Options
The Exorcist: Classic Horror,or outdated camp?
Ben_Fisher1
Posts: 2,973 Forum Member
✭✭✭
I personally believe that this movie, made in 1973, is the most seminal work of cinematic horror. However I think that a lot of people, mainly younger, now see it as very dated. I never understand this since, apart from maybe the head spinning effect, the acting and atmosphere of the film is still effective and the photography is outstanding. Many people always cite films like 'The Omen' or 'Halloween' as better horror films, but they seem much more camp, and outdated to me because they are more obvious in their execution.
So what do you think, classic, or outdated camp?
So what do you think, classic, or outdated camp?
0
Comments
You had simply never seen the boundaries pushed that far, and it really caused quite a stir back then.
To people who say the effects etc look silly, remember everything was done practically, there was no cgi, and very, very few optical effects.
Problem is people who come to the film new know of its reputation, and they usually fail to put the film in the context of the time in which it was made.
For me, what still stands out in the film very strongly is the sheer sense of dread that seems to permeate the film. It takes time to build up, but it creates an uneasy atmosphere like few films I have ever seen. That is its legacy for me, rather than the green vomit and spinning heads.
In fact, the creepiest scenes are usually the quieter ones, such as the brilliant dream sequence, the flashes of the demons face, the anticipation of walking towards the bedroom door or the moans and groans of the demon heard around the house.
And the notion of creating a bad and uneasy atmosphere and managing to sustain it throughout the film is an important one, because most modern movies that call themselves horror are little more than a series of shocks, things jumping out and loud noises on the soundtrack designed to make people jump. That's not horror, you can get the same effect walking up behind someone and saying BOO.
But unfortunately most younger people approaching the film today will inevitably find it boring. Films back then relied more on writing, setting the scene, establishing the plot. For a horror film it is probably quite talky...but that's no bad thing. Ellen Burstyn really sells the role of the mother, a brilliant performance. And Jason Miller as the priest was excellent too
So yes some aspects of it may have dated, but for me it will always be a classic, and in truth one of the very few films that managed to scare the hell out of me at the time.
One thing that always annoys me is when people think it's the Devil who posses Regan, it isn't, it's the demon 'Pazuzu' who's effigy is dug up in the early Iraq scenes. He is not attacking the girl, he is attacking the two priests and their faith.
Heartbreaking.
The novel is one of my favourite books, weirdly I prefer the book to the film even though they are very similar.
I also doubt that the famous crucifix scene would ever be passed today, ironically!
The writer William Peter Blatty was actually a very religious man, and strongly considered becoming a priest. He also lobbied Friedkin to play the Father Karras role, which eventually went to Jason Miller.
As has been mentioned before, the main theme of the movie is about belief and faith, and Reagan is just a pawn in the demons intention to test the faith of the priests.
There is a line in the film during a lull in the exorcism itself, where Father Karras wonders why the demon chose such an innocent young girl, and Father Merrin replies -
'I think the point is to make us despair'.
Also I never see the film solely in relation to religious faith, I always see it as almost an allegory of mental illness, with all the references to the isolation of the girl, whose mother has a busy job in movies, and who has a reluctant father, who's never there.
For people with a genuine love of cinema, whether you like this or not, it's a masterpiece of cinema. For people who queue up to see Iron Man 3 and call it 'outdated camp', they're not good enough to watch it.
Supposedly based on a "real" incident involving other gullible halfwits.
I don't think you have to either be religious or believe in the occult/demons etc to enjoy and appreciate the movie.
I am not religious and an avowed skeptic., yet I still found the film quite powerful.
And despite the 'true story' it is supposed to be based on, I still don't believe any of it.
I enjoy the movie in the same way I can enjoy sci fi and fantasy movies, and I certainly don't need to believe in life on other planets or mythical creatures to enjoy those movies.
I didn't care for it. And I didn't find it that scary although I did like the "less-is-more" approach. The remake isn't very good either.
Another classic horror, and brilliant in the way it plays on subconscious fears by not showing the horror at all, leaving much to the viewers imagination.
I vividly remember the scene where the two women are cowering in a room and what sounds like a large, fearsome beast is hammering on the door and the walls. Your mind just filled in what you thought this thing looked like.
This^ I am a complete atheist and still was blown away by it! And the charge that the priests are 'self important' is ridiculous, since Karras has a waning faith and doesn't believe it at first, and Merrin is a scared old man, who knows his time is up with this last encounter with the demon.
I think part of the problem is with some people who watch the more vulgar, blatantly violent more recent films and then see something from a long time ago afterwards which is usually more sparing with the shocks and are desensitized.
If i had been around and watched it at the time of it's original release, maybe then my opinion would be very different
The remake is lame, to say the least.
I also prefer 3: it's creepy where the first movie is just unpleasant. The additional scenes with Nicol Williamson are bit pointless but they don't wreck it completely.
Exorcist 2 is just hopeless and neither of the prequels are up to much.
All I can recall is that I couldn't sleep for weeks after watching it when it first came out! I still wouldn't watch it for years afterwards. Like The Wicker Man - I found it as disturbing as it was scary.
At first you'd have to agree with some of the criticism levelled at it - the themes of family, adolescence, faith etc seem like a compendium of post-sixties anxieties wearing a Halloween mask. Horror has a habit of not so much exploring themes as exploiting them, and that could account for much of what's here. It slowly gathers speed to become a runaway train of vomit, spinning heads and deeply worried elders. That's a nasty case of acne you've got there, Regan. But then we're all off to Hell anyway, perhaps.
On that level it's almost quaint, like its stuffy upstate setting. You can't imagine today's audiences being captivated as they were back in the day. Luckily it has in spades something today's audiences are all too starved of.
Credit to Friedkin for his genre nous here. Many films deal with the supernatural but very few actually induce a genuine sense or feel of it, and it's here that the film excels. There is an austere 'otherness' to it that runs throughout, always at a low-gas, always undercutting - a counter-balance to the overblown melodrama and mutilation.
It's an aspect that still exerts inordinate power, equalling, and maybe bettering, The Shining. Underneath that Halloween mask is something far darker, it says. I still can't shake that astonishing moment in the Iraq prologue when the camera closes-in on the demon statue's face. Broad daylight, and terrifying. The eeriest shot in cinema.
Regardless of its time-stamped theatrics, The Exorcist can still, to paraphrase Larkin, 'flash afresh, to hold and horrify'.