The Exorcist - MYTHS AND TRUTHS
Kitt...@encode.com
AFI list of 100 Greatest American movies - instead they chose the
original Frankenstein (no, Bride was definitely better). Still, there
are good reasons to celebrate this horror classic's 25th anniversary
on video. The Exorcist is also, gasp, a thinking man's horror film - a
deeply spiritual film about faith. It is also the only horror film to
date that has made people believe in the Devil. "She doesn't say she's
a demon. She says she is the Devil himself," as Father Karras (Jason
Miller) declares of his confrontation with Regan, played by Linda
Blair. I couldn't have said it better myself, and what a shame this
film wasn't re-released in theatres first. It would've been a scream -
a hark back to what compelled audiences in 1973.
"The Exorcist" is not what you expect each time you see it. It's not
that I find multiple meanings in this film with each viewing or that I
am astounded by some of the surprises in it, but I am always riveted
by the experience. One example: I am more surprised by the exorcism
scenes in particular. They have the power to frighten me each time I
see them. The levitating bed, the subliminal fast cuts of a demon in
white face, the way that Jason Miller and Max von Sydow circle Regan's
bedroom while she spews obscenities galore and pea soup and rotates
her head 180 degrees, the terrific shot of Regan sitting up on her bed
and reaching for the superimposed shot of the demon statue of Pazuzu,
etc. There is genuine tension and terrific horror imagery throughout
this amazing sequence.
The performances still rank among the best in contemporary horror: Wes
Craven, take note. Ellen Burstyn's fits of rage as Chris MacNeil and
Regan's abuse towards her have become Burstyn's trademark ever since.
What is more impressive are Burstyn's quiet scenes, particularly with
a youthful, pretty Linda Blair, and I like how they cavort in the
bedroom about the men in Chris's life, or when they play in the
basement with the Ouija board. I think Linda Blair is quite underrated
in this movie: she undergoes a thrilling, painful transformation from
pubescent little girl to raging, raving maniac with green eyes and a
large tongue - interestingly, she is not that different from the way
Burstyn acts in her manic scenes. What helps Blair's performance is
naturally Mercedes McCambridge's gargling, deep, multilayered voice,
but Blair's expressions that run the gamut from happy, innocent, and
confused to angry, pathetic, and fearsome is clearly a bona fide work
of acting.
Kudos must also go to the late Lee J. Cobb as the private detective
Kinderman who has seen everything (and is a film buff), but nothing
like the desecration at the church or the bizarre killing in front of
the giant stairwell (an ominous image). And it is always a profound
pleasure to see Max von Sydow, treading on Ingmar Bergman's religious
God-fearing waters, in his role of the sickly 70-year-old Father
Merrin who's performed exorcisms before.
A final note is the hard-edged performance by Jason Miller as Karras,
the psychiatrist/Jesuit priest who questions his own faith and feels
responsible for the death of his mother. He's a torn man with doubts
that are wiped away once he confronts the Devil. The scene where he
visits Regan and records her growling voice while speaking to each
other in Latin is probably the only humorously eerie scene in the
entire movie.
"The Exorcist" would not have endured for this long had it not been
for William Friedkin's realistic direction, and his acute sense of
time and place. The cinematography is superbly realized, employing
effective use of both lights and darks. The best examples are the
opening Iraq sequence, taking place mostly in sunlit digging areas,
and the justifiably famous shot of a silhouetted Father Merrin
standing outside of Regan's bedroom where a shaft of light bursts
through. And you can also savor the documentary-like scenes where
Regan undergoes a spinal tap and several excruciating medical tests
from doctors.
The documentary I watched on the Special Edition tape (known as The
Face of God) is enlightening and informative on the making of the film
and the various accidents, deaths and mysteries surrounding it. Most
revealing are William Friedkin's tactics in getting his actors to
react honestly by firing a gun in the air - a tactic shared by Roman
Polanski. I also liked the scenes cut from the original version, which
include the infamous "Spider-Walk" by Regan where she wiggles her
tongue like a serpent at the nanny's legs after Chris learns of her
director's death, and a final scene between Father Dyer (Reverend
William O'Malley) and Kinderman.
