“The demon is a liar. He will lie to confuse us. But he will also mix lies with the truth to attack us. The attack is psychological, Damien, and powerful. So don't listen to him. Remember that - do not listen…”
Whether you want to grab a crucifix or polish up a pentagram, here’s my look at an iconic horror piece a half-century on. It’s something that arose in a new era of cinema, as the codes of old gave away—with Rosemary’s Baby came characters hailing Satan on screen and getting away it, something unthinkable a decade before. And then came William Friedkin with The Exorcist, paving the way into what we know as the modern era of horror—the question is, how does it hold up?
In terms of direction—oh, still quite well. Friedkin was a documentary filmmaker by background, and bought that sensibility here—with lots of panning shots, interesting angles, and technical know-how, from the opening scenes in Iraqi ruins to the elegant homes of Georgetown. The cast are all on top of their game—everyone talks about the legendary Max von Sydow as Father Merrin here, even though he doesn’t appear for that long all things considered, but Linda Blair as young possession victim Regan still conveys herself excellent as a lonely isolated child at first, and Ellen Burstyn as mother Chris is an underrated standout as a parent growing more desperate with every scene.
I do like the buildup in this one—Regan starts out merely hearing imaginary friends, before it escalates more and more. These days, she’d probably be throwing blood on the walls within five minutes. There’s some scenes involving seventies medical techniques exhausting themselves that many have found the most disturbing parts of the film, with invasive needles and machinery and all.
The real strength that holds up fifty years on is the cast, with Jason Miller as Father Karras being the closest to a main character—a disillusioned priest held captive by that most Catholic of themes, self-doubt and guilt. You can see the struggle in his eyes—and that makes his final sacrifices all the more memorable.
Now, does the ‘scariest film ever made’ still remain all that scary? Oh, it’s still got atmosphere, with Von Sydow’s sheer screen presence alone cementing that when he shows up to begin performing rites, but what was shocking in 1973 and has since been imitated and parodied a thousand times obviously loses some edge. Regan’s makeup and demonic cursing remains entertaining for sure, but you have to take it in the right context. Characters and mood still make it—after all, the feeling of such horror happening even in upper-class suburbs, conditions that defy doctors and science…it’s ideas that can still creep under the skin if you stop and take them in.
And the end of that final confrontation still packs a bone-breaking punch--one of the most impactful horror endings for my money...
As something genuinely new and disturbing on release, The Exorcist paved the way for a slew of Satanic-themed flicks—perhaps most famously The Omen, but there’s no shortage of films with creepy children and terror in suburbia. Friedkin essentially paved the way for that…and unwittingly, a parade of substandard followups! I’ve covered Exorcist II, which happens to be one of the worst films I’ve ever seen—and after that, we had Exorcist 3, which was an improvement but still not enough to leave its own mark. Since then there’s been not one but two prequels with the exact same premise, a stealth sequel TV show, and more recently, yet another followup that for the life of me nobody seems to care about.
There was a recut also not long ago I happened to watch—which was interesting, but I felt the prior version was fine enough, with the new one feeling kinda extraneous in parts. Still, that it’s still being tinkered with a half-century on is a testament to its legacy—and to that time where Hollywood was actually willing to push some boundaries. With that in mind, whichever power from beyond you wish to salute, that’s us done for October…
Comments
Post a Comment