This kind of aligns with my thoughts. I read the book when I was quite young and I don’t remember it making that much of an impression on me (though it was a long time ago so I may not remember accurately). There was no way to get in to see the movie when it was in the theater and consequently, by the time I was old enough it wasn’t really on my radar anymore. I saw it for the first time maybe 20 years ago and, partly because I watch A LOT of horror but mostly because demon possession is one of my least favorite subgenres it just wasn’t that scary. For the same reason zombies aren’t; they’re just utterly implausible to me. Witchcraft, I can sort of buy, ghosts - definitely, but demons, not so much.
I must admit that this thread is kind of making me want to revisit it again. Even if I don’t find it overly frightening I do remember creepy atmosphere and some other interesting aspects.
I happened to be on a business trip when the film was released. I remember walking by a theater in Times Square and saying, “FOUR DOLLARS???, who the *&^%$ pays four dollar to see a movie.” But I digress.
After I returned home to the boondocks, I went with a friend who was a very religious Catholic. I jumped at a few scenes, but my friend was shaking in his boots for about a week.
This was a fantastic movie, and the first scenes in the Iraqi dig were instrumental to the story… but, yes, it did help to read the book.
Merrin had fought Pazuzu (the demon) before, and recognized his re-ascension when he started finding the statuettes in Iraq. It’s not mentioned, but heavily implied, that Merrin quit the dig because of this revelation and went to a quiet NY seminary where he awaited being called again.
I love this sequence almost as much as I love the Dawn of Man sequence in 2001.
My theory is that the defilement was done by Regan in an early manifestation of the possession. Note that the church is in the path of Regan’s home and her mom’s workplace. This wasn’t really clear in the novel, to my recall, and this is what made the most sense.
The head is in the movie to remind you of the demon in the Iraqi sequence, to tie the two locales together in the same story.
Kinderman doesn’t think Karras killed the director, that’s silly. He thinks Karras knows who killed the director because of a possible confession made to Karras, and because Kinderman is also aware of weird things going on at that church. But at no point is Karras under suspicion, which I think is cleared up rather early in their relationship.
I find director’s cuts to be hit or miss. Some are great; they just add in what the MPAA made them cut to qualify for an R instead of NC-17 or X. Others are self-indulgent garbage.
The Exorcist director’s cut appears to have added 13 minutes. This may have contributed to the pacing issues, and if so, it would explain why the theatrical release version was what it was.
I have no idea either way, having never seen the director’s cut. Just a thought.
That only makes the most sense if you are an atheist. To accept the book’s/movie’s mindset that supernatural creatures like demons are real, of course Pazuzu did it, and without any help from Regan. The statue just sprouted a penis at Pazuzu’s will and slathered itself in blood. Why? Because that’s what demons do.
Some movies last and some don’t. I did not see The Exorcist until a year ago, having somehow avoided or missed it my entire life.
I would put The Exorcist in the category of “did not last” in terms of its effect or impact. I’ve seen The Godfather from only a year earlier and Godfather is still an amazing movie where every part of it works and remains very gripping. I found The Exorcist to be mainly dull and honestly, just kind of not scary or intense at all.
There were a few neat moments, but nothing too impactful to me. I was hoping for better.
Interesting you reference 2001, because for me, the dawn of man sequence in inscrutable without first having read the book.
For me, in the movie it isn’t clear the ancient(?) find of the head in Iraq is evidence that it is the same demon that Merrin fought, and the same demon possessing Regan.
The movie tells, but not shows, Burke’s death, but then shows, but doesn’t tell, that it is the same demon. We can assume, but sometimes I think a movie owes the audience a bit of clarity. (look how many people think the Star Child blew up the Earth at the end of 2001.)
The reason I was not shocked by the movie is that it was discussed in great detail by everyone who did see it. When I finally caught a showing, I knew what was coming.
Of course, being at a Jesuit HS at the time ment there was more talk than normal regarding the movie.
That’s a fair criticism, though at the time it was an adaptation to a very famous novel, so Friedkin may have thought it OK to use these shortcuts.
As for 2001, I’m pretty sure I saw the movie first (it was a big FIRST TIME ON BROADCAST TELEVISION-type event back in the 1970s), and even at that age I glommed onto what was happening, though I thought the monolith was making the apes smarter by singing to them. :smack:
Regardless, I love those rare movie introductions where the opening scene has NOTHING to do with the rest of the movie, but EVERYTHING to do with the story and its background.
Really ? What would be the point of that sequence otherwise ? It really seems crystal clear to me.
Do you think that Merrin should said something along the lines of : “I declare that the demon possessing Regan is the same one I fought in Iraq” ? That would have been completely silly, wouldn’t it ?
I don’t want to sound flippant, and I know that some plots can get unnecessarily convoluted, but should we have every single connection explicitly spelled out for us ? Of course not, especially when the clues are right there before our eyes.
Thought about this for a while and I’m not sure I agree with your interpretation. The movie and book were about possession* and it doesn’t require an atheists faith to conclude that the attic noises, the Ouija Board, and the church desecration were all done by a Regan in an earlier, less “intrusive” phase of possession.
It is open to interpretation to both sides, however, as the desecrations are never resolved in either medium.
“No rats!”
*Actually, as Stephen King (or Harlan Ellison) once noted (but I think it was SK), The Exorcist isn’t about demonic possession, but about parents asking “what the fuck is wrong with kids these days?!?”, a theme people lived in their daily lives in this period.
Yes, exactly the same for me. And then I went to a Jesuit college and (see my post above) encountered a Jesuit who had a small (speaking, but small) part in the movie, teaching Greek.
Which is exactly where you’d expect to find a Jesuit exorcist, of course.
I agree that it’s a well-constructed movie (directing, acting, special effects, etc.) But I never could understand friends who were so scared by it, who invariably believed that demonic possession was real.
I found “The Silence of the Lambs” and “Se7en” scarier. Those kinds of monsters are real.
Mark Kermode is a popular film critic in the UK and says this is the best film ever made. Not best horror film - he is a true believer. He wrote a book about it.
I think it doesn’t stand up to today’s scary movies, but still has its moments of chill. I think it was trying for more than that though, and at the time succeeded.
Taesahnim talked about the Tubular Bells theme, but what always sticks with me is the sound production. The sub sonic frequency hits as the priests walk up the stairs causing your diaphragm to vibrate as you sat in the cinema. The child crying in the background of straight scenes almost too quiet to be heard. etc etc. Fantastic stuff.
I heard Dave Trott the advertising guru’s story relating to the book. He was at an advertising agency in the early 70’s and a guy in the office was reading the book each lunchtime. When Dave saw him reading a different book he asked what he thought of it - guy says - ‘I couldn’t read it anymore, it scared the shit out of me so badly I didn’t even want it in the house, so yesterday I threw it in the Thames.’ Wow says Dave. He then walked around the corner to a bookstore, bought the Exorcist, went back to the office and soaked the book in a sink full of water and placed it in the guys desk drawer.
I don’t know if I could call it the best film ever made, but I can see that argument being made about the movie - it is a far more meticulous and nuanced in production and story than many here are giving it credit for.
I also wonder if this is a difficult movie for modern audiences who have children who are either ill or alienated. Since the perspective of the main story is shown from Chris’s pov, much of the horror was that of a mother losing her child to unknowable means, which again is a theme which resonates at all times and especially in 1973.