It may be easy for people to laugh at "The Exorcist" now since there
have been several unwarranted rip-offs, sequels, and parodies (the
only exception being the flawed The Omen). Still, the film continues
to be compelling, powerful, scary, haunting and shocking (the
masturbation with the crucifix is one of the most disturbing scenes
ever shot on film). "The Exorcist" is a real horror film because it
takes itself seriously, and that is part of its emotional power. It's
the seminal horror film of the century, unsurpassed in its ugly vision
of the genuine force of evil.
CHILLER THEATRE UPDATES: In April of 1998, I visited the Chiller
Theatre expo at the Meadowlands in New Jersey, and guess who was
signing autographs? Mrs. Linda Blair, of course. She was a witty
delight to talk to, and seemed eager and open to talking about (what
else?) The Exorcist. Certainly not Roller Boogie, although she might
have answered some questions about it. It was a delight for me to meet
her because it was the first film to really scare me out of my wits. I
think she would have been great as Gale Weathers or some competing
reporter in the Scream movies.
After the horrific success of The Exorcist, Linda Blair made a career
of playing brutalized victims in such films as Born Innocent and Sweet
Hostage, not to mention the abonimable Airport '75. But it was in 1977
that her career became cursed, to say the least. She starred in what
was sure to be a classy production called Exorcist II: The Heretic.
There were big name talented stars such as Richard Burton (nominated
the same year for Best Actor for Equus) and Louise Fletcher (who won
an Oscar the previous year for One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest), and
an admired director named John Boorman, who helmed the brilliant
Deliverance. What could have gone wrong? The absence of writer William
Peter Blatty? Yes, that's one factor, and he later wrote and directed
the significantly better The Exorcist III.
"Exorcist II" begins a few years later after the events of the first
film. Regan MacNeil (Linda Blair) is now living in a high-rise New
York apartment building with her nanny/tutor Sharon (short-haired
Kitty Winn returning from the original). Chris MacNeil (Regan's
mother) is conspicuously absent, apparently shooting a film in Europe.
Probably Ellen Burstyn refused to be in it after seeing the script, no
doubt. Anyway, Regan now sees a psychiatrist (Louise Fletcher) who
tries to uncover her memories from that fateful exorcism. Of course,
Regan doesn't remember anything - she's still a happy-go-lucky kid who
tap-dances badly to the mental patients in the hospital.
Enter Father Lamont (Richard Burton, giving new definition to the term
stoic) who knows a thing or two about exorcisms and Pazuzu from his
travels in Africa. He asks the diocese to investigate Father Merrin's
death, and seeks Regan who may have the clues. Father Lamont indulges
in telepathic communication with Regan through the miracles of
hypnosis by using a clunky-looking head strap, a blinking light with
an ominous tone, and some wires. Poor Louise Fletcher watches them
like a gaping idiot - there are endless stares throughout this film.
Lamont later discovers that an African high priest named Kokumo (James
Earl Jones) has the answers to Pazuzu's whereabouts courtesy of a big
African bug and some locusts. At least, that is what I made of the
plot but it is as confusing as Ned Beatty's brief appearance as a
helicopter pilot.
During its sneak previews and recutting for a re-release, "Exorcist
II" was laughed off the screen both times and bombed badly at the
box-office. No amount of recutting could do justice to it. The
dialogue is full of unnatural, unintentionally funny lines such as,
"Don't feel bad. I was possessed by the Devil once. I am okay now," or
so Linda Blair should think. I also love Burton's classic delivery of
a line he shouts to the bus driver, "NOW, GO!" Or how about the
biggest howler when Ms. Fletcher asks Lamont: "Have you ever been with
a woman, Father?" Lamont's response: "No," he says with a stupefying
stare.
People and events are depicted in "Exorcist II" so carelessly that we
have no clue who or where people are in relation to a given setting.
