The Exorcist: Whats the big deal? (1 Viewer)

[Derrik Draven]

The Exorcist holds a very special, (in a bad way), place in my heart...or is it, subconcious?

My story with this movie starts out in the mid 70's, when HBO was VERY new in our area. I remember this movie as being one of the earliest ones my family saw on HBO.

I was about 7 when it made it's way to our living room. Vaguely do I remember the "hype" my older brother and his new wife laid down on my parents to get them interested in watching it.

All I knew was that there was some VERY bad movie coming on tv and, I wasn't allowed to watch it. Any of you with kids probably know what happens when you try to keep your kids away from something that they already know about, but aren't allowed to see.

I was forced to sit with my grandmother in our front living room while the rest of the family watched "the bad movie". Drove me nuts!!!

Well...I can't remember how thing played out next but, I'm guessing that I must've bugged the shit outta dear old mom (dad would've been useless to try to manipulate), to let me watch the movie. Knowing me, I probably did it over a few weeks and finally wore her down.

I know that I didn't get to see the entire movie. I do remember being scared to death, partly out of the hype playing on my own childish fears.

The opening credits scared me. :b No joke. Hey, I was seven!!!

Anyhoo, at some point she made me turn it off. I remember her saying, "okay..that's enough". It's been so long but I think I got to the point where Karras met Regan for the 1st time.

But, it was too late. I was horrified. Even at that young age, I was pretty in tune to religion and all I knew was, that was Satan and that's what he can do to little kids.

Literally for years, that image of Linda Blair, all messed up with those nasty fox-like eyes, terrorized my dreams.

Wake up in a pool of sweat; screaming with no sounds coming out; losing sleep, ect. Yep, it was THAT bad for me.

After puberty hit, my dreams...ummmm...changed...for the better! Forgot all about demons.

'Till "she" made an appearance in a non-descript dream I had one night, several years later, and the nasty nightmare bullshit began again all over again.

BUT...this time I was much older, ie early 20's. An older mind and an older person. I was PISSED that I was scared. Over the course of 3 different dreams, that I distinctly remember, I went from simply being angry, to being outright violent with her demonic visage. Finally fought back in the 3rd dream and...that was it. Never been "visited" since.

To this day, when I watch the movie...there's a certain odd "twinge" deep down in my subconscious. I guess it's a small little fear. A remnant of an subconscious demon that I fought through childhood.

Of course some would ask, "why the hell watch the movie now, then"?!?

Because, home theater kicks ass and, "The Version You've Never Seen" sounds AWESOME in ddex!!!!!

That's why!!!

See, home theater is more important than any stupid mental problems.

But seriously, FOR ME...there can NEVER be any movie as scary as this one. Perhaps it was an "age" thing. Like as in being too damn young to have seen it.

Try it out. Any forum members that are resonably religious, sit your 7 year old in front of the tv and pop in The Exorcist. Curious to see what happens.

 

[Kevin M]

I personally believe that the film doesn't effect modern audiences as strongly as it did back in the 70 because..
#1 Well, mainly because I agree with many of the comments that have already been made...primarily "all the imitators over the years have diminished it's impact" etc. etc.

But #2 I personally think that in the face of all the shock flash Mtv editing and pacing the film today is indeed considered "slow" by younger viewers who have been raised on this Mtv pacing and have adversely been preconditioned into a short attention span, thus ruining any film that actually takes it's time developing characters and plot...god help any filmmaker today who would even try to make a film with those qualities..oh yeah just ask Paul Shrader who's prequel Exorcist: The beginning had the nerve to actually have those very qualities and as a result had the film taken out of his hands and is now being filled with "re-shoots" to amp up the gore....:rolleyes


Oh BTW...

The book was based on actual events that took place in Maryland.

...actually the original supposed "true" story only took place at the very beginning in maryland, the bulk of the exorcism took place in my home town St. Louis.

 

[Shayne Lebrun]

RobertR: Ah. In that case, I'm talking to NickSo.

Different strokes for different folks, then. Why do some people blubber like little girls with skinned knees at the end of Titanic, while others roll their eyes? Why do I laugh until I'm crying at Baseketball and Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back, while my wife simply feels insulted?

 

[Nick Totoro]

Simple enough and many arguments would never need to exist if we all just accepted that as gospel...

I cry like a baby every time at the end of Cinema Paradiso while my girlfriend is like "yeah... it's sweet, but still... "

Nick

 

[Kenneth English]

Good point. I, for one, have a hard time understanding why more people cannot apply the same logic to other religiously-themed films, like Ben-Hur. You don't have to buy into its theology, but that shouldn't stop you from investing into it as a dramatic device.

You make a good point, but...

