LoginWhy I think that 'The Exorcist' is overrated
johanlefourbe
11 years, 1 month ago at Mar 12 17:35 - First of all, I want to point out that my good friend Orpheus wanted to talk about this subject so that's the reason why I created this thread.
Secondly, I have a lot of respect for this movie. It is a classic and, if you love it, that's fine with me.
As a matter of fact, I have rewatched it not so long ago and it was even the director's cut which is considered the best version. And, indeed, I was able to appreciate it more than back then when I was 16 years old or something. Visually, it is a very appealing movie with some great ominous little scenes and, as a matter of fact, as long as the demon/devil/whatever is implied and not actually displayed, the movie is fine. There was also a fine cast (Ellen Burstyn and Max von Sydow).
Still, even this time, it didn't really blow me away.
Because:
- they spend the whole thing trying to rationalize something totally irrational. Unless you believe in God, the devil and that people can be possessed, it just doesn't work.
- in the same fashion, from the start, you already know the answers to all the questions the characters might have. So, it takes forever before they finally come to the conclusion that the viewer already found within 10 minutes.
- finally, and that's my biggest issue, it is not really scary, at least, not for me. Like mentionned before, as long as everything is implied, it is quite unsettling but from the moment you see this 'possessed' girl, it is just borderline ridiculous and laughable. I mean, there wasn't a single moment during which I believed this girl was possessed, the only thing I saw was a girl with some make-up, swearing, puking and other things like that. Hardly scary in my opinion and there is a reason why so many parodies copied those scenes without changing it a bit (ok, except the music maybe...). It's because they are laughable.
To conclude, I don't think it is a bad movie at all. There is actually lots of good stuff in it but there is also a lot of garbage. At least, that's what I think.
Secondly, I have a lot of respect for this movie. It is a classic and, if you love it, that's fine with me.
As a matter of fact, I have rewatched it not so long ago and it was even the director's cut which is considered the best version. And, indeed, I was able to appreciate it more than back then when I was 16 years old or something. Visually, it is a very appealing movie with some great ominous little scenes and, as a matter of fact, as long as the demon/devil/whatever is implied and not actually displayed, the movie is fine. There was also a fine cast (Ellen Burstyn and Max von Sydow).
Still, even this time, it didn't really blow me away.
Because:
- they spend the whole thing trying to rationalize something totally irrational. Unless you believe in God, the devil and that people can be possessed, it just doesn't work.
- in the same fashion, from the start, you already know the answers to all the questions the characters might have. So, it takes forever before they finally come to the conclusion that the viewer already found within 10 minutes.
- finally, and that's my biggest issue, it is not really scary, at least, not for me. Like mentionned before, as long as everything is implied, it is quite unsettling but from the moment you see this 'possessed' girl, it is just borderline ridiculous and laughable. I mean, there wasn't a single moment during which I believed this girl was possessed, the only thing I saw was a girl with some make-up, swearing, puking and other things like that. Hardly scary in my opinion and there is a reason why so many parodies copied those scenes without changing it a bit (ok, except the music maybe...). It's because they are laughable.
To conclude, I don't think it is a bad movie at all. There is actually lots of good stuff in it but there is also a lot of garbage. At least, that's what I think.
Xanadon't
11 years, 1 month ago at Mar 12 19:34 - Been too long to take a hard stance on this one, but ^^this^^ is how one explains the feeling that a widely celebrated classic is overrated as a matter of opinion.
johanlefourbe
11 years, 1 month ago at Mar 12 19:44 - @Xanadon't, thanks dude!
I agree with you, on the post about 'Taxi Driver', the only argument (so far) I found against is that it was boring. I mean, it is a valid argument but still pretty thin considering the amount the pro's gave to defend this movie
I agree with you, on the post about 'Taxi Driver', the only argument (so far) I found against is that it was boring. I mean, it is a valid argument but still pretty thin considering the amount the pro's gave to defend this movie
Deleted user
Deleted
11 years, 1 month ago at Mar 13 4:16 - In a way I always thought that movie was overrated myself. It's a good movie but not the greatest ever. I enjoyed your read, thanks for this. I thought I was the only one that thought that movie was overrated.
Deleted user
Deleted
11 years, 1 month ago at Mar 13 12:47 - Well, first off johanlefourbe knows I respect his opinion a lot (and like Xandonāt and Frank say a very well written piece and a great example of a well measured and intelligent explanation of why he thinks the film is overrated.), so Iām not trying to change his mind or even say that he is absolutely wrong about The Exorcist. I do however think as a movie nerd its pretty fun to have these kind of debates and to learn about each otherās perspectives, so I hope this kind of theme can continue on the forum, with other movies discussed. So anyways on to the film in question:
Why I don't think 'The Exorcist' is Overrated.