Burton seems to go back to Africa, Georgetown and New York so often
that I was convinced he was a migrating Mephistopheles. At one odd
moment, James Earl Jones is a high priest who turns out to be...an
entomologist! I am still not clear how Lamont knows of Merrin's death
or how he finds the MacNeils or why he would want to get close to
Regan in the first place - she isn't possessed by Pazuzu in the entire
film! And none of this makes Lamont a heretic since he embraces the
dogma of the church, not oppose it.
The ludicrous hypnosis scenes seem to go on forever and are akin to Ed
Wood's territory, along with absurd close-ups of a moth approaching
the screen as it flies around Africa looking very much like Mothra
attacking Godzilla. The special-effects have been described as superb
yet none is more ridiculous than Sharon's death by fire using obvious
superimpositions, or the destruction of the MacNeil house that looks
more ethereal than hellish using obvious matte shots. I can understand
why Mr. Blatty laughed and snickered when he saw this with an audience
in Georgetown.
None of this would matter if "Exorcist II" was at least scary, but it
isn't. It's all boring spiritual mumbo-jumbo with affectless
performances and incompetent direction and writing. What's amazing is
that everyone in this laughable production took it so seriously. The
demon's voice sounds like a soft-spoken female Reverend with none of
the vocal power evident from Mercedes McCambridge in the original -
she must have seen the script, too. And pity poor Linda Blair with fat
cheeks, who at one point sees a whorish demonic double of herself.
Chills and thrills begin to accumulate and, for a moment, you begin to
think that director Boorman is finally getting it right. Too bad that
it is at the end of the film.
George C. Scott as Lt. Kinderman in "The Exorcist III"
After the debacle of "Exorcist II," no one expected anyone to make
another sequel. Sure enough in 1990, Mr. Pazuzu came back minus Linda
Blair, who was doing a parody of "The Exorcist" called Repossessed.
William Peter Blatty was also back, this time writing and directing a
direct sequel to the original based on his 1983 novel Legion.
"Exorcist III" is not bad, and it is a considerable improvement over
the second one, but it is still miles away from the classic original.
Lieutenant Kinderman (George C. Scott replacing the late Lee J. Cobb)
is back in Georgetown investigating a series of brutal killings, and
the chief suspect is the Gemini Killer (chillingly played by Brad
Dourif) and his large pair of shears. Only problem is that the Gemini
Killer is dead; so who's that demented cellmate at the local
Georgetown jail? And why he sometimes look like Father Damien Karras
(Jason Miller), who supposedly died when he fell onto the steps at the
end of the original? Is Pazuzu back?
The worst is expected with a title like "Exorcist III" since everyone
expects it will be full of blood and gore considering the standards
set by the original and all the trashy horror films since. The truth
is that there is no visible gore or blood in the entire film - we hear
about graphic, gruesome depictions of mutilations but we see precious
little. That was a wise move for Blatty, and he opts for old-fashioned
scares by employing effective use of shadowy, empty rooms,
ominous-looking hallways, and wind-swept churches. One scene set in
long shot in a hospital corridor where an evil presence awaits is as
scary and heart-stopping as anything I've ever seen.
"The Exorcist III" is hardly a great film. George C. Scott is fun to
watch but he overacts to the hilt bringing little of the subtlety that
Lee J. Cobb brought to the role. Too much of his character is
underdeveloped, and I would have loved to have seen more of his
family. The film is also structured as a surreal police thriller with
many plot twists and turns that don't add up too much. An unnecessary,
deliberately over-the-top exorcism at its conclusion seems like a
last-minute editing job to justify its title (test audiences
complained originally that there was no exorcism). "Legion" would have
been a better title.
