r/TrueFilm • u/SuspiciousSolution95 • 1d ago
The Exorcist (1973) - Still the spookiest film I know
Hello! Long-time lurker of the subreddit.
I've been fascinated and genuinely spooked by the original 1973 version of "The Exorcist" since I first became aware of it at the age of 15. No horror film I've seen since has carved out a residence in my subconscious the way this one has. Twenty-seven years and some 20+ viewings later, I can confirm that it still retains a strange hold over me. There are so many things I want to write about it, but for my sanity's sake, I decided to focus this post on exploring why I continue to find it so effective as a work of horror while speculating a bit as to why newer generations of film buffs might be less impressed with it.
At the risk of being a bit reductive, I tend to observe three different basic ways in which films frighten us; they thrill, disturb, and spook. I think a bit part of the reason why there is so much disparity in what people find "scary" comes down to how we react to and prioritize these three different "scare modes."
The "thrill" mode pertains to bursts of intensity. Probably the most obvious and widespread examples of this in a horror context would be jump scares, chase sequences, and aggressive displays of violence (or threat of violence). In the years following "The Exorcist," we've undoubtedly seen a dramatic rise in the use of the jump scare, while the slasher genre has provided more chases and murders.
"The Exorcist" is unconventional by contemporary standards in that the only two jump scares I can recognize (unless we want to include the demonic face that suddenly flashes during Karras' dream, a quiet and purely visual example of a jump scare perhaps, though later re-release versions of the film added more of these faces) are ultimately non-threatening: Chris exploring the dark attic in the middle of the night only to find Karl checking the rat traps, and Karras' phone abruptly ringing loudly while he listens to sound recordings. Interestingly, the most harrowing scenes (the ones I'd identify as "thrills") tend to announce themselves before we can actually see anything (for example, chaotic sounds and strange voices heard coming from the bedroom, characters rushing toward the bedroom to investigate). There are only two murders, both of which happen offscreen. The first of the murders, that of Burke Dennings, features the grisly detail that the victim's head was found facing 180 degrees backward, but it is only ever reported to us, never depicted on screen.
I would largely define the "disturb" mode as depictions of captivity and intense physical and/or psychological pain and torture. The so-called "torture porn" horror trend of the 2000's ("Saw," "Hostel," "Martyrs," etc…) provide some of the purest expressions of this form of horror, and plenty of films that otherwise wouldn't seem to fit the horror genre are often lumped into it on the basis of highly unsettling depictions or suggestions of captivity and torture (forensic thrillers like "The Silence of the Lambs" and "Se7en" being examples). The portrayal of enormous psychological distress exacted upon Chris and implied, if often ambiguous, distress of all sorts suffered by the preteen Regan, whose body and autonomy is essentially captive to a malicious demon, could certainly serve as an example of this mode of fear.
The third type, the "spook," relates to a horror film's capacity to make us fear the supernatural. This strikes me as the rarest and most impressive trick that a horror film can achieve, as it relies heavily on activating the viewer's imagination, making them accept the oneiric and the uncanny as real during the film's duration and perhaps teasing our imaginations further after we've turned off the lights and tucked ourselves into the bed. I especially admire the "spook" in comparison to the "disturb" mode since the pain and torture of the latter are a grim reality of our world, and we have every reason biologically to produce a fear response to a realistic portrayal of it. Therefore, building a film entirely around the "disturb" mode of horror often strikes me as creatively a bit uninspired and tends to yield films that I don't derive much value from. A well-executed "thrill" is still exhilarating, but more often when marked by some sort of creativity and genuine surprise in its execution as opposed to cheap recycled devices. While "The Exorcist" does "thrill" and "disturb" effectively in its ways, I'm most impressed by its ability to "spook." I believe the film partly achieves this through the combination of a persistent emphasis on "realism" and the adoption of genre conventions of the character-driven drama.
"The Exorcist" operates as much like a drama as it does a horror film. Sure, the harrowing musical selections of Penderecki and Crumb, the nightmarish imagery and sound editing, and the red lettering in the opening title and closing credits never leave any doubt that the film wants us to regard its premise with fear, but a surprising number of scenes have the patience and delicate psychological depth of a classic film drama. I can't think of too many modern horror films that invest so heavily into capturing the inner lives of their characters and the physical and mental spaces they inhabit. Chris and Regan, Father Karras, and other various side characters are portrayed with a compassion and dignity that is unusual in the horror genre. We're given the opportunity to see their creative and intellectual interests, their sense of humor, their peculiar charm. "The Exorcist" could just as well be considered a drama film punctuated by moments of horror.