I'm one of those people who, while the religious stuff in The Exorcist doesn't bother me, I can't get past it in "straight" religious stories like (your example) Ben-Hur.

I think the difference here is that, to me at least, a horror movie is something that requires a certain suspension of disbelief and acceptance of the fantasy aspect while something like Ben-Hur, regardless of its merit as pure filmmaking, is asking you to buy the whole Christian theology aspect as a factual given. Movies like this feature many fictional characters (i.e. Ben-Hur) but are supposed to take place in a purportedly real past in which said fictional characters interact with supposedly real "magical" figures like the biblical Jesus. All the mystical hockus-pocus that takes place in these stories is meant to be taken seriously and I just can't get past that. Anyway, maybe it's just me...

Does that make sense?

 

[Gordon Moore]

Scary to me means that there are a lot of tension filled or boo moments. The Exorcist is more creepy or disturbing than scary. 70's movies seem to have a real "evil" element to them I think anyway. It still holds up for me as disturbing but I guess that's more from a Catholic background standpoint (I do think it's a very solid story though FWIW).

For others, Movies grounded in something physical is scary or disturbing like the Son of Sam murders...where the pyscho is potentially your next door neighbor.

I suspect the difference in people's ages are what's going to make a difference as well. Whether you were a child of the 70's, 80's or 90's will matter. It definately depends on what era you grew up in.

 

[Jack Briggs]

Yes, Kenneth, you're making sense. And I agree, vis. the 1959 Ben-Hur.

 

[David Fisher]

Derrick,

Great post. I was probably about the same age when the movie first premiered on HBO, and was one of my mom's favorite movies. She had been raised in a Roman Catholic household, and the movie's religious themes really hit home. My parents didn't encourage the study of any specific religion, but the performances really had an impact on me.


My sister and I had to see this when it was re-released. The added devil imagery and spider-walk scene were great, but we were smiling during most of the show. Sometimes we were just straight laughing out loud. Some of the performances are a little over-the-top, and the most frightening scenes in the movie involved the clothing. Regan's mother sports some shocking pants in the hospital. Oy.

 

[Justin W]

*The Exorcist is of higher quality than any horror movie I am aware of.

Watch Psycho, and The Shining then get back to me.

Others that I think are better but you may not are The Omen, Halloween, The Others, Signs, Jaws, Alien, Aliens, and The Texas Chain Saw Massacre.


The Exorcist didn't scare me at all. It made me want to vomit and go to church. It's disgusting, it's vile, and there's no excuse for it. The girl stabbing herself in the crotch with the cross is the most disgusting thing I've ever seen. It seems like the purpose of this movie is to see if you can survive through it. I don't like that, I like my horror movies to be more suspenseful than anything else. Except for The Texas Chain Saw Massacre which just made me crap myself.

 

[Richard Hardbattle]

In my humble opinion - It's as perfect a film as has ever been made.

I almost think the actual exorcism is incidental. To me, the main thrust of the story seems to be about Father Karras, and his loss of faith.

Rich

 

[Gordon Moore]

Rich...you nailed it!

 

[Kenneth English]

The Exorcist didn't scare me at all. It made me want to vomit and go to church. It's disgusting, it's vile, and there's no excuse for it. The girl stabbing herself in the crotch with the cross is the most disgusting thing I've ever seen. It seems like the purpose of this movie is to see if you can survive through it.

I read an interview with author William Peter Blatty (can't remember where) in which he addressed your points and I pretty much agree with him.

Basically he said that if you want an audience to believe that this demon is truly "evil" then you have to be willing to go where that takes you. What makes the demon's actions so horrific is that it has absolutely no remorse, no conscience, and is trying with all it's might to degrade and eventually murder this child. If you're being honest and respecting your audience then you have to show the depths to which this thing is willing to go. Otherwise all you've got is a kid with a bad attitude and some major dermatological problems.

I think that's one reason why so many people have found THE EXORCIST so disturbing -- it doesn't wink at the audience. Friedkin and Blatty treat the story as seriously as if it were really happening. Like a lot of 70s filmmakers, they're perfectly willing to hurt you (and bless'em for that!). They understood that horror movies are supposed to be assaultive and provocative. They respected the audience enough to assume you were there to be challenged without having to sit next to you and pat your hand while whispering comfortingly in your ear that "it's only a movie..."

Emotional sincerity has been in such short supply in horror cinema for so long that I think the majority of people in modern audiences don't know how to handle a horror movie that doesn't try to self-defuse with a load of wink wink, nudge, nudge irony (ala SCREAM and its ilk). People seem to have given up on the idea that horror films are supposed to, you know, horrify. They want their movies scary, just not too scary. I don't get it. Why would anyone go to a horror movie to be reassured?