I don't come from a particularly religious background and I certainly wouldn't consider myself to be a religious person whatsoever. I think however the concepts found in Christianity and other religions as metaphors for morality are quite interesting and Iād argue utterly necessary to the human condition (albeit I'm looking at it from a Jungian angle, rather a Catholic one.).As to the hypocrisy found in religion, and the horrific crimes committed in the name of God, you certainly wonāt be hearing me argue against that fact. But hey this a debate about āThe Exorcistā and not religion (right? Lol). No doubt about it William Peter Blatty (the novelist who wrote the original source material, screenwriter and producer) comes at it from a Catholic perspective. But director William Friedkin had no such religious ties; he originates from a Jewish background but considers himself very much an atheist. Basically I think your argument that you need to believe in the Devil (though technically the demon in question only tells the Priests itās the Devil, perhaps reflecting their beliefs back at them, according to the novel the demon in question is Pazuzu) God and Heaven in order to find the subject and themes valid for the piece or interesting is a little absurd. In fact if belief in concepts were a necessity you could easily discount the vast amount of cinema and literature in general, right? Sure, I appreciate the Vatican have given their backing to the film, as a work depicting their church in good light or whatever, but should that then mean that I shouldn't like the movie because of the fact that my beliefs happen to differ?
Iām not going to be able to make you find āThe Exorcistā scary, I can remember a few years back watching it on DVD with my girlfriend at that time and her friend and they fell about laughing during a certain scene and thereās me, terribly serious and po-faced trying to explain why itās not funny at all lol. Which of course is absurd, if you find it funny thatās fair enough.
I think itās true that some of the special effects have dated, but this is 1973 weāre talking about here, of course certain aspects are gonna date, which isnāt to say you shouldn't appreciate the artistry , invention and hard work that went into it at the time. I mean Reganās room, for instance, the cold breathe and iciness thatās created, today theyād just do that with CGI and all that crap, back then they literally had to film those scenes in a giant freezer. I agree that the scenes involving pea-soup puke and stuff like it arenāt nearly as effective as they probably once were. For me at least itās the subtler aspects that I find the creepiest and that stand out the most; the scene in which Pazuzuās true face flashes up for a 'subliminal' split second, the ghost/illusion of Karrasās mother sitting on the bed, and the spider walk scene which wasn't in the original cut creeps me out just thinking about. But what one person finds creepy or scary isn't necessarily gonna be shared with another, Iāll freely admit to that. And the truth is as a fully grown man Iām not too sure there is a film which makes me literally scared anymore, but in terms of being unsettling and creepy, for me The Exorcist is one of those that truly hits home.
Hereās why I think I thinks itās so unsettling, if you take the religious aspect aside itās about an innocent young girl being in such peril, to the point that her body is violated on both a physical and psychological level, I personally think thatās pretty damn horrifying. I think itās the fact that the girl is so young is what was so shocking about the film at the time of its release and I think it still holds that power. If itās lost that power then I would say that itās slightly damning and detrimental to the moral landscape of the modern day. Perhaps my argument is a little too serious, but thatās honestly what I feel the film communicates, just because the piece is dressed with the themes of the God and The Devil does not make the moral argument irrelevant. I also think to appreciate its impact you also have to look from the perspective of an audience at the time, this was 1973 and while films were getting more sophisticated in terms of the level of violence and horror they could portray The Exorcist was still way, way out there in pushing the envelope. I mean while you can watch a modern film consisting of hundreds of expletives back then you simply didn't get it at all, never mind from the mouth of an eleven year old girl. Of course its impact has been nullified somewhat for a modern audience, but I think an inability to separate oneself from the moral compass of the modern day is an important key in not appreciating the horror of the piece.
I realise some people have a problem with how the piece is so serious, but for me itās this that truly separates it from the vast majority of horror films. You pointed out the fine cast, and I find the acting level to be suburb throughout. To be honest I canāt think of too many other horror movies that can boast such a level of consistency, whether that be through budget constraints or whatever, to put it bluntly the acting level in most horror movies stinks! Even as a young child I was fascinated by the horror genre, and I would ask friends and family about different films and I would imagine them, when I was a teenager and eventually allowed to watch them at last I so often came away disappointed. There was no way these films with their predictable plots, god awful acting ,soap opera style set pieces and micro budgets could match up with the sophistication levels of my imaginings, nor my expectations for the genre. I appreciate that those movies can be fun in their way, but to be honest most were (and continue to be) just unimaginative, tedious revamps and rehashes. I first watched The Exorcist on a pirate VHS that I borrowed from a friend (The film was banned in the UK until 1999) and for me it was an entirely different animal, this was a film with a suburb level of direction, acting, cinematography, and special effects (especially for its time),and a fantastic attention to detail it didn't treat the genre with contempt, nor try to dumb down or talk down to its audience. In short it was one of the few horror movies that actually lived up to my expectations. Horror films for the most part are still of a very poor standard, and The Exorcist (This is a film forty one years old!) even to this day continues to stands out as one of the few to actually marry a good level of social realism with fantastical themes. It was for this reason I think, why so many consider it to be a true masterpiece of the genre, and not overrated in the slightest.
Why I don't think 'The Exorcist' is Overrated.
