# "The Exorcist": What was the point of the prologue? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [January 23, 2005, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-exorcist-what-was-the-point-of-the-prologue/286299 "2005-01-23T21:40:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![ryanbobo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b4bc9f/32.png) [@ryanbobo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ryanbobo)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2005, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-exorcist-what-was-the-point-of-the-prologue/286299/21 "2005-01-24T20:32:39Z")
Something that’s always confused me. Doesn’t Regan’s possessor say that he’s “the devil?” I seem to remember this caused Damian to doubt the possession was real. From what I can get on the internet, Pazuzu was an evil spirit/god/whatever in Mesopotamia, but wasn’t the number 1 bad guy. Is Pazuzu just screwing w/ Damian? How does a mesopotamian evil spirit become Christianity’s source of all evil? Thank you in advance. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2005, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-exorcist-what-was-the-point-of-the-prologue/286299/22 "2005-01-24T20:48:35Z")
When Father Damien starts to tell Father Merrin about the various names the demon is called, Father Merrin stops him and says no, he has one name. In other words, there is ultimately one source of evil. ---
**Author:** ![PoorYorick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ecccb3/32.png) [@PoorYorick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PoorYorick)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2005, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-exorcist-what-was-the-point-of-the-prologue/286299/23 "2005-01-24T22:19:33Z")
> [@Art Vandelay](#): > > Well, as I said, this was my interpretation. Nah, I wasn’t trying to be snarky. Your interpretation is just as valid as mine; I just didn’t look at it the way you describe it when I saw it. ---
**Author:** ![rowrrbazzle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rowrrbazzle/32/414_2.png) [@rowrrbazzle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rowrrbazzle)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2005, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-exorcist-what-was-the-point-of-the-prologue/286299/24 "2005-01-24T22:24:06Z")
> [@Art Vandelay](#): > > Well, as I said, this was my interpretation. But I don’t think it’s an accident that Regan is being raised by a single mother whose career is in the most secular profession of all (prostitution being an occasionally religious profession :)). But weren’t actresses once considered as no better than prostitutes by “polite” society? That would support your point. Personally, I think it’s a stretch. ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2005, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-exorcist-what-was-the-point-of-the-prologue/286299/25 "2005-01-24T22:34:45Z")
> [@Art Vandelay](#): > > IMHO, Director William Friedkin is a devout conservative when you get down to it (all his movies - “Exorcist”, and “Cruising” in particular) have arch-conservative overtones. Regan is possessed in part because she is being raised in a secular, proto-feminist environment – Chris is a single mother, (Regan’s father is not in the picture, and Regan’s next closest adult role model is Sharon, another woman) I don’t know how significant the mother’s occupation is, but I think it’s meant to be very important that she’s divorced. Early in the film there’s some suggestion that Regan is hurting from lack of a father (and lack of…THE Father?) – I can’t remember the details, but she tells some story to her mother about meeting a man in the park on a horse that suggested to me that she was looking for a father figure. She also describes talking to a male spirit through the Ouija board. I think we’re meant to understand that all this leaves Regan more vulnerable to possession, even though she is an innocent. Oh, since no one has mentioned it here I guess I’m probably just misremembering, but I thought the tiny demon statue shows up later in Regan’s house. Is the prologue really the only time we see it? ---
**Author:** ![jk1245](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/49beb7/32.png) [@jk1245](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jk1245)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2005, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-exorcist-what-was-the-point-of-the-prologue/286299/26 "2005-01-24T22:37:38Z")
Good points on my question everyone. Just seemed to me like it was a blatantly pro-Christian message which I found interesting considering that the film is usually criticized by some of the more vocal Christians as anything but. To get back to the OP, isn’t it also mentioned that Merrin had previously exorcised Pazuzu from another person? He knew full well who and what the amulet represented. ---
**Author:** ![Eutychus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Eutychus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eutychus)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2005, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-exorcist-what-was-the-point-of-the-prologue/286299/27 "2005-01-25T00:14:48Z")
> [@jk1245](#): > > Good points on my question everyone. Just seemed to me like it was a blatantly pro-Christian message which I found interesting considering that the film is usually criticized by some of the more vocal Christians as anything but. > > To get back to the OP, isn’t it also mentioned that Merrin had previously exorcised Pazuzu from another person? He knew full well who and what the amulet represented. Note also that when Lt. Kinderman is looking for evidence at the bottom of the stairs after Burke Dennings is killed, he finds the exact same statue hidden in the dirt there. ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2005, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-exorcist-what-was-the-point-of-the-prologue/286299/28 "2005-01-25T02:11:22Z")
