Horror Film Review: The Exorcist (directed by William Friedkin)


When I first read Arleigh’s idea that we devote October to reviewing horror films, I knew immediately that there was no way I could let the month pass without saying a few words about one of the true classics of the horror genre, the 1973 best picture nominee The Exorcist.

Based on an equally scary novel by William Peter Blatty and directed by William Friedkin, The Exorcist is one of those films that has become so iconic that even people who have never seen it know what the movie is about.  Chris McNeil (Ellen Burstyn) is an agnostic actress who is shooting a film about student protestors on a college campus.  Her 12 year-old daughter, Regan (played by the future Grindhouse queen Linda Blair), spends her time playing with a Ouija Board and talking to her friend “Capt. Howdy.”  Unfortunately, Capt. Howdy is actually a Sumerian demon who proceeds to posses Regan.  Soon, Regan is levitating, cursing, and masturbating with a crucifix.  After trying (and failing with) all the conventional methods of treatment, Chris desperately turns to the God she doesn’t believe in and tries to convince a troubled priest (Jason Miller) to perform an exorcism on Regan.  Unfortunately, this priest has begun to question his faith and he fears that he might not be strong enough to “cure” Regan.  An elderly priest (Max Von Sydow) is called in to help with the exorcism and, faster than you can say, “The power of Christ compels you,” the two priests are locked in mortal combat for Regan’s soul.

The ultimate test of any horror films is whether or not it’s still unsettling even after you already know what’s going to happen and when all the evil is going to come jumping out of the shadows.  In short, the test is whether or not the film holds up to repeat viewings.  This is a test that The Exorcist easily passes.  I’ve seen this film enough times that I now know exactly when Linda Blair’s head is going to do that 360 degree turn and I now know exactly when to divert my eyes so I don’t have to see possessed Regan puking on the priests.  (For all the terrible physical manifestations of Regan’s possessions, it’s always the vomiting that gets to me.)  Most of the film’s “shock” sequences aren’t that scary any more because we’ve all seen far worse.  However, watching this film remains, for me, a truly unsettling experience. This is due largely to director William Friedkin.  Today’s aspiring filmmakers could learn a lot from Friedkin because, for all the attention the film’s grotesque effects received, Friedkin actually devotes more time to setting up the situation and establishing a palpable atmosphere of doom.  This is a film full of grainy, almost gray images, the perfect visual suggestion of a world that has perhaps been abandoned by its God.  It takes more than an hour before Ellen Burstyn meets Jason Miller and Max Von Sydow doesn’t show up until the final 30 minutes of the film.  At first, it seems as if the movie itself is moving slowly but, by the end of it, you realize that what Friedkin has done is that he’s sucked us into the reality of his film.  For all the special effects and metaphysical concerns, The Exorcist almost feels like a documentary.  He’s also helped by a talented cast that makes the situation feel real, regardless of how extreme things may get.  I’ve read that a lot of people decided they needed to be exorcised after seeing this film and I can understand why.

The Exorcist is a film that benefits from debate and it’s also one that is open to multiple interpretations.  Quite a few critics have argued that the Exorcist is actually a very reactionary film in that Regan’s possession can be seen as a metaphor for adolescent rebellion and her exorcism is actually more about the establishment regaining control than any attempt to save her eternal soul.  I actually think this interpretation is pretty much spot on correct though I also don’t think the filmmakers were intentionally trying to deliver that message.  Instead, I think that the Exorcist — like all great films — is simply filled with the subtext of its time.  While the filmmakers may have unintentionally created a document of then-contemporary fears, I think the film is even more interesting as an argument about the origin of sin and evil.

Ultimately, for a horror film to be truly timeless, it has to do more than just scare you.  The supernatural and/or otherworldly forces have to serve as more than just a cinematic threat; they have to stand-in for our own universal fears and concerns.  The Exorcist attempts to answer one of the most basic questions: why is there evil in the world and why do people sometimes behave in such terrible ways?  For all of the film’s notoriety, the answers it provides are surprisingly simple.  Evil is because of the devil and people behave the way they do because they’re not individually strong enough to resist the lure of sin.  The only way to defeat the world’s demons is through sacrifice, suffering, and martyrdom.  You don’t have to come from a Catholic background to “get” the Exorcist but it helps.  (To be honest, it probably helps even more to be a “fallen” Catholic like me because wow, this movie really knows how to exploit all that lingering guilt.)  Thanks to this film, it sometimes seems the only time that priests (and Catholicism in general) are portrayed positively in the movies is when they’re exorcising someone (which, contrary to popular belief, doesn’t really happen all that much).  Fortunately, you don’t have to agree with the answers provided by the Exorcist in order to find both the questions and the film itself to be intriguing.