I don't come from a particularly religious background and I certainly wouldn't consider myself to be a religious person whatsoever. I think however the concepts found in Christianity and other religions as metaphors for morality are quite interesting and Iād argue utterly necessary to the human condition (albeit I'm looking at it from a Jungian angle, rather a Catholic one.).As to the hypocrisy found in religion, and the horrific crimes committed in the name of God, you certainly wonāt be hearing me argue against that fact. But hey this a debate about āThe Exorcistā and not religion (right? Lol). No doubt about it William Peter Blatty (the novelist who wrote the original source material, screenwriter and producer) comes at it from a Catholic perspective. But director William Friedkin had no such religious ties; he originates from a Jewish background but considers himself very much an atheist. Basically I think your argument that you need to believe in the Devil (though technically the demon in question only tells the Priests itās the Devil, perhaps reflecting their beliefs back at them, according to the novel the demon in question is Pazuzu) God and Heaven in order to find the subject and themes valid for the piece or interesting is a little absurd. In fact if belief in concepts were a necessity you could easily discount the vast amount of cinema and literature in general, right? Sure, I appreciate the Vatican have given their backing to the film, as a work depicting their church in good light or whatever, but should that then mean that I shouldn't like the movie because of the fact that my beliefs happen to differ?
Iām not going to be able to make you find āThe Exorcistā scary, I can remember a few years back watching it on DVD with my girlfriend at that time and her friend and they fell about laughing during a certain scene and thereās me, terribly serious and po-faced trying to explain why itās not funny at all lol. Which of course is absurd, if you find it funny thatās fair enough.
I think itās true that some of the special effects have dated, but this is 1973 weāre talking about here, of course certain aspects are gonna date, which isnāt to say you shouldn't appreciate the artistry , invention and hard work that went into it at the time. I mean Reganās room, for instance, the cold breathe and iciness thatās created, today theyād just do that with CGI and all that crap, back then they literally had to film those scenes in a giant freezer. I agree that the scenes involving pea-soup puke and stuff like it arenāt nearly as effective as they probably once were. For me at least itās the subtler aspects that I find the creepiest and that stand out the most; the scene in which Pazuzuās true face flashes up for a 'subliminal' split second, the ghost/illusion of Karrasās mother sitting on the bed, and the spider walk scene which wasn't in the original cut creeps me out just thinking about. But what one person finds creepy or scary isn't necessarily gonna be shared with another, Iāll freely admit to that. And the truth is as a fully grown man Iām not too sure there is a film which makes me literally scared anymore, but in terms of being unsettling and creepy, for me The Exorcist is one of those that truly hits home.
Hereās why I think I thinks itās so unsettling, if you take the religious aspect aside itās about an innocent young girl being in such peril, to the point that her body is violated on both a physical and psychological level, I personally think thatās pretty damn horrifying. I think itās the fact that the girl is so young is what was so shocking about the film at the time of its release and I think it still holds that power. If itās lost that power then I would say that itās slightly damning and detrimental to the moral landscape of the modern day. Perhaps my argument is a little too serious, but thatās honestly what I feel the film communicates, just because the piece is dressed with the themes of the God and The Devil does not make the moral argument irrelevant. I also think to appreciate its impact you also have to look from the perspective of an audience at the time, this was 1973 and while films were getting more sophisticated in terms of the level of violence and horror they could portray The Exorcist was still way, way out there in pushing the envelope. I mean while you can watch a modern film consisting of hundreds of expletives back then you simply didn't get it at all, never mind from the mouth of an eleven year old girl. Of course its impact has been nullified somewhat for a modern audience, but I think an inability to separate oneself from the moral compass of the modern day is an important key in not appreciating the horror of the piece.
I realise some people have a problem with how the piece is so serious, but for me itās this that truly separates it from the vast majority of horror films. You pointed out the fine cast, and I find the acting level to be suburb throughout. To be honest I canāt think of too many other horror movies that can boast such a level of consistency, whether that be through budget constraints or whatever, to put it bluntly the acting level in most horror movies stinks! Even as a young child I was fascinated by the horror genre, and I would ask friends and family about different films and I would imagine them, when I was a teenager and eventually allowed to watch them at last I so often came away disappointed. There was no way these films with their predictable plots, god awful acting ,soap opera style set pieces and micro budgets could match up with the sophistication levels of my imaginings, nor my expectations for the genre. I appreciate that those movies can be fun in their way, but to be honest most were (and continue to be) just unimaginative, tedious revamps and rehashes. I first watched The Exorcist on a pirate VHS that I borrowed from a friend (The film was banned in the UK until 1999) and for me it was an entirely different animal, this was a film with a suburb level of direction, acting, cinematography, and special effects (especially for its time),and a fantastic attention to detail it didn't treat the genre with contempt, nor try to dumb down or talk down to its audience. In short it was one of the few horror movies that actually lived up to my expectations. Horror films for the most part are still of a very poor standard, and The Exorcist (This is a film forty one years old!) even to this day continues to stands out as one of the few to actually marry a good level of social realism with fantastical themes. It was for this reason I think, why so many consider it to be a true masterpiece of the genre, and not overrated in the slightest.
johanlefourbe
11 years, 1 month ago at Mar 13 15:27 - First of all, I think you had a great idea by suggesting this discussion. Itās a real delight to debate with someone who has a rather sophisticated taste, a decent knowledge of movies in general and wonāt give you an answer such as āIām right, you are wrong and you are a dumb-a** for not sharing my wonderful tasteā .
