"The Exorcist": What was the point of the prologue?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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. :wink:

William Peter Blatty:

Exorcist Frequently Asked Questions:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?