On the plus side, the movie is genuinely creepy and occasionally
scary. Blatty still writes with panache, particularly the entertaining
conversations between Kinderman and Father Dyer (played by the late Ed
Flanders of St. Elsewhere fame, replacing O'Malley) on the value of
It's a Wonderful Life, Women's Wear Daily, and mental health. It is
also wonderful (no pun intended) to see Jason Miller back, this time
with green eyes and an attitude. Brad Dourif gives the most impressive
performance as the demonically possessed Gemini Killer - his erudition
and somber voice are amazing to behold.
EXORCIST III TRIVIA
Brad Dourif makes a reference to "child's play" as far as getting in
and out of jail without being seen. Dourif of course voiced the Chucky
doll in all the Child's Play films.
There are cameos by Everett C. Coop, Larry King (both restaurant
patrons), Samuel L. Jackson, Fabio, John Thompson (coach of the
Georgetown Hoyas Basketball team), and Patrick Ewing as an angel.
EXORCIST IV: THE BEGINNING
"The Exorcist" still stands as the supernatural horror film of the
century, and Linda Blair is still aching for a comeback. As for
William Peter Blatty, well, the latest news is that he may be writing
Exorcist IV: The Beginning, which will focus on Father Merrin's
activities in Africa before the events of the first film. Morgan Creek
productions will take charge, as they did with "Exorcist III." Blatty
is writing the film along with William Wisher, whose previous writing
chores included The Terminator films, and some uncredited writing on
Eraser and Broken Arrow. Not the best choice for horror I am afraid.
According to Entertainment Weekly issue #496, production will commence
this fall though no cast or crew has officially signed yet.
The film itself sounds suspiciously like Psycho IV: The Beginning
(documenting Norman's childhood), and we know how badly that turned
out. If that is not gratuitous enough, there will be a TV series (!)
where we will follow a priest who investigates mysterious conflicts
between good and evil (How original and enigmatic!) My advice: find a
good role for Linda Blair in some film by Wes Craven, John Carpenter
or the filmmakers of the Blair Witch Project, and leave the Pazuzu
well enough alone.
There are so many subtleties and clues in "The Exorcist" that they are
easy to miss and/or dismiss. I am surprised at the number of "E" sites
I've looked at that have not picked up on the importance of such
minute details. Although the film may not have the understatement of
Rosemary's Baby, it still manages to be just as implicit in its
mysteries about faith and belief in the forces of good and evil.
Firstly, let's correct some misconceptions and unsubstantial rumors
regarding specific shots in the film:
The Projectile-Vomit scene
It has been assumed that an actress (Eileen Dietz) was used as Linda's
double for the vomitting scene, and that is only partially true. Just
after Father Karras (Jason Miller) asks Regan about his mother's name,
a stream of green vomit splashes on his face (originally, it was
supposed to hit his jacket only but it missed). The very first shot of
Regan is a medium shot of her strapped to the bed, and it is obviously
Linda Blair vomitting (look at it slow-motion if you don't believe
me). The next shot is of Karras being hit, and then we see a shadowy,
darkly lit shot of Eileen spewing what's left out of her mouth. How
repulsive!
The White-Faced Demon - PAZUZU
There are three-half second shots of a demon in white face in "The
Exorcist." These are called subliminal cuts - one of the greatest,
most powerful tools of cinematic expression since Eisenstein's montage
editing system. The first subliminal shot occurs during Karras's dream
where he sees his mother crying by a subway station. He runs towards
her. We see quick shots of his mother in a dark room, a grandfather
clock, and a cross or necklace of some kind falling in slow-motion. In
between these shots, we see a single-frame shot of a white-faced demon
with red eyes staring down at the screen looking frighteningly gaunt
and skeletal-like. The next two shots of the demon are during the
exorcism sequence: there is another single-frame shot while Regan is
writhing in bed and the lights are flashing on and off. The last shot
of this demon is in a famous, intensely ugly close-up of Regan staring
at Karras. We see Blair's face and a superimposition of the demon's
right eye and part of his/her mouth.
