What can I possibly say
about The Exorcist that hasn't already been said? I don't even have a memorable story to tell
about the first time I saw it. I know it
was very controversial and, because I was underage at 10-years old, my dad had
to accompany me to see it when it was released in 1973. But, it didn't really make a lasting
impression on me and has never been one of my favorite movies. In fact, I felt almost like I had to watch it
for my Countdown to Halloween, because it is undoubtedly one of the landmark
films of the 1970s. No body of work
about horror movies of the 70s can neglect it.
I watched The Exorcist
recently, as I did all the movies that are subjects on my blog this month, and
learned three things about it that I had either forgotten or I did not
realize. First of all, regardless of
genre, it is an excellent movie! Second,
while it is definitely an intense and disturbing movie, I don't know that it's
a particularly scary movie. Third, maybe
(as I've sometimes read) The Exorcist isn't really a horror movie at all. Please allow me to elaborate upon these three
points.
The Exorcist is an excellent movie!
Due to its reputation,
my opinion of The Exorcist developed during the years that I never actually
watched the movie. It wasn't one I
watched over and over again. I
understood it to be a classic horror movie, a must-see for anyone who loves the
genre. When I watched it recently,
though, I realized that whether or not that's what it is, it is also an
expertly made movie. Does anyone
remember it was nominated for ten Academy Awards? And not even for make-up or special effects
(I wonder if there were categories for those back then).
The Exorcist was
nominated for Best Picture, Best Actress (Ellen Burstyn), Best Supporting Actor
(Jason Miller), Best Supporting Actress (Linda Blair), Best Director (William
Friedkin), Best Cinematography (Owen Roizman), Best Art/Set Direction and Best
Film Editing. It won Oscars for Best
Adapted Screenplay (William Peter Blatt) and Best Sound. Every one of these was well deserved. The nominees lost to the likes of The Sting
(which won seven awards that year), Glenda Jackson, John Houseman, Tatum O'Neal
and George Roy Hill. As usual (until The
Silence of the Lambs in 1991), the subject matter probably clipped its number
of wins.
Burstyn is phenomenal
in The Exorcist as the mother of a teenage girl who becomes possessed by
demonic forces. Her reactions to what's
happening are natural and realistic. But
for the key moment that draws me to this conclusion, don't watch how she
responds to the various atrocities she witnesses. Instead, watch how she responds when she
realizes her daughter may have killed someone.
She's been holding in her feelings when she's chatting with the
detective (Lee J. Cobb) investigating the death of her friend, Burke Dennings
(Jack MacGowran), but as soon as he leaves and she shuts the door, the
floodgates open. Maybe she doesn't
understand what's happening in her daughter's bedroom upstairs, but she
understands murder.
Friedkin is a master
behind the camera of The Exorcist. The
movie is composed of mostly short scenes with no clear idea of the passing of
time between them. Some key events aren't
even witnessed, such as the death of Dennings.
In a way, we as the spectators are experiencing the same perspective of
events as the characters living them.
One of his creative choices, I assume, was to use music sparingly. Very rarely during the movie, is there music
in the background. The famous "Tubular
Bells" music comes early when Burstyn is walking down the street, not
during any horrific scene. Often, the
only soundtrack is the low, guttural growling of the possessed Regan MacNeil
(Blair).
The Exorcist is intense and disturbing, but not necessarily scary.
If you're not disturbed
by images of a 12-year old girl spewing green projectile vomit at a priest or
her head spinning completely around 360 degrees, I hope you are by the vision
of her stabbing her crotch with a crucifix.
These are scenes that don't lessen in impact due to the passing of
years. But I'm not sure I find them
"scary". For me, it is far
more terrifying to witness the looks on the poor girl's face and in her eyes
during the moments these things are not happening. She's lost somewhere and needs help, but she
is helpless. Whether or not her
possession is a metaphor for something else, no parent should be able to hear
Regan's cries without his or her heart breaking. But that's more sad than scary.
I'm scared in movies
when I think its events could really happen.
Or, perhaps more accurately, I'm scared in movies when there's a threat
of danger to someone, particularly to someone to whom I can relate. I'm not saying demonic possession couldn't
happen, but I don't feel it's likely to happen to me or my family. I mean, there's a larger chance one of us
would be stalked by a slasher. In The
Exorcist, I never feel a threat to anyone but Regan herself, therefore, I can't
relate. It also comes down to
suspense. Even unimaginable circumstances
can be made terrifying with suspense.
The Exorcist is not a suspenseful movie.
Again, it's intense and disturbing, but not suspenseful.
Look at how Friedkin
presents his horrors. They are sudden
and unexpected, with no gradual build-up and reveal. For example, the first two instances that
something funny is happening to Regan are so matter-of-fact that they're nearly
throwaways. Regan mentions in passing
her imaginary friend, Captain Howdy, and later walks into a party and urinates
on the floor. Both of these events occur
with neither fanfare, nor, as mentioned earlier, music. There are no attempts to build suspense with
scenes like this; they simply happen.
The Exorcist isn't really a horror movie at all.
This may be my most
controversial point. But think about
it. I've just explained that the
director does nothing to build suspense, or even shock the audience with sudden
surprises. Horrible things happen, but
not for the sake of scaring the audience.
In an introduction to the version of The Exorcist I watched, Friedkin
says the movie is about faith.
"Yeah, right," I thought, "he must be ashamed of the
horror genre and he's trying to distance himself from it." But after watching it, I tend to agree. Why else is the movie split between what's
happening in Chris MacNeil's Georgetown brownstone and what's happening in the
life of despondent priest, Father Damien Karras (Miller)?
If you can't tell from
the look in his eyes, Karras flat out tells a colleague that he thinks he's
lost his faith. In the obvious sense,
the fact that he accepts that Regan has indeed been possessed is how he regains
it. I mean, if you believe in the devil,
you must also believe in God, right? But
in a less obvious way, The Exorcist is all about faith. For one thing, the MacNeils have no faith;
they are not religious. What does that
say about the possession? Were they
targeted by demons because they were godless people? Or are demons just indiscriminate
predators? It's fairly certain that
faith will not automatically protect you.
In the face of horrible things, how important is fate? Apparently, it cannot protect you.
I could easily be
convinced that The Exorcist is more a drama than a horror film. In fact, it's almost a really ugly, albeit
well-made, version of a disease-of-the-week TV movie. What is wrong with Regan? Doctors think she has a lesion in her
temporal lobe. ("There's nothing
wrong with her bed; there's something wrong with her brain.") But there's nothing on her scan. It must be drugs, then. Nope?
Well, let's call the psychiatrist.
When hypnosis fails, let's call an exorcist. I mean, if Regan believes she is possessed,
then maybe believing the demon is being cast from her will heal her. You know what? This would make an excellent episode of
House!
Conclusion
All I can say
definitively is that when I re-watched, The Exorcist, I loved it! Technically, the filmmakers and actors were
at the tops of their games in producing one of the rare movies to which I would
award a rating of 9 out of 10 on the Internet Movie Database. The fact that it provides the opportunity for
debate 41 years after it was first released is a testament to its status as a
classic. I'd like to encourage people
who have never seen it because of its perceived genre to cast their
preconceptions aside. Don't think of The
Exorcist as only a horror movie. It is a
simply a movie, perhaps one of the best.
Tomorrow: The Reincarnation of Peter Proud!