Iām glad you took your time to explain your point of view and you sure developed some good points.
I agree with the fact that the production quality is much higher with this movie than your typical horror movie. Indeed, in this area, for most of the horror flicks, the quality is just abysmal. Not here though. And it was even more obvious when watching the directorās cut. Thatās why I also donāt think it is a bad movie whatsoever.
I agree that you donāt necessarily need to believe in God to believe in this story but the fact is that they developed something as if it was real threat. Itās like watching ā The Ringā (US version), they spend the whole movie explaining whatās going on in details but since it is something preposterous, those explanations are pointless. With ā Ringuā (Jap. Version), one of the favorite horror movie by the way, they donāt bother much explaining anything, they just go with the flow, focusing more on the mood.
You had an interesting point about mentioning the special effects are dated and that we should take into account that the movie is 40 years old. And indeed, how much slack should we give to a movie because it is old? Personally, I think we should be understanding but this aspect still has a minor impact on my rating. For example, movies such as ā Modern Timesā, ā Citizen Kaneā or ā Rashomonā or anything made by Kubrick doesnāt feel or look old at all and thatās the mark of a true masterpiece. Those movies are just timeless, they will still look awesome in the next 30 years and if you might wonder if any so-called modern masterpieces will be still remembered in the next 30 years.
Personally, I think many scenes in āThe Exorcistā look ridiculous but I can understand that, back then, those things were shocking and/or scary but, nowadays, it feels rather dated. And I donāt think I have become numb to violence or scary stuff, I mean, ā Nosferatuā and āMā are quite distressing in my opinion. Personally, I react more to psychological horror than to visual/music queues from which comes from most of the scary stuff in your average features including āThe Exorcistā .
Eventually, it all depends how you connect with a movie. I enjoyed many things and it could have been a great movie if they focused more on the psychological aspect of the story (maybe the girl is just crazy? Or just pretending?) and not so much on the mystical part. On the other hand, you totally connected to it and found it pretty much flawless. So, different viewers get different responses from the same movie.
At least, we both love ā Paris, Texasā . Such an underrated forgotten masterpiece, donāt you think ? ;)
Iām glad you took your time to explain your point of view and you sure developed some good points.
I agree with the fact that the production quality is much higher with this movie than your typical horror movie. Indeed, in this area, for most of the horror flicks, the quality is just abysmal. Not here though. And it was even more obvious when watching the directorās cut. Thatās why I also donāt think it is a bad movie whatsoever.
I agree that you donāt necessarily need to believe in God to believe in this story but the fact is that they developed something as if it was real threat. Itās like watching ā The Ringā (US version), they spend the whole movie explaining whatās going on in details but since it is something preposterous, those explanations are pointless. With ā Ringuā (Jap. Version), one of the favorite horror movie by the way, they donāt bother much explaining anything, they just go with the flow, focusing more on the mood.
You had an interesting point about mentioning the special effects are dated and that we should take into account that the movie is 40 years old. And indeed, how much slack should we give to a movie because it is old? Personally, I think we should be understanding but this aspect still has a minor impact on my rating. For example, movies such as ā Modern Timesā, ā Citizen Kaneā or ā Rashomonā or anything made by Kubrick doesnāt feel or look old at all and thatās the mark of a true masterpiece. Those movies are just timeless, they will still look awesome in the next 30 years and if you might wonder if any so-called modern masterpieces will be still remembered in the next 30 years.
Personally, I think many scenes in āThe Exorcistā look ridiculous but I can understand that, back then, those things were shocking and/or scary but, nowadays, it feels rather dated. And I donāt think I have become numb to violence or scary stuff, I mean, ā Nosferatuā and āMā are quite distressing in my opinion. Personally, I react more to psychological horror than to visual/music queues from which comes from most of the scary stuff in your average features including āThe Exorcistā .
Eventually, it all depends how you connect with a movie. I enjoyed many things and it could have been a great movie if they focused more on the psychological aspect of the story (maybe the girl is just crazy? Or just pretending?) and not so much on the mystical part. On the other hand, you totally connected to it and found it pretty much flawless. So, different viewers get different responses from the same movie.
