The Alternate Ending to The Last Exorcism That Would’ve Reframed The Entire Movie

by

After over a decade since directing “The Last Exorcism,” Daniel Stamm is now openly admitting: “I made a mistake with the ending.

In more straightforward language: The filmmaker discussed his work on the 2010 horror project (now available on Peacock) over a Zoom call, as SYFY WIRE asked questions about it. He mentioned that the ending in the script was different from what eventually happened. He found this original ending to be exceptional and it was one of the main reasons he chose to make the movie.

The Last Exorcism alternate ending explored

In the original version of the movie, the ending – which was filmed prior to Lionsgate acquiring distribution rights and asking for a different finale – would have revealed that the entire story was a clever marketing scheme by the Louisiana preacher-con artist, Cotton Marcus (played by Patrick Fabian, who later starred as Howard Hamlin on AMC’s Better Call Saul). In this version, after exposing exorcisms as mere smoke and mirrors, Cotton would have faced a genuinely demonic entity during the Satanic ritual in the final scene of the theatrical cut.

Instead of ending the character’s storyline with uncertainty, the screenplay by Huck Botko and Andrew Gurland opted for an epilogue where Cotton unexpectedly gains a large following at his church. People are eager to attend because he was the first one to capture a demon on camera, making him a sensation within the evangelical movement. The intention was to evoke a sense of, “Hold on… could we all just be part of a cleverly executed marketing campaign by this man?

For More on Demonic Possession

Mike Flanagan Claims the Upcoming Exorcist Film Could Be “The Most Terrifying Movie I’ve Ever Created”; Who is Lamashtu? The Background of the Demon in The Exorcist: Believer; Distinctions in Possession Scenes Between The Exorcist: Believer and the Original Production

Mike Flanagan Predicts the New Exorcist Movie Could be “The Scariest Film I’ve Ever Made”; Who is Lamashtu? An Overview of the Demon in The Exorcist: Believer; The Key Differences in Possession Scenes Between The Exorcist: Believer and the Original Movie

Mike Flanagan Hints that the Coming Exorcist Film Could be “The Most Frightening Movie I’ve Produced”; Who is Lamashtu? An Introduction to the Demon in The Exorcist: Believer; A Look at the Unique Possession Scenes in The Exorcist: Believer Compared to the Original Film

Each of these titles aims to convey the same information, but with a slight variation in wording and emphasis.

According to David Birke, who made some unacknowledged changes in the script, it’s apparent that the audience was deceived throughout the entire film. He obtained approval from a WGA captain before discussing this matter with us.

about:blank

A significant chunk of the limited budget was allocated towards creating an additional ending that featured expensive visual effects for the demon and the crowd outside Cotton’s church. Afterward, Stamm showed the movie to a group of ten friends, but only one of them grasped his intention: to leave viewers questioning whether the final 90 minutes could truly be categorized as a horror film.

As a passionate viewer, I recall one individual exclaiming, “That finale was mind-blowingly amazing, nothing I’ve ever witnessed before in my life!” Yet, eight others seemed baffled, expressing, “We have no idea what just happened!” The lesson I took away from this is that you can pose a question without providing an answer, but it needs to be crystal clear. People would often pause and query, “Are we meant to puzzle over it?” It was simply too perplexing. Later, Lionsgate concurred with the same sentiment: “The ending doesn’t deliver.

As stated by Birke, the creators aimed to market “The Last Exorcism” as an authentic horror film, avoiding any kind of genre deconstruction in its production. Additionally, they hoped for the opportunity to create a sequel, which meant leaving the movie with a chilling, open-ended conclusion.

How The Last Exorcism pulled off its final scene in half a day

They urgently required a fresh conclusion, and they needed it swiftly – more like ‘with just half a day left for shooting’. Birke proposed an intriguing concept where one of the cult members could handle the camera for what he terms “the Devil’s home videos,” offering a unique perspective on events reminiscent of ‘Rosemary’s Baby’, but this time as if filmed by the Satanists themselves.

Unfortunately, his idea didn’t reach completion because of budget and time limitations. He describes it as “opening a Pandora’s box.” In the end, Stamm reluctantly accepted the hasty conclusion where Cotton rushes off to rescue Nell Sweetzer (Ashley Bell from Carnage Park), while the two documentary crew members attempt an escape, only to meet a gruesome fate just beyond the camera’s view.