There has been some talk about who actually plays the white-faced
demon. The Internet Movie Database lists Eileen Dietz in the credits
as the demon, but I've heard that Jason Miller may actually be the one
who plays the demon. There is still no confirmation on this fact, but
it is mentioned in Picard's Pad, another "Exorcist" site, and in the
colorful Booperville site. This would make sense since the white-faced
demon could be construed as Karras's death mask, thus leading to his
final jump to the death at the bottom of the stairs.
THE REAL TRUTH - According to Mark Kermode's wonderful book on "The
Exorcist," he states that Eileen Dietz is in fact the white-faced
demon. Director Friedkin had pointed out that there were makeup tests
of the demon...and he decided it was best to use flashes (subliminal
cuts) of the demon since they would not work as separate whole scenes
for the film during the exorcism. So my Jason Miller theory is thrown
out the window, but it is still a good one.
Strange, bizarre moments (and some strangely beautiful ones, too)
There are moments in "The Exorcist" that are so strange and so
mystical, both aurally and visually, that it is indeed one of the most
aesthetically beautiful films ever made. The one famous image, used in
advertising, is of a silhouetted Father Merrin standing by the MacNeil
house where a shaft of light bursts through Regan's window. Below are
other fascinating examples of image and sound:
1.) The slingshot sound effect is first heard when Chris MacNeil walks
up to the attic thinking that there are rats in there. The second time
she hears them, she enters the attic only to discover that her servant
Karl is there and tells her, "See, no rats." The next time we hear the
slingshot sound effect is just after Chris's meeting with Lt.
Kinderman. She hears the sound followed by Regan's cries for help and
the demon yelling at her: "You bitch!" As Chris races to help Regan,
she's horrified to find her masturbating with a bloody crucifix. As
Chris tries to stop her, she's hit and falls on the floor. When she
looks back, she sees Regan rotating her head and screaming at her with
a British accent mimicking Burke Dennings: "Do you know what she did?
Your c---ing daughter!"
This scene is significant on many levels: it cleverly builds the
horror subliminally from the onset, and serves as a turning point in
Chris's character. She first discovers that Regan is exhibiting a
split personality, then she gets more bad news that her director and
close friend Burke is dead (originally followed by the Spider-Walk
scene), followed by finding her daughter masturbating and bringing up
the memory of Burke, resulting in her desperate consultation with
Karras to perform an exorcism.
2.) During the Iraq sequence, Father Merrin is inside a room with
another priest. We hear the clock ticking and suddenly, it stops. This
chilling moment is repeated in "The Exorcist III."
3.) Kinderman discovers a piece of clay at the bottom of the long
staircase. This piece of clay seems to come from Regan since he later
discovers other pieces of clay in Chris's house. The way that the
lieutenant brushes the dirt off of the clay piece is similar to
Merrin's discovery of a head piece of Pazuzu covered in dirt.
4.) Father Damien Karras, one of the most important characters in "The
Exorcist," undergoes quite a few changes in the film. At the
beginning, he seems to be a man losing his faith in God and in his own
life, particularly the health of his mother. When he first confronts
Regan, she says to him off-camera, "Can you help an old altar boy,
faddah?" Karras recollects that this was the same voice of a homeless
person he ignored in the subway. Regan also verbally attacks Karras
about his mother's death on many occasions. She tells him that his
mother's soul is within her, and pretends to be his mother by
mimicking her Greek accent. At one point, during the exorcism, Regan
yells to Karras: "You killed your mother! You left her alone to die!
She'll never forgive you for that!" All of these moments underlie
Karras's lack of faith in himself and in others, particularly his
inability to help the mentally ill or the homeless. When he tells Tom,
another priest, that he's losing his faith, there's a quick
transitional cut to the MacNeil house where the wind blows the leaves
off the ground.
5.) When Chris tearfully tells Karras that her daughter is possessed
and needs an exorcist, we hear young girls and boys playing in a
nearby playground. This is an indication that Chris wants things to go
back to normal, and she wants the youthful, sweetly innocent Regan
back whom we see at the beginning of the film.