At least, we both love ā Paris, Texasā . Such an underrated forgotten masterpiece, donāt you think ? ;)
Deleted user
Deleted
11 years, 1 month ago at Mar 13 18:11 - Well we're definitely going to have to agree to disagree about 'The Exorcist', though I do appreciate you haven't just completely dismissed it and can appreciate it on some level and I think you acknowledge its important/influential to the genre even if it isn't totally your thing (unlike those who criticized Taxi Driver who pretty much dismissed out of hand, minus any kind of constructive reasons.) I knew I wouldn't be able to change your mind, but I think its a pretty interesting debate anyways. I will say that 'Modern Times', 'Citizen Kane' Kubrick films (though I'm not the biggest Kubrick fan in the world, but I do appreciate his movies and realise how incredibly influential they are)are undoubtedly masterpieces and I would never question that, I think to say that they don't look old at all would be pushing it a tad, to me they look very much of their time, albeit brilliant and cutting edge examples of movies from the thirties, forties and sixties etc, but would I confuse them for a modern film? certainly not. Actually one of my biggest problems with A Clockwork Orange is the odd bit of bit of surreal imagery aside it looks exactly like 1970's Britain and not the 'future' at all and in that respect has dated quite badly ( oh no another can of worms ha, ha). To me The Exorcist hasn't dated nearly as much as you claim and the elements that admittedly have don't really bother me nearly as much.
But like I say we're going to have to agree to disagree about it, lol...:p
Yeah I love 'Paris, Texas', I don't get why it isn't heralded in the same way other 'cult' movies are, especially from that decade, I mean it stands out as so different and so special from other films in the eighties. Why do you think its been forgotten? Maybe the pace isn't for everybody(?)
Oh and thank you very much for the compliment I really appreciate it, its very cool to get into this debate with somebody as intelligent and engaging as yourself:D I hope other users with a similar passion for film can join in with their own opinions. And yeah totally agreed minus all the usual dull trolling crap, we're both in total agreement that just because our opinions differ doesn't make either of us right or wrong, its just a matter of taste and opinion.
But like I say we're going to have to agree to disagree about it, lol...:p
Yeah I love 'Paris, Texas', I don't get why it isn't heralded in the same way other 'cult' movies are, especially from that decade, I mean it stands out as so different and so special from other films in the eighties. Why do you think its been forgotten? Maybe the pace isn't for everybody(?)
Oh and thank you very much for the compliment I really appreciate it, its very cool to get into this debate with somebody as intelligent and engaging as yourself:D I hope other users with a similar passion for film can join in with their own opinions. And yeah totally agreed minus all the usual dull trolling crap, we're both in total agreement that just because our opinions differ doesn't make either of us right or wrong, its just a matter of taste and opinion.
Moderator
Michael S
11 years, 1 month ago at Mar 13 21:09 - I hope you don't mind me sharing my own thoughts here. It's nice to see a rational, intelligent discussion about something. As for what side of the fence I stand on, I loved the film. Always have, always will. I can see both sides though and it doesn't shock me that there are those who don't like it. I don't believe there's a film that's ever been made that was perfect or one that everyone loved and no one, at all, disliked.
I don't believe that you have to buy into the religious aspect to enjoy it or find it believable. I've known those who were extremely religious that simply found it offensive and others who thought it was not believable at all. I've known people who weren't religious in the least who loved it.
For myself, I was raised in a Christian home and atmosphere - though I've since strayed away (long ago) of my own volition. My views on the subject matter are...open-minded. I believe in spirits - both good and evil; spirits, ghosts, demons, higher powers...whatever label one wants to place on them. I believe the world (indeed, all of existence) is filled with mysteries and man is ever the curious sort. To think that we are the only intelligent life in all of existence is...well, absurd.
I also believe in the power of faith and the power of man, not to mention the inherent weaknesses therein. Honestly, I've found that all you have to believe in - to find this film believable - is that faith exists, it has a power all it's own and that good and evil exist...because they do. Many in religious circles dismissed this film out-of-hand because of the subject matter.
Possession and exorcism aren't polite topics, even now, with most of them. They'd just as soon pretend it doesn't exist and hide their heads in the sand like ostriches. It was even moreso at the time of this film's release. So, yes, it was more shocking then than now and is a bit dated.
Yet, as Orpheus stated, the work that went into this film and the constraints they worked under at that time...well, it's an admirable effort. Sydow, Burstyn and Jason Miller gave fine performances all around; even Blair, who was a child, did alright.
For me, this will always be one of the finest (if not the absolute best) of horror films. It's far more believable than the vast majority of gratuitous and gory schlock that we've been offered up since then. I would much rather have a film that was spooky and chilling (like The Exorcist) than one that was simply violent, blood-soaked and sick.
As for how it stacks up against other horror films since...It's far more believable than say, for instance, Saw, Final Destination or the Human Centipede. It's far better, in terms of acting, construction and presentation than Blair Witch and all it's camcorder-clones.
I appreciate all the effort that went into this. I appreciate hearing honest, intelligent arguments for and against it.
In the end, the film is about faith and possession, both of which are very real; it's not about psychological horror. I think it would have been a far worse movie if they had offered it up in that respect. It's not about letting the audience decide whether the girl's crazy or not and, I believe, it would have been a mistake to do so. It's about demonic possession and the power of faith; not the power of God but faith in God.
For me, that's completely believable as a concept and as reality.
That said, I did find the film slow moving, at first; yet the fact that it is dated in that regard simply says - for me - that here is a film made in the 70's, this is what people acted like then. Yet when it got rolling along, it did keep up it's 'head of steam'.