> [@jk1245](#): > > Good points on my question everyone. Just seemed to me like it was a blatantly pro-Christian message which I found interesting considering that the film is usually criticized by some of the more vocal Christians as anything but. > > To get back to the OP, isn’t it also mentioned that Merrin had previously exorcised Pazuzu from another person? He knew full well who and what the amulet represented. Well, it’s a very Catholic book/movie, of which some of the more… literal-minded Protestants will be glad to tell you that Catholics aren’t Christians. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2005, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-exorcist-what-was-the-point-of-the-prologue/286299/29 "2005-01-25T02:26:42Z")
William Peter Blatty: > [@](#): > > One of the new scenes contains the moral center of the film. There’s one line during a conversation between Father Merrin and Father Karras when Karras asks, “What’s the point? Assuming the prince of darkness really does exist, what is he doing bothering with this girl?” Merrin replies, “The little girl is not the target. The target is we, the observers, everyone in this house”. By which he means that it’s your faith that is hanging in the balance — you’re the target. The point is to make us despair. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2005, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-exorcist-what-was-the-point-of-the-prologue/286299/30 "2005-01-25T02:45:13Z")
_Exorcist_ [Frequently Asked Questions](http://freespace.virgin.net/justin2001.arkinson/Html/faqs.htm): > [@](#): > > [T]he model that [Lieutenant] Kinderman retracts from the ditch beside the M Street steps is not the Pazuzu amulet that Merrin found in Nineveh. It is a piece of modeling clay that Burke was carrying when pushed from the window — hence Kinderman’s curiosity when he’s looking at the models in the MacNeil kitchen. However, the scene is constructed to emulate Merrin’s discovery of the Pazuzu amulet. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2005, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-exorcist-what-was-the-point-of-the-prologue/286299/31 "2005-01-25T16:14:48Z")
> [@Walloon](#): > > William Peter Blatty: > [@](#): > > Merrin replies, “The little girl is not the target. The target is we, the observers, everyone in this house”. By which he means that it’s your faith that is hanging in the balance — you’re the target. The point is to make us despair. That’s really dumb. Chris MacNeil is an atheist or lapsed Christian. Father Damien is having a crisis of faith. What would be more certain to restore their faith in God’s existence than the Devil appearing in their midst? After all, you might have God without the Devil, but you can’t have the Devil without God. ---
**Author:** ![Ferret\_Herder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e47774/32.png) [@Ferret\_Herder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ferret_Herder)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2005, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-exorcist-what-was-the-point-of-the-prologue/286299/32 "2005-01-25T16:34:06Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > What would be more certain to restore their faith in God’s existence than the Devil appearing in their midst? After all, you might have God without the Devil, but you can’t have the Devil without God. God’s **existence** isn’t the point; it’s faith in him. With the Devil harassing this small child and God not seeming to be doing anything about it, that sounds like a pretty powerful argument against turning to God. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Goob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c77e96/32.png) [@Mr.Goob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Goob)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2005, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-exorcist-what-was-the-point-of-the-prologue/286299/33 "2005-01-25T18:29:18Z")
Anybody going to rewatch the movie after seeing this, I have to recommend the extended version on DVD. It’s called “The version you’ve never seen before” or some twaddle. The scene where she goes down the stairs is cool as hell. ---
**Author:** ![Enola\_Straight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dec6dc/32.png) [@Enola\_Straight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enola_Straight)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2005, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-exorcist-what-was-the-point-of-the-prologue/286299/34 "2005-01-25T23:03:40Z")
> [@Eutychus](#): > > Note also that when Lt. Kinderman is looking for evidence at the bottom of the stairs after Burke Dennings is killed, he finds the exact same statue hidden in the dirt there. That wasn’t a statue of Pazuzu, it was a clay figurine (a rather amorphous looking horse, IIRC) made by Regan…the clay of the same sort earlier found desecrating statues of the Virgin Mary and/or Jesus Christ in the church. Though I will concede the clay figurine establishes a sub-concious connection to the demon idol shown in the prologue. ---
**Author:** ![bobkitty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/c67d28/32.png) [@bobkitty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobkitty)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-exorcist-what-was-the-point-of-the-prologue/286299/35 "2005-01-26T02:18:28Z")
The recently released “prequel” explains both the statuette and the necklace. Merrin was sent to find that statue of Pazuzu in a recently unearthed church and return it to, IIRC, the Vatican. The necklace (a St. Christopher’s medal) was given to his “love interest” by a drunken site supervisor; she later was revealed to be possessed by Pazuzu, and although Merrin did perform a successful exorcism, she died at the end. Both the necklace and statue were lost in a sandstorm- hence the necklace not being of the same time period. Plus the discovery of the necklace corresponded with the ripping off of Dimi’s necklace (and the return by Regan to his priest friend). Of course, the prequel was set in Africa and the prologue in Iraq, but hey, who’s going to pick nits? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-exorcist-what-was-the-point-of-the-prologue/286299.md?page=1)