6.) Ellen Burstyn undergoes several emotionally traumatic moments as
the tormented Chris - it must have been pure hell to be in such an
emotional state for nine months of production. My favorite moment is
one that is easy to miss: when Kinderman visits the house, she asks
him if he would like some tea. As she approaches the kitchen, she
tries to maintain her composure. Another moment is her horrified look
when Regan yells and makes obscene gestures at the doctors: "F--- me!
F--- me!"
7.) Regan's demonic giggle when Karras tries to bring back Father
Merrin is heard briefly on the soundtrack of "The Exorcist III" when
Kinderman is at the church and hears the wind blowing.
COMPARISONS BETWEEN THE BOOK AND THE MOVIE
To read William Peter Blatty's brilliant book of "The Exorcist" was
deeply educational for me in seeing how a screenwriter adapts a book
to the screen and the changes that are made as a result. There is an
awful lot of exposition in the book before Regan starts to exhibit
another personality, which shows primarily in the scenes cut from the
film such as Chris and Regan's walk to the monuments. I have read
other novels made into films and the best were Edith Wharton's The Age
of Innocence and F. Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby. There is
always more character development in a book than in the film version
so here's a list of some differences in terms of context, and the arc
and shape of the characters' personalities.
1.) Chris MacNeil is a much more sarcastic character in the book,
especially in her conversations with Karras, Dennings and Kinderman.
She is also more worrisome at the beginning, particularly when Regan
starts playing with an Ouija board and mentions that Captain Howdy is
her invisible friend. In the film, she feels that Regan is just a
precocious little prankster. One other fact that is not really
mentioned in the film is that Chris is an atheist, and still doesn't
know where her beliefs lie after the exorcism.
2.) In the book, it takes Father Karras much longer to be convinced
that Regan is possessed. He tries to come up with rational
explanations for her behavior, including the rappings and her physical
strength. It isn't until he hears Regan's language in reverse on audio
tape and checks the medical tests that he's convinced that an exorcism
is the only solution.
3.) The servants, Karl and Willie, are virtually window dressing in
the film. In the book, it is discovered that Karl and Willie are
actually a married couple who lost their daughter at an early age -
they also have been servants of the MacNeil family for several years.
It turns out that Karl has been secretly seeeing his daughter, a
junkie, and giving her money to pay for drugs, unbeknownst to Willie.
When the possessed Regan encounters Willie, she tells her that her
daughter is alive causing Willie to have a sobbing fit.
4.) The exorcism in the film lasts one night. In the book, it occurs
over a period of five days and includes one break in the exorcism
where Karras speaks briefly to Kinderman. Also, in the film, Karras
and Merrin are the only ones in the room performing the exorcism on
Regan. In the book, they are continuously interrupted by Karl, Willie,
Chris and Sharon.
5.) Some moments are actually more graphic and unrelenting in the book
than in the film. One example in the book is when Regan is writhing
and being thrashed on her bed causing Sharon and Chris to call the
doctors. As the doctors enter the bedroom, Regan becomes momentarily
possessed and says, "The sow is mine. F--- me!," while pointing to her
crotch. Afterwards, she sticks her finger in her crotch and licks it.
She then crosses her arms and says, "Ah, my pearl. My sweet, innocent
pearl." Chris's reaction is to cry uncontrollably, and then she leaves
the room. The masturbation scene is worse. When Regan hits Chris in
the face causing her fall to the floor, she continues to jam the
crucifix into her already bloodied crotch.
6.) In the film's climax, Kinderman arrives at Chris's house while the
final stages of the exorcism take place. When Karras jumps out of the
window, Kinderman and Chris rush into Regan's bedroom and he observes
that Karras has fallen down on the steps. In the book, Chris and
Sharon are the ones who rush to Regan's bedroom, and we never see what
actually takes place in there when Karras jumps out, we only hear the
window glass break.
7.) In the book, there are two to three desecrations at the church
rather than one. One example is the red paint found in an obscene
letter written on a card in Latin that matches the red paint on one of
Regan's drawings.
