary union of preexisting source material—Wenk’s original screenplay—and new ideas from author Christian Francis amounts to a more comprehensive visit to the After Dark Club. The basic story there is no different than what’s shown on screen; however, Francis gets creative with the characters’ origins and designs, and he enhances a number of key scenes.
The novelization expands on the urban and social decay of the main setting, and supplies a background for the After Dark Club. Sandy Baron’s character, Katrina’s emcee and familiar, is given ample motivation for sticking around; up until the fiery end, he is loyal to his friend and former business partner “Squeak”, who looks like he was “fed through a combine harvester, and left as nothing more than a heap of mangled remains”. Then there is Billy Drago’s character Snow, the leader of a street gang called The Dragons. His reason for menacing Keith and AJ is more altruistic than in the movie; he and his peers act tough to scare off any potential food for the vampires.
Lisa Lyon in Vamp
If not for all the backstories, Francis’ Vamp would be a hell of a lot shorter. Instead, this tie-in read dives into how AJ met Keith—the orphaned Anthony Joseph hailed from a broken home back in Brooklyn—and how their friendship flourished over the years. Keith’s archership is no longer just an assumed part of his entire being; it’s a confidence-building extracurricular for a boy who got picked on before coming into the protection of the new kid in town. These supplemental, in-depth looks at the protagonists, plus their close connection, are maybe unnecessary. The movie already did a fair and concise job of addressing their platonic intimacy without the need for flashbacks and insights, specifically in that scene where AJ lays it all out as he sacrifices himself.
Where the novelization gets off course is its approach to the minor characters. Intermittently backstorying the likes of Katrina’s indentured servants, Seko (Leila Hee Olsen) and Vlad (Brad Logan), ends up disturbing the flow of the writing. Was it absolutely essential that readers know Vlad was the Grand Duke of the House of Romanov, or how Snow’s accomplice Maven (Paunita Nichols) became so dentally challenged? No, not really. However, one’s mileage with these random biographies may vary.
The novelization is a more substantial experience, but for a movie like Vamp, less is more. And as plentiful as they are, it never simply coasts on its campy charms, either. The character work sits comfortably in that realm between cursory and meticulous, the script is sharper than first realized, and Greg Cannom’s vampire makeup is straightforward yet effective. Most of all, the movie didn’t squander its out-of-the-box concept. Richard Wenk made his vision of a “comic nightmare in which just about anything that can go wrong does” come true, and it is very enjoyable.
You must be logged in to post a comment.