Though I'm not religious, I do find films and stories of this sort intriguing and quite engrossing. Yes, it was slow to get going. Yes, the effects are a bit dated (especially w/ the advent of CGI in the present-day). But for myself it stands the test of time as one of the all-time greats in horror cinema. It is a drama that happens to be about a horrific subject and (I think) those make for the best of horror films. I do love spooky!
The Exorcist, Psycho, Alien, The Shining, Rosemary's Baby, The Omen...they all have that in common. They are dramas of the human condition and the effects of outside forces upon them that venture into the realm of the horrific. I think that is far more frightful than most. Even Jaws (which sported one of the worst animatronics in history in the form of the shark) was scary from that viewpoint.
That's what I find interesting and that's why I hold it in high regard...for what it's worth. As I said, much earlier, I can appreciate both sides though. :)
I don't believe that you have to buy into the religious aspect to enjoy it or find it believable. I've known those who were extremely religious that simply found it offensive and others who thought it was not believable at all. I've known people who weren't religious in the least who loved it.
For myself, I was raised in a Christian home and atmosphere - though I've since strayed away (long ago) of my own volition. My views on the subject matter are...open-minded. I believe in spirits - both good and evil; spirits, ghosts, demons, higher powers...whatever label one wants to place on them. I believe the world (indeed, all of existence) is filled with mysteries and man is ever the curious sort. To think that we are the only intelligent life in all of existence is...well, absurd.
I also believe in the power of faith and the power of man, not to mention the inherent weaknesses therein. Honestly, I've found that all you have to believe in - to find this film believable - is that faith exists, it has a power all it's own and that good and evil exist...because they do. Many in religious circles dismissed this film out-of-hand because of the subject matter.
Possession and exorcism aren't polite topics, even now, with most of them. They'd just as soon pretend it doesn't exist and hide their heads in the sand like ostriches. It was even moreso at the time of this film's release. So, yes, it was more shocking then than now and is a bit dated.
Yet, as Orpheus stated, the work that went into this film and the constraints they worked under at that time...well, it's an admirable effort. Sydow, Burstyn and Jason Miller gave fine performances all around; even Blair, who was a child, did alright.
For me, this will always be one of the finest (if not the absolute best) of horror films. It's far more believable than the vast majority of gratuitous and gory schlock that we've been offered up since then. I would much rather have a film that was spooky and chilling (like The Exorcist) than one that was simply violent, blood-soaked and sick.
As for how it stacks up against other horror films since...It's far more believable than say, for instance, Saw, Final Destination or the Human Centipede. It's far better, in terms of acting, construction and presentation than Blair Witch and all it's camcorder-clones.
I appreciate all the effort that went into this. I appreciate hearing honest, intelligent arguments for and against it.
In the end, the film is about faith and possession, both of which are very real; it's not about psychological horror. I think it would have been a far worse movie if they had offered it up in that respect. It's not about letting the audience decide whether the girl's crazy or not and, I believe, it would have been a mistake to do so. It's about demonic possession and the power of faith; not the power of God but faith in God.
For me, that's completely believable as a concept and as reality.
That said, I did find the film slow moving, at first; yet the fact that it is dated in that regard simply says - for me - that here is a film made in the 70's, this is what people acted like then. Yet when it got rolling along, it did keep up it's 'head of steam'.
Though I'm not religious, I do find films and stories of this sort intriguing and quite engrossing. Yes, it was slow to get going. Yes, the effects are a bit dated (especially w/ the advent of CGI in the present-day). But for myself it stands the test of time as one of the all-time greats in horror cinema. It is a drama that happens to be about a horrific subject and (I think) those make for the best of horror films. I do love spooky!
The Exorcist, Psycho, Alien, The Shining, Rosemary's Baby, The Omen...they all have that in common. They are dramas of the human condition and the effects of outside forces upon them that venture into the realm of the horrific. I think that is far more frightful than most. Even Jaws (which sported one of the worst animatronics in history in the form of the shark) was scary from that viewpoint.
That's what I find interesting and that's why I hold it in high regard...for what it's worth. As I said, much earlier, I can appreciate both sides though. :)
johanlefourbe
11 years, 1 month ago at Mar 13 22:08 - @Fortunato, thanks for sharing, man. Of course, you're more than welcome in this discussion and it's pretty neat to have some insights from a spiritual person.
Deleted user
Deleted
11 years, 1 month ago at Mar 14 0:19 - @ Fortunato An Awesome and very interesting response, I certainly think a spiritual perspective is certainly very valid, and there's no denying the theme of Faith in the movie, and I certainly think that theme works on many levels.
Moderator Michael S
11 years, 1 month ago at Mar 14 9:35 - Thanks guys. I suppose you could say that I'm spiritual - in the strictest sense - though I cannot say that I'm religious, even though I was raised that way. I do have an interest. I've always been full of questions and if something doesn't make sense to me ...well, I try to find out why. I've never taken things at face value, you know?