8.) In the book, the possessed Regan says to Merrin and Karras, "this
time, you will lose." The line was never said in the film, but it was
uttered by the possessed Karras in "Exorcist III."
9.) The Spider-Walk scene and the last scene between Kinderman and
Father Dyer (where they comment on the girl's condition and
Casablanca) are in the book. The last scene was cut in the film
because director Friedkin thought that it made the film too long. The
Spider-Walk scene was cut in the film because, according to writer
Blatty, it was too soon and awkward to have a climax of a possessed
Regan approaching Sharon after Chris discovers that her friend, Burke,
is dead. According to Friedkin, he couldn't get the appropriate
reaction from Ellen Burstyn. Another scene that was cut in the film
was a conversation between Karras and Merrin on the Devil's reason for
entering the poor girl's body - this takes place in a break during the
exorcism. Merrin rationalizes that the point is to make them see how
ugly and beastly they are as humans, and to reject the possibility
that God loves them. The scene is in its entirety in the book.
All these elements and minute details show that "The Exorcist" is not
just another thrill horror show. It is the most powerful, humanistic,
supernatural horror film ever made.
EXORCIST COMMENTS
Here are a few comments, feelings, arguments, positive and negative
reactions I would like to share from some movie buffs and general
audience members who have seen "The Exorcist" - most are regular
contributors to Moviething forums and IMDB forums.
I don't think one has to believe in the supernatural to be frightened
by this film. I saw the whole possession thing as an allegory to the
generation gap. The separation of youth from the adult society. After
all this film came in on the tide of "the summer of love" and the
whole rebellion movement. What I found, however, to be truly
frightening with this film are the subtleties. There was something
primal to the whole thing. It played on the fears that most animals
have: separation anxiety. To be separated from the mother. As children
we always expect our mother to come to our rescue. As a good mother
she always does. The most terrifying scene in the film is when
Regan,in the clutches of the demon,screams out:"Mother make it
stop!!." A terrified Ellen Burstyn looks on helplessly. There is
nothing she can do.The worst fears of both parent and child are
clearly exploited here. Another scary element for me was the shaking
of the faith in science. Science,in my view,has always come to the
rescue of man. In this situation it comes up bankrupt for the young
Regan. Even the doctors conclude that a priest might be helpfull. As
an atheist,it is not that I don't believe in God and the Devil,it is
that I don't WANT to. I find science and humanism much more
comforting. This is how THE EXORCIST affected me. Thank God it was
only a movie (I hope!)! - Thanks to Bobo-40
It should be noted that many people see 'The Exorcist' today with some
of the most shocking footage deleted--the scene where Reagan
masturbates with a crucifix. This might make a big difference in how
one views the film. - Thanks to Hermit C-2
The Exorcist was great! One of the truly great horror films of all
time. The original was the only one worth talking about. That's
usually the case unfortunately. - Thanks to Steve-214
I saw The Exorcist at the drive-in when I was a kid. And it remains
one of the scariest cinematic experiences I've ever had. I wonder how
much of its power stemmed from Mike Oldfield's (Tubular Bells)
soundtrack? - Thanks to charmaS
I remember when it opened in theaters in Washington, D.C. It was the
70's equivalent of the mania that surrounds movies like The Phantom
Menace --- lines around the block and no one talked of anything else.
And the lines were full of adults who'd obviously skipped work to see
it in the afternoon (I did.) - Thanks to Whidbey-2
I live in the UK where the Exorcist was banned until this year, so
like most I went to the cinema to watch it - what I saw was one of the
worst films I have ever seen. It lacked any real story line,
absolutely nothing happens in the first hour, you could cut it from
the film and you would lose nothing. The film totally relies on slang
in order to scare people who watch it, that and the fact that the girl
is also talking to priests. The film may have been good in it's day
but it just dosen't cut it in comparison to films today, it was a big
disapointment. Thanks to Slp3
Many have said that the Exocist is the scariest movie ever made. That
may be the case, but it should have a proviso on it.... If you believe
in that sort of thing. I am a horror enthusiast. I like horror a lot.