Due to budget and time constraints, Stamm and his cinematographer Zoltan Honti couldn’t go back to New Orleans, so they filmed the final scenes in the Los Angeles region instead. Since it wasn’t our original crew, we had to re-explain our filming style to everyone again, Honti remembers. “No one was completely satisfied with what we were capturing, and it felt like we were searching for something better, but no one could figure out the solution.

At a late stage of the story, some dark sketches were added to Nell’s room, hinting at a sinister ending. These drawings suggested that a supernatural entity had control over Nell, effectively signaling the demonic conclusion.

According to Stamm, the movie seems cohesive to most viewers right up until the end, but then it takes an unexpected turn that leaves some people saying, “This film feels like a single piece until the ending, and suddenly it’s something completely different.” And he confirms, it certainly is.

Stamm confessed, “I support every moment of the film until I reach the ending, at which point I think, ‘If only it had turned out as everyone expected.’ The film is largely what we intended to create for 90% of the time, but the final 10% was a hurried attempt to conclude it in just half a day.

While the final scene aligns thematically with the preacher’s reinstated faith, it contradicted Stamm’s initial artistic approach. His primary intent was to distinguish his work from the unwavering benchmark in possession cinema – “The Exorcist”.

In simpler terms, the filmmaker stated, “Our central idea was to ensure our character doesn’t perform any actions revealing she’s possessed. This is crucial because the movie’s primary mystery revolves around whether she’s insane or possessed. If she starts spinning her head and floating on the ceiling, it would confirm she’s possessed, spoiling the suspense. Whether we achieved this is for the audience to decide, but this approach helped us maintain some distance from what made ‘The Exorcist,’ ‘The Exorcist.’

To achieve this goal, the director hired Birke to tone down the supernatural aspects in the script that were too extraordinary for a documentary. As the author explains, “Daniel said, ‘On one of these films, you should have one – or maybe two – things that stand out as exceptional.’ He continued, ‘If you capture this, the documentary would get a wide release.’ However, in the original script, there were around 25 such extraordinary events. If even one was included in a documentary, it would be an unbelievable discovery of the millennium. This clearly contradicted the entire premise of the documentary as a realistic portrayal. Therefore, from the outset, the focus was on making everything more ambiguous.

In essence, asking for a pass on the screenplay wasn’t necessarily essential, given that the actors never read from a script at all. Instead, they were consistently urged to improvise extensively. The intention was to sidestep the “staged pretense” that arises from learning lines and actions, as described by Stamm. He often encouraged an approach of “Let’s give it a go. This is your objective in the scene. This is the hurdle you need to overcome. Let’s proceed.

Birke remarks, “It seems like he guided them skillfully or perhaps worked his magic like Svengali. For when you compare the script to the film, certain dialogues are present… In a remarkable fashion reminiscent of Werner Herzog, he managed to balance complete freedom with documentary-style realism while ensuring that every shot contained exactly what he desired.

Is there a sequel to The Last Exorcism?

The movie you’re referring to goes by the title “The Last Exorcism Part II.” Released in March 2013, this sequel featured a screenplay penned by its director, Ed Gass-Donnelly (known for “Small Town Murder Songs”), and Damien Chazelle prior to his work on “Whiplash.

In contrast to the found-footage style used in the original, the sequel adopts a conventional storytelling approach. The narrative focuses on Nell (portrayed by Bell once more), as she strives to resume a normal life post the harrowing experiences from the first movie. As Stamm highlights, “It was not at all the film we intended to make with the initial installment.

about:blank

Eli Roth resumed his role as a producer, working alongside Marc Abraham and Thomas A. Bliss. In the cast, Louis Herthum reappeared as Nell’s father, Louis, in the production. However, aside from these familiar figures, no other characters were reintroduced. Stamm expresses confusion over why Patrick wasn’t part of the sequel, stating, “It doesn’t make sense to me. Having Patrick missing from the sequel is absurd.” According to Stamm, Ashley and Patrick were integral to that movie.

Despite his initial reservations, the filmmaker acknowledges that he found Part II to be a bold and artistic film, offering an intriguing, surreal viewing experience as someone unconnected to the project. He expresses that watching a sequel to a movie he didn’t contribute to was a remarkable feeling. He wouldn’t have missed it for anything in the world.

Read More

2025-01-27 19:17