I do believe that there are strange and mysterious things in this world. There are too many legends and stories. One thing I've always believed is that in any of those tales - tall or otherwise - there is always, at least, a grain of truth. Something happened somewhere to start the first tale being told. And those stories led to the many wonderful (and sometimes not so wonderful) ones we have today in movies!
I've always loved hearing someone's viewpoint on movies, books, etc... how it affected them, made them feel. I don't mind sharing mine, I like to, but I love hearing others more. And the sharing, back and forth, leads to other thoughts and insights! Many times, hearing someone else's view led me to look at things in a different way ...and seeing something more. :)
I do believe that there are strange and mysterious things in this world. There are too many legends and stories. One thing I've always believed is that in any of those tales - tall or otherwise - there is always, at least, a grain of truth. Something happened somewhere to start the first tale being told. And those stories led to the many wonderful (and sometimes not so wonderful) ones we have today in movies!
I've always loved hearing someone's viewpoint on movies, books, etc... how it affected them, made them feel. I don't mind sharing mine, I like to, but I love hearing others more. And the sharing, back and forth, leads to other thoughts and insights! Many times, hearing someone else's view led me to look at things in a different way ...and seeing something more. :)
Moderator
The O.P.
11 years, 1 month ago at Mar 14 14:40 - As a matter of curiosity, I checked the actual ratings for The Exorcist (1973).
:)
IMDb users' average rating 8.0/10 with 187,890 votes.
It is #204 in IMDb Top 250.
IMDb Top 1000 voters 8.0/10
Non-USA IMDb voters 8.0/10
Metascore* 82/100
(* based on 24 critic reviews provided by Metacritic.com)
Roger Ebert 4/4
Rotten Tomatoes' Tomatometer 87%
Rotten Tomatoes' Audience 83%
Listal rating 7.4/10
My Listal Contacts' rating 7.7/10
:)
IMDb users' average rating 8.0/10 with 187,890 votes.
It is #204 in IMDb Top 250.
IMDb Top 1000 voters 8.0/10
Non-USA IMDb voters 8.0/10
Metascore* 82/100
(* based on 24 critic reviews provided by Metacritic.com)
Roger Ebert 4/4
Rotten Tomatoes' Tomatometer 87%
Rotten Tomatoes' Audience 83%
Listal rating 7.4/10
My Listal Contacts' rating 7.7/10
Deleted user
Deleted
11 years, 1 month ago at Mar 14 18:56 - Interesting Stats, what's your own thoughts on 'The Exorcist'?
xxixii
11 years, 1 month ago at Mar 17 16:11 - I recall seeing The Exorcist at the cinema about 1995 - my local cinema had a month or so of re-playing classic movies from the 70s...so I went.
I thought it was an intense ride BUT its a film which is BS if you have no spirituality or faith or an ounce of religious belief in you - most of the audience were laughing at many scenes - I liked it a lot but can undestand why many would not - no gore, deals directly with religion or rather faith, slow start, goes OTT too much, hard to relate to any of the characters
I thought it was an intense ride BUT its a film which is BS if you have no spirituality or faith or an ounce of religious belief in you - most of the audience were laughing at many scenes - I liked it a lot but can undestand why many would not - no gore, deals directly with religion or rather faith, slow start, goes OTT too much, hard to relate to any of the characters
Moderator The O.P.
11 years, 1 month ago at Mar 17 17:54 - Maybe it's a matter of background, too. If you grew up in a culture where Catholic religion is a big deal, like it is in my country, Italy, then you might be interested in a story about it regardless of your own beliefs. I remember I enjoyed The Exorcist as an unsetting story about a popular myth, not as a scary movie.
Deleted user
Deleted
11 years, 1 month ago at Mar 17 18:11 - its over the top and extremely dated
johanlefourbe
11 years, 1 month ago at Mar 17 21:24 - I totally agree about the movie being over the top.
Deleted user
Deleted
11 years, 1 month ago at Mar 17 21:53 - @The O.P I come from a Protestant family background and haven't even been baptized, I think it just comes down to the individual at the end of the day, but I can certainly see what you mean. "I enjoyed The Exorcist as an unsettling story about a popular myth, not as a scary movie." is a very interesting point, I'd partly subscribe to that too, though I still think its one of the greatest film from the horror tradition (Alien,The Thing and Don't Look Now, also).
@thenoah So I guess we've returned to the tradition of just slamming the movie in a point blank and non-constructive way, thanks thenoah lmao
@thenoah So I guess we've returned to the tradition of just slamming the movie in a point blank and non-constructive way, thanks thenoah lmao
kXnPunk
11 years, 1 month ago at Mar 29 2:27 - Well to me this film is the worst Horror movie ever made.
Why because everything sucks in this. Crappy acting, crappy prostethics I mean come on, Regina's make up is freaking BAD!!! I hate it. Doesn't even deserves a 1/10 for me so there.
Why because everything sucks in this. Crappy acting, crappy prostethics I mean come on, Regina's make up is freaking BAD!!! I hate it. Doesn't even deserves a 1/10 for me so there.