Was I disappointed with the Exorcist. No way. Did it scare me? Not one
bit. The reason - I am completely un-religious. I don't believe in the
afterlife, demons, angels, heaven or hell. All the religious imagery
and mythology was of no consequence to me. The only way for someone to
be scared of something is if the believe there is a chance that it
could happen to them. As I don't believe in demons, I don't believe in
possesion. To me it was an imaginary situation, but to someone who
believes in all the stuff I don't, it scared the bejeezus out of them
because in the back's of their minds, there was a chance that it could
happen to them. For me, the Exorcist is an excellent well written,
well acted piece of cinema. I liked it so much I bought the 25th
Anniversary special edition. Was it a great movie? Absolutely. Was it
scary? For me - No. For millions of others - Too darn right. Either
way, if you haven't seen it - do so. - Thanks to Exar
On a sound note, I've heard that a microphone was placed into a jar of
bees and this sound was persistant at low levels throughout the film
which, in effect, created an instinctual response in the audience to
cringe. I think "The Exorcist" is the scariest movie I've ever seen,
alongside "The Haunting." - Thanks to Gryphon-7
"The Exorcist" didn't scare me at all. I thought it a lot of religious
nonesense and quite silly. I recently saw a screening of an excellent
print with an audience of fans. I wanted to have another look and
reasses it. Again, for me, it didn't do much. I've long maintained
that the soundtrack is what really scares. It is, indeed, nerve
wracking and does get to me, but the story strikes me as silly and the
images as overkill. I have a friend, who saw if when it was first
released, and it struck him as hilariously funny. So, much so that he
laughed hysterically and was kicked out of the theatre. - Thanks to
humble-2
I found this most interesting article while surfing. I hope you
enjoyed it.
Rafael Fernando Sperb
>I found this most interesting article while surfing. I hope you
>enjoyed it.
I liked it a lot, thank you.
I watched Exorcist II on TV last summer (Brazil summer, that was in
January, 1999 probably) and I have the same opinion, it is boring and
confusing ...
I've never watched The Exorcist from the beggining. The only time I
watched it, was almost at the end, 'cause I was too scared to watch it
:-) and I thought some scenes (like the vomiting) were pretty silly
..
I'll watch it again when I can (my video is crashed).
In the video RENTer (I don't know how to say that, the place where I
rent movies) I usually go, there is some sort of special edition of
The Exorcist, which is two tapes, one of them, if I'm right, is a
documentary ...
Can you tell me if this is the full movie ? I mean, with no cuts ?
With all the scenes ?
Thanks a lot
_________________
Rafael Fernando Sperb
rfs...@nh.conex.net
Kitt...@encode.com
Fernando Sperb) wrote:
>On Wed, 29 Dec 1999 06:33:30 -0800, Kitt...@encode.com wrote:
>
>>I found this most interesting article while surfing. I hope you
>>enjoyed it.
>
>I liked it a lot, thank you.
>
>I watched Exorcist II on TV last summer (Brazil summer, that was in
>January, 1999 probably) and I have the same opinion, it is boring and
>confusing ...
>
>I've never watched The Exorcist from the beggining. The only time I
>watched it, was almost at the end, 'cause I was too scared to watch it
>:-) and I thought some scenes (like the vomiting) were pretty silly
>..
>
>I'll watch it again when I can (my video is crashed).
>In the video RENTer (I don't know how to say that, the place where I
>rent movies) I usually go, there is some sort of special edition of
>The Exorcist, which is two tapes, one of them, if I'm right, is a
>documentary ...
>
>Can you tell me if this is the full movie ? I mean, with no cuts ?
>With all the scenes ?
>
>
>Thanks a lot
>_________________
>Rafael Fernando Sperb
>rfs...@nh.conex.net
I think both versions include the full movie. Special Edition
usually means it contains behind the scenes shots, documentries,
interviews. I suggest you rent the Special Edition.