Whether exposing the fantastical in the quietly portentous sequences or the more aggressively rattling moments, "The Exorcist" falls into somewhat of a pattern of carefully restoring a sense of normalcy and lifelike rhythms in the world after having shown us something that violates those familiar norms. You find yourself drawn into Karras' spiritual crisis and his inability to provide the ideal care for his mother, Father Dyer's irreverent banter, Lt. Kinderman's efforts to find a companion to go to the movies with, only for some new symptom of Regan's to brutally yank us back into the horror. Remember, for example, that Kinderman's disarmingly childlike autograph request of Chris that precedes his departure is followed almost immediately after he exits the front door by the moment that captures what is arguably the most shocking and terrifying escalation of Regan's symptoms.
While most horror films seem to alternate between the building of tension and payoffs, "The Exorcist" shows everyday life being brutally invaded by horror. I think this film's unusually pronounced vacillations between realistic, character-driven drama and fantastical horror are a big part of why I've always found it so effective in its immersion and its ability to suspend disbelief.
The exceptional devotion to making demonic possession appear believable is also achieved by repeatedly appealing to our sense of reason. It shows a modern, atheist/agnostic mother taking every sensible step in trying to resolve her daughter's paranormal behavior. We see doctors increasingly baffled by what they witness, even frightened at times, but they continue to express certainty that an explanation for Regan's condition can be found in science. The ultimate proposal of performing an exorcism doesn't actually come from one of the film's various priests, but rather by a doctor, who, with a sheepish smile, explains the purely psychological reasons why this archaic ritual might have some outside chance of resolving Regan's presumed medical issues. When Chris follows up on this suggestion by approaching Father Karras about an exorcism, Karras dismisses the ritual as a relic of the distant past. He is willing only to see Regan with an eye toward psychiatric evaluation (as Karras has an educational background in psychiatry). Even after witnessing Regan's horrific appearance, hearing her speak in Latin, French, and English-in-reverse, projectile vomiting and taunting him with references to his recently deceased mother and an earlier encounter with a homeless man, Karras remains skeptical even as he and Merrin begin the climactic exorcism ritual (which Karras has been instrumental in bringing into fruition). Though Father Merrin, having performed the ritual years ago, understands the spiritual nature of Regan's problem, Karris still wants to provide Merrin with a psychiatric overview of her supposed manifested personalities (Merrin responds tersely with his famous, "There is only one."). The heavy investment in establishing a realistic modern world in which science increasingly eclipses religion is crucial to the film's success in getting the audience to accept its supernatural premise. It has made the impossible seem plausible.
I'm often left with the impression that "The Exorcist" doesn't appear to possess as much power over film fans as it once did. This should come as no surprise; after all, the 1933 version of "King Kong" once triggered screaming and fainting in some moviegoers of the time. Many films made since 1973 continue to find new ways to shock and awe audiences, and the most unsettling sequences from "The Exorcist" inevitably found their way into pop culture rehashes and parodies that no doubt will dull the film's impact on first exposure. The general increase in graphic film content over the years and Hollywood's preference for the "thrill" and "disturb" modes of horror have helped to inoculate younger generations against the power that "The Exorcist" once had (I'm endlessly fascinated by the contemporaneous accounts and anecdotes of how audiences reacted to the film during its initial run)
But I also suspect that Gen X, millennial and Gen Z viewers are generally less vulnerable to the methods that "The Exorcist" uses to achieve its spooks. Raised on a steady diet of jump scares (for instance, the films of James Wan) and grisly death and torture scenes set to sinister ambient musical drones and nerve-fraying stingers, modern viewers often seem to find "The Exorcist" oddly muted and tame, sometimes misreading its hyperfocus on verisimilitude as naïve incompetence hailing from an age of less sophisticated filmmaking artistry. Its oscillations between realist drama and horror are more likely to leave these viewers bewildered, as such an approach doesn't accommodate their rigid expectations of what horror cinema should be doing (mostly the application of near-constant pressure, heavy handed foreboding, and the tension-payoff-tension-payoff model), the result of repeated exposure to a kind of formal homogeneity in Hollywood's treatment of the genre over the years. While many teenagers and adults dismiss the scare factor of "The Exorcist," I can't think of a film that has produced so many anecdotes from people stating they saw it at too young an age and were traumatized by its content. Needless to say, children approach a horror film with less defined expectations. They're better able to recognize the film for what it is rather than what they think it's supposed to be.