 

[Alex Spindler]

This is as much a problem of any 'scary film' than it is of The Exorcist specifically. I find that many people are primarily focused with the jump scare as a qualification of a scary movie. Not faulting them, but any film billed as a horror or scary movie is found not to be scary if it lacks the jump scare elements. The original version of The Exorcist certainly qualifies. Those films that rely mostly on atmosphere and concept to 'scare' will likely fail to be found scary by many.

Interestingly, The Version You've Never Seen specifically adds audio cues, hidden faces, and flashes of the devilish statue at points in time, adding in the jump scare element. In reading this thread, those elements are commonly brought up as the only 'scary' parts of The Exorcist. Obviously, the addition of these elements was a wise choice to have modern audiences enjoy the film (despite the cries of the purists).

I think the reason that a film like Alien remains scary for many is because it used the 'jump scare' as well as atmosphere to fill its bill as a 'scary movie'.

 

[Jack Briggs]

And Robert Wise's The Haunting used skillful storytelling and plotting, superb camera work, and flawless acting to induce chills. The film practically used innuendo with nearly zero special effects to send chills down the spine. No schlock needed. Or visual or audible cues.

 

[Brian W.]

I had said at the time that Version You've Never Seen was released that we had a whole generation who had never even seen a horror DRAMA, and they didn't know what to do with it.

I'm not sure I was quite right about that, but I do think they'd probably never seen a horror film with such a serious tone. Even the more dramatic horror movies seem to have a lot of humor in them. And there is almost NO humor in The Exorcist at all.

 

[Jason_Els]

Emotional sincerity has been in such short supply in horror cinema for so long that I think the majority of people in modern audiences don't know how to handle a horror movie that doesn't try to self-defuse with a load of wink wink, nudge, nudge irony (ala SCREAM and its ilk). People seem to have given up on the idea that horror films are supposed to, you know, horrify. They want their movies scary, just not too scary. I don't get it. Why would anyone go to a horror movie to be reassured?

Precisely! Is it because we believe there's nothing left to scare audiences? Could it be the lack of scripts? I don't know. Hacker movies aren't really scary in my book. For me the cinematography of Nosferatu or the unseen hand of Evil ala The Omen or the zombie in the graveyard at the very beginning of Night of the Living Dead give me the most scares. I thought The Others was wonderfully scary in parts (the book of the dead, the servants walking in the dark, the old woman), but so few movies go for that sort of gothic horror I consider it almost a genre fallen under the blades of Jason, Michael, and Freddy.

Which is why I want to see Onibaba when and if it ever comes out on DVD. Supposedly it's one of the best horror films of all time.

Listen to them! The children of the night! What music they make!

 

[RobertR]

I just bought The Haunting on DVD and I felt it didn't live-up to its hype.

I have to agree with you, Jason. I had the same problem with it as The Exorcist, except more so. All we really have here is a portrayal of the internally generated fears of an emotionally disturbed woman. In turn, the emotions I felt were pity and annoyance at her plight, not fear.

 

[RyanPC]

The Exorcist isn't as scary as I once thought it was, but that is probably because I have become immuned to it because of all the films I have seen since. And I didn't think that The Ring remake was all that scary-- not at all what everyone made it out to be. But both films are very well made and unsettling, which is most likely the key factor. I suppose I'm not saying anything someone hasn't said before me in this thread, but I just think The Exorcist is one helluva good movie.

Oh and I also enjoyed the original The Haunting. Of course, I wouldn't recommend it to fans of non-stop action films-- the fear in that film is the fear of the unknown and it's the fear of what they don't show that makes it so effective.

 

[Nick Graham]

Speaking of Morgan Creek firing Schrader off of the Exorcist prequel for making it character driven and focused, they have now replaced him with Renny Harlin, who will be doing many reshoots in November. Why do I get the feeling even Exorcist II will look good compared to this?

On a side note, we had friends over tonight who were wanting to see a scary movie. Upon hearing they had never seen it, and knowing they were fans of the original, I popped in Exorcist III. Still a vastly underrated, and at times unnerving horror film (though of course not on the same 'gets inside your head and stays there' level of the original). It also has some great performances.

I just rented the original Haunting tonight, and plan to watch it this weekend....you didn't just drop a huge spoiler on me did you?

 

[Jason_Els]

I just rented the original Haunting tonight, and plan to watch it this weekend....you didn't just drop a huge spoiler on me did you?

I try to be extremely careful about posting spoilers and I don't think anything about the plot or the ending or any specific points of action have been divulged. We have divulged something about the psychological state of one of the characters but that, imho, doesn't give anything away as her state is addressed immediately in the very beginning of the film.