15 responses to “Horror Film Review: The Exorcist (directed by William Friedkin)

  1. The Exorcists is one of those films — not even horror film — that more than holds up the march of time.

    As an agnostic, but still one who is quite well-versed in the teachings and ideology of Catholicism, this film really resonates. Part of me believes that the film continues to succeed is due to the basic nature of the film’s story.

    It’s a story that even filmmakers nowadays would be hesistant to touch. It put’s a young girl not just in physical danger but in metaphysical danger. It’s a danger that guns, knives and action heroes can’t save her from. It’s a danger that must be defeated by what you mentioned above: faith, sacrifice and martyrdom.

    Those are concepts and ideals that haven’t been in vogue with many people for decades and this film disturbs even the most faithless because it’s done so realisticly that they begin to question their own belief systems or lack thereof.

    Like

  2. Very interesting review, as well as observations from each of you as to the reasons this film is still effective after so many years. The only thing I would add to the latter is the importance and value of intelligence in filmmaking, especially horror films. Sounds like a no-brainer (so to speak), but in this genre, it is the exception more than the rule. Generally, the films that are “smart” – obviously written, directed, “effected”, etc. by smart people – hold up; the ones that weren’t do not. And there seem to be far more that were not. (With acknowledgement of the fun that dumb, intentionally or not, horror films can be.) Not-so-smart horror films can be enjoyable at the moment, but they do not usually bear multiple viewings, (re)viewing twenty years later, or viewing by a subsequent generation.

    “The Omen” comes to mind, as another example of a smart, scary film, also with a demonic theme, that holds up. (I heard part of an interview with the author, and he said he doesn’t believe in any of that stuff, so apparently one doesn’t need to have faith to do the scaring.) Though not as iconic as “The Exorcist”, it was simply well-done. I saw it for the first time about a year ago. It didn’t seem particularly dated to me, at least not in any way that was detrimental. And as Ms. Bowman observed about “The Exorcist”, the actors were of high enough caliber to make the extreme plot dynamics credible.

    Here’s to smart horror filmmakers. And, for that matter, to smart reviewers.

    Like

  3. Pingback: Back to School #33: Savage Streets (dir by Danny Steinmann) | Through the Shattered Lens

  4. Pingback: Horror (?) Review: Left Behind (dir by Vic Armstrong) | Through the Shattered Lens

  5. Pingback: 4 Shots From 4 Films: Kwaidan, Minority Report, La Horde, The Exorcist | Through the Shattered Lens

  6. Pingback: Horror on the Lens: Exorcist II: The Heretic (dir by John Boorman) | Through the Shattered Lens

  7. Pingback: Lisa Reviews an Oscar Winner: The Sting (dir by George Roy Hill) | Through the Shattered Lens

  8. Pingback: An Exorcist TV pilot? What Sweet Hell is This? | Through the Shattered Lens

  9. Pingback: A Movie A Day #2: Blue Chips (1994, directed by William Friedkin) | Through the Shattered Lens

  10. Pingback: 10 Horror Films That Should Have Been Nominated For Best Picture | Through the Shattered Lens

  11. Pingback: 6 Trailers For October 15th, Inspired by TCM Underground! | Through the Shattered Lens

  12. Pingback: Horror Film Review: The Sentinel (dir by Michael Winner) | Through the Shattered Lens

  13. Pingback: Scenes That I Love: Max Von Sydow Meets Death In The Seventh Seal | Through the Shattered Lens

  14. Pingback: Italian Horror Showcase: Beyond Darkness (dir by Claudio Fragasso) | Through the Shattered Lens

  15. Pingback: Lisa Reviews An Oscar Nominee: Deliverance (dir by John Boorman) | Through the Shattered Lens

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.