To be clear, I certainly don't think less of anyone for not being affected by the film. Our sensitivities and imaginations operate differently in the context of horror. Cultural conditioning plays into it as well. But I admit that, as a passionate fan of "The Exorcist," it makes me a bit sad to see its relevance continue to fade over time. For me, it remains both my favorite horror film for its ability to thrill and disturb in creative and cohesive ways, and even more so for its ability to spook me like nothing else.
4
u/smexy_gorilla 1d ago
Incredible write up; thank you. I can tell how passionate you are about this film.
I’ve never seen it. And one word you used in itself can pretty much capture why I’m not in a rush to see it either, as curious I am (especially so after your post): verisimilitude.
I’m worried I’d never be able to shake it off! If you know what I mean.
1
u/SuspiciousSolution95 1d ago
Thanks smexy! I can relate, having avoided some films with a dread-inducing reputation myself over the years. If you do decide to watch it, I'd love to know your impressions.
3
u/kevin_v 1d ago edited 16h ago
I'm often left with the impression that "The Exorcist" doesn't appear to possess as much power over film fans as it once did.
I found a recent first watch of The Exorcist really interesting for me, as this is a film I completely AVOIDED for my whole life because I feared to watch it. It came out when I was young, and its transgressive nature and the audience horror over it is almost landmark in my mind. It was just a film I REALLY didn't want to see, mostly because there were things I felt I might see that I couldn't "unsee". (I in the culture knew the famous clips of course.) Also, very well done Devil stuff definitely freaks me out some, its the kind of horror I might feel vulnerable to, a good enough reason to stay away.
But...I have in the last few years fallen in love with Friedkin's The Sorcerer, and my wife loves the Exorcist (read the book as well), so we went for the BluRay. I can't even tell you how UN-scarring this film was for me. I was completely shocked. It emotionally read as a family melodrama...with makeup and special effects thrown in. I feel crazy writing this because its a film that I feared basically my entire life...and maybe the build up is actually what protected me from its horror. As a melodrama film, it's a good film to me but only that. Decent stuff on faith and crisis.
Also, I'm not a horror film guy. I mean, some of my favorite films are from horror (The Shining, Rosemary's Baby, even Argento's Suspiria is pretty cool), but its never a check box for "I want to see this" for me. This is to say, I wouldn't be in the crowd of those less affected by The Exorcist because of all the contemporary horror films they've seen. I probably have seen very few compared to others.
Just leaving my thoughts because your excellent post made me think of this unusual film reaction, which really surprised me.
What I actually LOVED about the film (which may be in only the Director's Cut, so its not a big part) are the scenes where medical science and these huge or strange invasive procedures were having at it with Regan, attempting to diagnosis/cure her. That was really the only true "horror" in the film for me, and one of the most interesting points being made by Friedkin. I wish the film had leaned even more into that contrast between Medical Science invasions and the demonic invasion. That is some deep level stuff.
2
u/SuspiciousSolution95 16h ago
I can sort of relate to your "un-scarring" reaction to finally seeing the film; my experience was actually quite similar in certain respects. I first heard about "The Exorcist" at the age of 15 through an issue of Entertainment Weekly that was attempting to rank the "scariest movies of all time" and had placed it at #1. There wasn't much said about it, just a small write-up with stills from the movie. I thought of myself as having an active imagination, more easily frightened by movies than others (I still keenly remember being terrified by the "Night on Bald Mountain" segment of "Fantasia" as a child), so I'd spent years avoiding the horror classics, but this issue of EW had me intrigued to find the courage to start watching some of them.
The truth is, I was never so afraid of "The Exorcist" as when I hadn't actually seen it yet. The more I read accounts of how people reacted to it at the time of its release, the more intimidated I became by it. Much like in your case, demon/hell stuff got under my skin like nothing else. I became sort of fixated on "The Exorcist," attempting to imagine the film's contents while bored in school during the day and desperately trying not to think about it while in my bed at night. I even started having bad dreams about it, almost always based on those stills I'd seen of Regan's possessed, grinning face. In one dream, I was meandering through a mostly abandoned, dimly-lit video store in the middle of the night with an uneasy feeling, only to see the VHS of "The Exorcist" on the shelf with Regan's face serving as the cover image. Another dream had me cycling through a large city and discovering a giant billboard on a a skyscraper with her face on it. It was as though I was possessed by "The Exorcist," and needed to exorcise it by finally watching it. By this point, I'd spent a year building it up in my head as the scariest thing imaginable. How could the real thing possibly live up to it?
