Directed by William Friedkin
Review based upon the UK Warner DVD release
"The Exorcist" is one of the most important and frequently imitated horror movies of all time. In this incredible film, actress Chris MacNeil (Ellen Burstyn) becomes increasingly disturbed by the inexplicable behaviour of her 12 year-old daughter Regan (Linda Blair) - mouthing obscenities, her bed rocking back and forth without apparent cause, and her possible connection to a murder. Doctors and psychologists have no explanation, and as a last resort Chris consults a priest. Father Damian Karras (Jason Miller), a Jesuit priest who is having doubts about his own faith following his mother’s death, investigates and concludes that Regan is possessed by a demon. He recommends to Chris that the only way to cure Regan is for an exorcism be conducted by Father Merrin (Max Von Sydow).
The success, or rather the phenomenon, that was “The Exorcist” was wilder than anybody could've dreamed. The press ranted for weeks about the en-masse audience walk-outs, the vomiting in the aisles, the claims and counter-claims as to doctrinal authenticity, the fact that it was supposedly based on documented fact, and even the claims that the film itself was literally demonically possessed. All of this contributed to making it the second highest grossing film of it's time. Director Friedkin, who was then riding high on the success of the cop thriller “The French Connection”, delivers some undeniably effective shocks - obscenities, urination, vomiting, and a rather grim scene where a twelve year-old girl is seen masturbating with a crucifix - which were certainly some of the most hardcore obscenities ever subjected to an audience at the time. “The Exorcist” well and truly put the old adage about the best horror being that which is left unseen into the grave for once and for all. Indeed, for many years “The Exorcist” became the yardstick against which horror films were measured. It must also be the first case of a film changing the nature of modern religion. Soon after the film, charismatic churches began to report an alarming rise in cases of possession. Religious populists of the twentieth century such as Billy Graham, had never touched on this relatively obscure area of Biblical doctrine, but after the film’s success churches became obsessed with cases of demonic possession, even resulting in professional exorcists who travelled the world delivering audiences from demons.
”The Exorcist” is all undeniably highly effective, but in the cold light of day it could be mistaken by some as only really a well-made exploitation film. William Peter Blatty had had considerable success with the 1971 novel that the film is based on. Blatty was a former Jesuit seminarian, and he clearly gives the film an authentic ring. There are three priests cre
dited as advisors on the end credits, and when we see the priests reading rituals of exorcism there is no doubt that this is the real thing. In fact what's surprising, when you contrast “The Exorcist” with the spate of imitators that followed it, is how it doesn’t fall into genre patterns - it's a character driven film. Indeed it's almost as much a film about Catholicism and about the crisis of faith in the modern world as it is a story about possession and exorcism.Yet for all its obvious sincerity, it's a theological debate that's sometimes presented with the visceral appeal of a screaming tabloid headline. It seems at once a film that's both earnest and calculating. The core of its dramatics are not very subtle - in all cases it uses the child to make its points. It brutalizes her to show that evil exists, and it brutalizes her to show that science is unfeeling. It uses a child because a child represents innocence - the shock derives from seeing a child conduct such obscenities. Unfortunately though, it tends to wheel her out every time it wants to make a point. For example, Friedkin throws in unpleasant images of Linda Blair undergoing a spinal tap and having large needles inserted, or of her terrified face surrounded by the deafening machinery of a CAT scan. These scenes serve no point in themselves until one realizes that the film could have a loaded thesis. It perhaps wants to demonstrate that science is blind, and it uses the child to make it's point. Indeed, many critics have argued that the film really constitutes one of the most extreme cases of child abuse in the history of cinema.
It also could be seen to lead to some interesting implications - the film perhaps also implies that innocence is a natural state of childhood and that for children to be obscene (use sexual references, masturbate, even to urinate on the carpet) is something evil, and because it's behaviourally alien to them, it must therefore come from the Devil himself. It's a type of thinking that sits atop the mood of conservative parental thinking of the 1970's - parents suddenly unable to understand how come their children were no longer innocent and cherubic, and were instead dropping out of society, taking drugs, acting promiscuously and rioting against established authority. The 1960's youth revolt was something so far removed from some parents’ views that children should be good and innocent, that the temptation to see the Devil as a cause for their misconduct must have been very strong (the film makes remarkable contrast to Ken Russell’s “The Devils”, a film about Catholicism and demonic possession which however takes the view that possession is not actual but a product of religious frenzy).
The film made a clean sweep of nominations at that year’s Academy Awards - obtaining nominations for Best Picture, Best Actor (Miller), Best Actress (Burstyn), Best Supporting Actress (Blair), Best Director, Best Editing, Best Cinematography and Best Art Direction. However, it only secured wins for Best Sound and Best Adapted Screenplay. The dour Miller and the neurotic Burstyn perhaps didn't deserve their nominations, but Linda Blair is incredible, as her transformation from cherubic innocent to demonic incarnate is truly startling (although at times you're never sure whether to applaud her performance, or the team of makeup artists and actresses substituting for the demon’s voice and the grosser obscenities). There are also a number of fine performances in the supporting cast that received no nominations - Lee J. Cobb as the sly, boyish detective, and especially Max Von Sydow’s wonderfully dignified turn as Merrin. Blatty won the Award for the adaptation of his own 1971 novel. Here he does a fair job of pruning his occasionally ponderous work, including cutting many of the unnecessary subplots about the butler’s heroin addicted daughter and much of the careful documentation of black magic rituals (although this does leaves the sudden appearance of a desecrated Virgin Mary early in the piece as something totally incongruous that's never linked to anything else).
In 2000, Blatty and Friedkin combined to cinematically re-release a re-edited version of the film. This version restored eleven of the fifteen minutes that were trimmed to bring the original release in at the two hour running time. These restored scenes include the “Casablanca” scene where Kinderman and Father Dyer walk away from the McNeil residence, several scenes which give more time to the initial attempts to medically diagnose Regan, and the famous spider walk sequence where Regan walks down the stairs on her hands and legs bent over backwards. The re-release also adds the dubious effect of several subliminal shots of demonic faces being seen or reflected against walls. It is an effect the film doesn’t need, as the directorial shocks are more than enough to carry it on its own. The most successful element of the re-release is the new sound mix - the creepiness moves all around, and there are a lot of jump moments thanks to unexpectedly loud slams and bangs.
Despite some disturbing narrative elements and the ongoing moral arguments, "The Exorcist" is one of the most vital works that horror cinema has ever produced. It's a classic in every sense of the word, and one which still has the power to terrify over thirty years later. If you've never seen it, do so immediately. You won't regret it.
10 out of 10
One of the most important horror masterpieces of all time... terrifying but incredibly thought-provoking all at once
