First of all, let’s be straight up and say that The Exorcist is not an easy film to watch. It’s not, in any way, an end-of-the-day-to-unwind type of film. It’s not even a film to scare you for ‘fun’, as so many horror films before and after it have aspired to do. This is a serious film: and in its scope and magnitude, it does have the power to haunt you. We’re watching it this week on ‘Rogue Cinema’, because — for so many reasons – it’s a film that you can’t ignore.
When it was first released 37 years ago, The Exorcist instantly became a cultural phenomenon. The stories that surrounded the film’s production and performances elevated it to the level of worldwide front page news, and assured its lasting impression on the popular imagination. It divided opinion from critics, religious bodies and the public, and to this day it remains one of the top twenty grossing films of all time. How did this adaptation from William Peter Blatty’s novel, directed by William Friedkin (The French Connection), achieve such success?
Strangely, the answer to this question seems to both support and further mystify both the original production vision for the film, and the aspects of it that have become most widely known in popular culture. In 1973 Warner Brothers studio was ready to produce a horror film that showed the audience things it could never have imagined possible before on screen. The infamous 360-degree head rotation, and ‘spider walk’ tricks were — for their time, and even now — shocking depictions. Other scenes from Regan’s descent into demonic possession challenge the viewer to the limit of what they can bear to watch: and so they should. The Exorcist is a film that channels the extremities of inhumanity into the human form of an innocent child, and audiences came out in their millions to see it.
At the heart of the film’s success, then, is the spectacle of a child’s suffering. Yet, the film can’t be equated to the spectacle, which was copied and parodied to such poor effect in so many sequels and spin-offs. The Exorcist presents — in archetypal figures — the components of the battle between good and evil that lies at the heart of the myths and stories that infuse Western religious and moral consciousness. What’s more, the shocking visual assault that the film directs out towards the viewer brings you into that conflict: suddenly, face to face with the devil. If you can’t bear to look, then you’re going to have to live with that.
Some of the film’s most disturbing moments are ones that might pass by the casual or first-time viewer. Father Karras (the boxer/psychologist/failing priest) struggles with his desire to provide for his ailing mother, and is haunted by guilt after her death. In his dream, he watches her descend from the street into an unseen subway. The purity of his pain is echoed in later scenes, as we witness the anguish of Regan’s mother, a loving parent who has to watch her daughter undergo repeated invasive tests in machines that are more horrible than the unseen terrors they seek to defeat. As the needles squirt blood from a child’s vein, you may want to look away. But if you do, be aware that you’re disconnecting, you’re sealing yourself off. And you’re going to have to live with that.
Perhaps you’re also going to have to live with the fact that, sealed-off in the sanitised Western society whose capital city the film is set within, you’re also not witnessing the starvation of — literally – millions of African children who are suffering at the same time as you live with (historically and by virtually any other standard) fabulous excess. You’re going to have to live with the insular comfort only possible through a convenient blinkering from all the genocide, torture and countless other inhuman things that human beings do to each other every day. We, first-class citizens of the globalised capitalist empire, get rich from, but will not look towards the forgotten corners of our world where evil is brought down on the innocent, brutally and relentlessly…Or the corners of our hearts, where evil also lives and breathes.
The Exorcist is a film that challenges us to look — and then, to shrieve. It’s a film made during a time when America was sick: from the constant threat of obliteration from cold war, from deceit at the highest levels of government, and from widespread mistrust of its rising generation. The film closes with Regan’s demon being exorcised: but at the ultimate cost, a price that affirms that justice accepts no shortcuts. Today, the relevance of this extraordinary movie lies in its powerful depiction of the myths that our society was built from and must answer to. Neither reason nor superstition alone can heal our sickness, or cast out our demons. We must face the devil: only in doing so, can we be made free, to see God.
NEXT WEEK: Kendahl will be sharing with us her take on the brilliant ‘Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind’ (2004). For a more extended schedule, check in here.
Really loved the connection to real world dynamics. The myth as window on reality and our reaction to the myth as window on ourselves.
The first time I saw this flick I was 12. The Scout Master took us to see this and The Shining as a double-feature. The deal was, we weren’t allowed to tell our parents. Both films are supremely disturbing but for different reasons. At the time I was a believer in the occult world so this seemed to address the real world. There was this sense that, once a film like this touched you, its specter would hang over you for the rest of your life. I really felt like I’d participated in some dark doings. Yet, as you note, looking away or even walking out of the theatre, allowed me to disassociate myself — it gave me the impression that evil was beyond my control and reenforced what I’d been taught: that one must train the mind to see only good things.
Now days, I dwell quite a bit on the darkness within and without. And I’m much less afraid.
Matt, can’t believe you saw this when you were 12! It’s a pretty ‘serious’ film, as I say, and shocking enough for me as an adult! (Haven’t seen ‘The Shining, so I can’t comment on that!) So, are you saying that you walked out?