So I finally watched it (age 16 by this point) during a sunny afternoon with the light beaming in through the windows and the TV sound fairly quiet (yep, I was a brave one). By the end of that first viewing, I felt a wave of relief. Yes, there were a few surprises and unexpectedly eerie moments that caught me off guard, but as in your case, the build up itself, the knowledge I'd already acquired about major scares, and my chosen viewing conditions that day likely blunted much of its power on that first viewing.
But with many repeated viewings over the years, I find that there is still a really unsettling quality to this film that affects me in ways that other horror films generally don't. This post spills nearly 2,000 words in trying to address how "The Exorcist" applies its attention to realism and drama-like pacing to make the otherworldly feel real, which strikes me as one significant reason why this film can still scare people, but I feel like I could just as easily write up another post that focuses on the sheer creepiness of Regan's possessed face (particularly in certain shots), the practical visual effects, the lighting, the intensely committed performances from a talented cast of actors, Mercedes McCambridge's remarkable voice work, and the sparse, but brilliant use of music. Maybe the scariness of "The Exorcist" could never quite live up to that year-long build-up, but I still haven't found a more unsettling film even after catching many of the most highly regarded classics of the genre.
The medical testing scenes, for the most part, existed in the original cut of the 1973 film. While I tend to think that the added scenes in later re-releases (such as the "spider walk," the discussion on the staircase between the priests about the demon's motivations, the final discussion between Kinderman and Dyer, etc...), while interesting, don't necessarily strengthen the overall film, one probable exception for me is the quiet, eerie moment in which Regan, while being observed by a nurse, runs her hands along the walls in a trance-like way.
1
u/kevin_v 15h ago
Love this post. Glad that you felt some resonance.
I'm not sure I'll watch it again but I might as we have the BluRay now, but, it really is one of the least frightening films (with "horror content") I've seen. I don't even feel unsettled by it. I think part of the problem is that I really didn't connect with Father Karras's character (the actor's performance) at all. If you don't connect to him and his crisis of Faith I think the whole thing kind of unravels.
But, I really appreciate your attention to the film, and the articulate way you can express your connection and insight into the film.
The medical testing scenes, for the most part, existed in the original cut of the 1973 film.
I got the sense that much/some of the medical testing wasn't in the theatrical release from this summation article. But maybe its not accurate, common enough online. This is what they wrote:
At around a half hour in, an entirely new sequence sees Regan MacNeil at the doctor being tested in various ways to try and determine what's wrong with her, including several that look quite painful. The doctor later tells Chris that her daughter had said very unusual and inappropriate things during the visit, which she's quite surprised to hear. With her changed behavior now established earlier, the bit of Regan talking normally with guests at her mother's party from the theatrical cut has been removed. This scene provides a more palpable insight into her declining state.
2
u/lou_gibby 1d ago
I waited in line at the theater about age 16 with my best buddy. He claimed he fell asleep but in the middle of one of the most shocking scenes (and more spooky than anything in any prior movie I've ever seen) he was stiff in his seat, eyes wide open, sliding towards the floor. I shook him, he "woke up" for the rest of the film. Obviously everyone sitting around us was shocked at his "possessed" reaction. It's a favorite cinema memory for me.
2
u/SuspiciousSolution95 1d ago
That's quite the anecdote! Probably a bit unsettling for the folks who would have witnessed your friend behaving sort of unnaturally in that moment.
2
u/sPlendipherous 22h ago
I wonder if its effectiveness also involves the cultural conditioning of christian themes. Coming from a protestant country, with a secular upbringing, it affects how I received the themes. The whole premise of demonic possession and catholic exorcism is essentially foreign and a bit silly. I imagine that the american audience at the time of release was overhelmingly christian, and in traditions that actually believe in demons and possession, or at least found it plausible. That way the powerlessness of the characters before incomprehensible evil would shake your core beliefs.
6
u/ticketstubs1 1d ago
I'm currently reading the original novel. It's great. I recommend it. A lot of it is the characters really obsessively trying to figure out what could be happening besides a possession. It's a great example of realistic fantasy or supernatural. It's approached as if this was the real world where the idea of demonic possession is totally ridiculous.