I Don't Think I Can Watch "The Exorcist" Again

A friend and I got on the subject of The Exorcist at a recent gathering. A movie night to rewatch the film was discussed. I admitted I'd been interested in seeing the film again, but I'd need some serious company.

I started thinking again about what I like so much, what obsesses me so much, about the film. It is the story, not the shock. It is the struggle with the loss of faith and the unexpected opportunity to renew that faith by facing evil. The existence of evil would provide strong evidence if not proof of the supernatural. The character Father Karras enters the situation as a sceptic, a position strengthened by his weakened faith, so in order for him to be convinced he was facing true evil, and not just a young girl with mental problems, he would need to be faced with an incredibly extreme experience.

Regan MacNeil, the possessed girl, is then simply a catalyst, a vehicle for evil to act on the lives of the characters. Comments I've read on a few blogs reveal that people think the horror is laughable, that Regan's antics are crude and silly. They're missing the true story.

Actor and playwright Jason Miller played Father Damian Karras. Miller began his career writing the play That Championship Season for which he won a Pulitzer Prize.

Miller was so wonderfully intense as Karras. He conveyed the gravity of his struggle without appearing ridiculous. His face effortlessly conveys the burden he carries: guilt, grief, loss.

Despite my obsession with the character of Father Karras, the other main characters in the film, Chris MacNeil (Ellen Burstyn), Father Merrin (Max von Sydow), Lt. William Kinderman (Lee J. Cobb), also experience evil, although their story doesn't feel as compelling to me as Karras'.

For Karras and the other characters, the menacing presence of the demon is only partially visual. The voice performance and sound editing, mixing a melange of sounds with the voice of Mercedes McCambridge is astounding. The demon speaking with Linda Blair's voice might not have convinced anyone of his existence. Without McCambridge, the scenes would certainly lack impact as heard in these cool clips comparing the voices of Blair with McCambridge.

These thoughts lead to what I fear about the film. With a clear head, in the clear light of day, the film is intense and fascinating, but at night time, when I seem to be psychically vulnerable and my rational brain is half asleep, I can't stop seeing frightening images in my head. I can't stop my brain from obsessing on the danger (mental danger more than physical) of things outside the realm of the rational. My struggle is with my "lizard brain" (my emotional brain). I realize real people and real situations (illness, accidents) are the true threat, but my emotional brain is still haunted by what is not real. I don't believe in ghosts rationally, but I still expect one to be standing in the hallway when I round the corner in the dark.

This image of Karras' mother, who suddenly appears in place of Regan and the chaos of the room, is powerful. The image is simultaneously frightening, eerie, and melancholy.

I am also vulnerable to images pop into my brain and refuse to leave at night, in the dark; images like those in The Exorcist. When it came to memorable images, these people knew what they were doing.

Holy crap! Look at that. Don't tell me you're not compelled to turn away. If all you see is an actor in makeup, I envy you. Truly, I envy you.

Here is Eileen Dietz, the face behind the make-up. What a nice-looking lady. But seeing her photo doesn't reduce the impact of the image of her in scary make up...for me.

The more I considered these thoughts, I realized that while I love talking about the film, I am not interested in seeing it again. I want to contemplate the story and the drama without refreshing the frightening images that will play through my head when I least want them (i.e. heading to the bathroom in the middle of the night). So I think I'll continue to reminisce on my memories of the film and be satisfied with the half a dozen viewings. They're enough to last me a lifetime.

Exorcist Distraction

I stepped into a neighborhood used bookstore looking for books to use for my SF Silent Film Fest research project. Although I didn't find the books I was hoping for, as usual, I found other stuff - bookstores are so dangerous. I would drown in a mountain of books if I let myself go. I can't be a "cat-lady" with my allergies, but I could be a "book-lady."

Walking up the stairs I noticed the arresting photo of Lee J. Cobb. Upon inspection, the photo was taken by Richard Avedon. I really have to get to the show at the MOMA before it closes - note to self!

Lee J. Cobb made me think of The Exorcist. This film has obsessed me for years; the idea of someone, a priest, who agonizes over the loss of his faith only to have it restored when confronted by what he comes to believe to be real evil.

While going through the film books, I was surprised to find a book I didn't know existed, The Story Behind the Exorcist by Peter Travers and Stephanie Reiff (1974).

I've read William Peter Blatty on the Exorcist: From Novel to Film (1972), which gives a lot of insight into the book and film development and background from the writer's perspective. The Story Behind... gives a lot more general background and tidbits like the four month search for a child actor up to the task of playing the possessed girl and the controversy that almost lead to the dreaded 'X' rating.

In August of 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that obscene content was not protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution and went on to define obscenity. The Wikipedia article "Miller v. California" states the three points in the definition:

* the average person, applying contemporary community standards (not national standards, as some prior tests required), must find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest
* the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law
* and the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value

This ruling gave states more power to bring cases against what the community felt was "obscene." After the film's release in Dec. of 1973, a case was brought against film distributors in Boston siting the new obscenity ruling; the case sought to ban The Exorcist in Boston. Although the judge's ruling stated that "it does not meet the guidelines of obscenity as laid down by the United States Supreme Court" and the case was dismissed, the field was open for additional lawsuits. Soon after, the Division of Film and Broadcasting for the U.S. Catholic Conference rated the film A-IV, morally objectionable. They condemned the MPAA for giving the film a 'R' rating.

Finally, in Washington DC, community action achieved a success. On New Year's Day of 1974, the U.S. District Attorney's Office ruled to ban the film's ticket sales to anyone under 17 and warned theaters that arrests would be made for any violations of this ban.

Luckily for the film, produced by the author William Blatty, the 'R' rating stuck and The Exorcist became one of most talked-about films and biggest money maker in film history.

Okay now, enough distraction!!! I'm off to the library to do research for my festival project. I'm so easily sidetracked! And I want to sew too! My blouse project is languishing!!