Deleted user
Deleted
11 years ago at Apr 10 5:46 - 
shini
11 years ago at Apr 10 16:58 - Awww, but "The Shining" is amazing. Yes, Jack Nicholson overacts - that's his style, and the movie is not "scary" like other horror movies, and it streamlines the book a lot, but the visuals are pretty much perfection. I was just thinking of watching it again, with fresh eyes. Dat bathroom! Dat pair of twins! Dat hallways!
About "The Exorcist", I agree that one's religious/cultural background is important. That's part of why I don't find it scary or interesting at all: I compare it to stories of RL attempts at exorcism that are far, far scarier than a priest coming over in a nice suburban home and "battling" the Devil in the body of a little girl.
The other reason I don't like it is that it's too showy and hammy to take seriously as a tale of spirituality. This isn't a dig against the movie itself, which is a horror movie, it's just not for me. Your post is great, Orpheus, but when I watched "The Exorcist" I felt that it was a horror movie using these elements rather than a movie exploring faith. I didn't know that William Friedkin was an atheist, I didn't know anything about the movie itself, just that it didn't resonate with me. The entire "The Exorcist" didn't stir me as even one line towards the end of Tarkovsky's Stalker - and that's an old movie too, and very slow, but it builds up towards something genuinely meaningful, and this meaning is everything. For all the explicit, obvious themes in "The Exorcist"... dunno, it's just not there... Oh, why not just be honest! I will forever be unable to unsee "Repossessed". I can't even
Note: I'm aware comparing The Exorcist to a Tarkovsky movie is massively unfair and all sorts of silly, but I did it because I wonder how much cultural background matters here beyond how much of a believer one is. I don't believe in demonic possession, but I find matters of faith immensely interesting. Catholicism can feel ritualized and "fancy" (for lack of a better word because I suck at this word thing at the moment), but Christianity in the US can be a show in ways that used to leave me totally bemused. As much as I respect other people's way of manifesting their faith, I find it harder to resonate with it when it's too alien. Faith, struggles with it, the times when it takes an effort to understand and/or accept the path God/one's divinity of choice wants people to take, these are inner and quiet to me, understated except for flashes of great emotion/inspiration. They are your life, not one extraordinary event involving special supernatural circumstances, no matter how amazing the special effects are. People rarely decide/change after one event, except if it leads to long-term changes independent of one's will; it's easier to fall into who you were, into your old patterns. That's why, as insistent as The Exorcist might be, serious as it might be, I don't see it as all that spiritually interesting anyway. Everyone walks away from this. The one that is actually affected is the family, but even they would grieve and come to accept some explanation for the loss, and move on. I'm sorry if I seem dismissive or if this is off-topic.
About "The Exorcist", I agree that one's religious/cultural background is important. That's part of why I don't find it scary or interesting at all: I compare it to stories of RL attempts at exorcism that are far, far scarier than a priest coming over in a nice suburban home and "battling" the Devil in the body of a little girl.
The other reason I don't like it is that it's too showy and hammy to take seriously as a tale of spirituality. This isn't a dig against the movie itself, which is a horror movie, it's just not for me. Your post is great, Orpheus, but when I watched "The Exorcist" I felt that it was a horror movie using these elements rather than a movie exploring faith. I didn't know that William Friedkin was an atheist, I didn't know anything about the movie itself, just that it didn't resonate with me. The entire "The Exorcist" didn't stir me as even one line towards the end of Tarkovsky's Stalker - and that's an old movie too, and very slow, but it builds up towards something genuinely meaningful, and this meaning is everything. For all the explicit, obvious themes in "The Exorcist"... dunno, it's just not there... Oh, why not just be honest! I will forever be unable to unsee "Repossessed". I can't even
Note: I'm aware comparing The Exorcist to a Tarkovsky movie is massively unfair and all sorts of silly, but I did it because I wonder how much cultural background matters here beyond how much of a believer one is. I don't believe in demonic possession, but I find matters of faith immensely interesting. Catholicism can feel ritualized and "fancy" (for lack of a better word because I suck at this word thing at the moment), but Christianity in the US can be a show in ways that used to leave me totally bemused. As much as I respect other people's way of manifesting their faith, I find it harder to resonate with it when it's too alien. Faith, struggles with it, the times when it takes an effort to understand and/or accept the path God/one's divinity of choice wants people to take, these are inner and quiet to me, understated except for flashes of great emotion/inspiration. They are your life, not one extraordinary event involving special supernatural circumstances, no matter how amazing the special effects are. People rarely decide/change after one event, except if it leads to long-term changes independent of one's will; it's easier to fall into who you were, into your old patterns. That's why, as insistent as The Exorcist might be, serious as it might be, I don't see it as all that spiritually interesting anyway. Everyone walks away from this. The one that is actually affected is the family, but even they would grieve and come to accept some explanation for the loss, and move on. I'm sorry if I seem dismissive or if this is off-topic.
Deleted user
Deleted
11 years ago at Apr 11 1:04 -