I remember feeling the same way – that (as is often repeated in church meetings) ‘once you put something in your mind, you can never remove it’ – which in one sense, has a truth to it. However, this kind of thinking gives an incredible power to media that I don’t think all media deserves. It suggests that we lack the ability to weigh up and interpret what we see. As a professor in my department says: if we are scared by a horror film, it’s because we allow ourselves to be ‘horrorised’. The truth is that we need to learn how to live in a world where evil exists, but interpret all the data we take in, in productive ways. Surely, as my review argues, it’s better to face up to evil and work to destroy it, rather than ignore it and hope it will leave us alone!?
Something I was considering putting in this review is that ‘The Exorcist’ is a deeply religious film – ie. it uphold religious narratives. In our own faith tradition, ‘Lucifer’ is a key figure in our narratives, and he has a huge number of ‘demons’ (call them what you will) to help him in his work. There are accounts in our modern day revelation of Prophetic encounters with Satan: Moses in Moses Chapter 1, Christ in the desert (NT), Joseph Smith in the grove… ‘The Exorcist’ has things to say to all these ‘canonised’ narratives, I think.
Didn’t walk out until the double-feature was over. I’ve always been a fan of these types of films. I’m sure I was captivated.
I think I was taught to go one step beyond ignoring or pretending that evil does not exist. Closing your mind to it as a means of becoming holy was the lesson.
You’re so right about the film being deeply religious.
Matt, seriously!? I cannot believe you saw The Shining and The Exorcist when you were 12. I barely saw The Shining last year during Halloweentime, and I just barely finished watching The Exorcist a few minutes ago. Part of it is that I took my Mormon upbringing so seriously that I never watch R-rated movies when I was little.
I was struck by the difference between seeing the large house of Regan’s and the small, broken-down house of the priest and his mother. I was delighted to then read Andy’s take, because I had been thinking on the same wavelength. (I am usually slow to figure these things out, so I was a little excited :) )
I still get a thrill at thinking about the “real” Devil and “real” exorcisms. I watched “The Exorcism of Emily Rose” a few years ago, and even though the movie was okay, I just always enjoy watching movies that let me live out one of my favorite “what-ifs”. I do sometimes wish that these things were true. It makes it WAY more fun to watch and think about otherworldly creature and happenings if I think that maybe, just maybe, it might be true.
So glad you got to see the movie, Kendahl. I was really interested in the dynamics of the house, also: architecture is a material mapping of the mind in these films. One of the things I loved about ‘The Exorcist’ was how many questions went unanswered in the film, leaving your mind to wonder after the film ends. How do you think the demon gets into Regan’s bedroom: is it through the loft? Much of the film’s power is generated through its choice to contain Regan’s possession in one room of the house, during the latter stages. Going into the room is a free choice that the Priests take, in order to battle the demon. It’s every bit as archetypal a myth as Beowulf, ‘Lord of the Rings’ or Star Wars. In fact, I think it’s better than all three of those, for its purity and directness.
I saw this in high school (along with The Shining) and while I was tempted to laugh at the special effects, I couldn’t quite shake the truth that it conveyed about me and my place in the world. I must say though, that I used to really enjoy good horror, especially the psychological variety, but that I can’t handle it all as well anymore. I’m not sure what that says about me. Maybe I just don’t like being kept awake with the fears of the unknown at this point in my life, but I suspect at least with these two movies – which I’m not sure I would re-watch – that it also has something to do with what happens to children in them. Since having my own it’s just harder to observe and separate my visceral reaction.
I know what you’re saying Corktree: I used to love horror before my mission, then when I got back, I couldn’t watch it for a few years – it was just too much for me. Now I’m able to watch it again, and it doesn’t bother me at all.
It’s interesting to read about Linda Blair’s (the actress who played Regan) experience shooting ‘The Exorcist’. It took a really long time to film the movie, so she went to school during the day, and then would shoot scenes at night. She was young enough that she didn’t really understand the nature of the film, and many of the more disturbing scenes were actually filmed by her stunt double… still, it’s an incredible performance from a young girl. Apparently Regan’s bedroom set was actually refrigerated: it was freezing, in order to be able to see the breath of the actors. The story surrounding the production of the film is as interesting as the film itself!
Alright, I watched this a second time — with 30 years between. :D The film has aged remarkably well. Not sure if the Netflix version is re-mastered or what but the visual quality was striking. I also loved how the film uses so little blunt narration, expecting the audience to make jumps and figure things out or just guess, and also just live with unresolved mystery.
One of my daughter’s friends was recently diagnosed with Leukemia. The news came so suddenly and has overtaken her life and that of her family and friends so completely, as if by demon possession. I can’t help but see the parallels.
I’d also forgotten that two thirds of the film is prologue to the possession and exorcism footage. It’s a fantastic, creeping thriller rolled into profoundly contrasting vistas (Iraq and ancient time) and extremely intimate sets (various human enclosures and the ultimate … Regan’s bedroom). It’s also amazing to me that even though I no longer believe in such things as literal demon possessions, this film as an artistic expression still creeped me out.
Matt, there was some remastering done fairly recently, so the version you saw is probably the one that looks better – however, you can tell that the original product was made very well, too.
I’m so sorry to hear of your friend’s daughter.