The Exorcist (1973)

THE EXORCIST

Review by John Beachem

* * * * 1/2

Directed by: William Friedkin
Written by: William Peter Blatty

Regan MacNeil (Linda Blair) isn't exactly your average twelve year old girl living in Georgetown. She does things like speak in tongues she's never learned, send objects flying around her room with her mind alone, and even makes her head twist around backwards. Her mother, Chris (Ellen Burstyn), has tried every doctor she can find, but they've been no help. After a psychiatrist tries hypnosis and is attacked by Regan, it is suggested she try more unorthodox methods. She gets in touch with Father Damien Karras (Jason Miller), a psychiatrist/priest at a local church. Father Karras is going through a spiritual crisis of his own, since his mother died just recently and he is questioning his faith. Nevertheless, he decides to visit Regan and determines she may, in fact, be possessed by a demon. The church decides to attempt an exorcism to remove the spirit, but that means calling in Father Merrin (Max von Sydow), the only man they know of who has performed one before. So Father Merrin travels to Georgetown, despite his health problems, and teams up with Father Karras to take on the demon in Regan.

While watching the "new and improved" version of William Peter Blatty's "The Exorcist", it occurred to me that I probably should have gone back and watched the original one more time. Afterall, I haven't seen the original for about six or seven years. So, I had to decide if I was going to review the film based on the changes, or simply review it as I would an original cut. Frankly, I still can't decide, so I'm going to try both. Even now, twenty seven years after its release, it's difficult to put your finger on just what it is that makes "The Exorcist" so eerie. Yes, I say eerie rather than scary. I know it scared audiences stiff back in '73, but "The Exorcist" has been downgraded from terrifying to really creepy over the years. Don't get me wrong, it's still an excellent film, it just can't compete with modern scares. So what makes the film so creepy? I know part of it is the way Friedkin sets up shots, but I think what really gets to us is the script, and specifically how well the characters are drawn. These characters seem like real people, with real problems, and as a result it hits close to home when things happen to them.

A lot of what makes the film's characters so real is that the actors portraying them are quite gifted. First up we have Jason Miller ("Rudy"), who almost underacts as Father Karras. I was sorry to see that Miller decided to go on to a career in writing rather than acting, because he brings a real humanity and depth to his character. On the other hand, we have Ellen Burstyn ("Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore"), who overacts with abandon. If I had any faith in the Academy awards, I'd have been shocked by the fact that she received a nomination for her part in this film. Next up is Linda Blair (who has gone on to do nothing of import), who does an admirable job for being so young. Frankly, I'm a little shocked that her parents allowed her to appear in this movie. I can't help but think some of her actions here are what influenced her to go into the exploitation films later in her career ("Red Heat", anyone?). Lee J. Cobb ("How the West was Won") is excellent, if sadly underused, as the likeable Lt. Kinderman, who investigates a murder Regan may have committed. Finally we have Max von Sydow ("Needful Things") himself. I hate to use '90s jargon, but I simply have to utilize this term in regards to Sydow: he is the man. From an early scene where he squares off against a satanic statue on a hill, to a scene where Regan throws up on his face while he keeps reading from his bible, you know this is the guy you want to call to fight the forces of evil.

I said I was going to point out the few changes I actually noticed, so here goes. First, the infamous "spider walk" has been integrated into the film. I know peoples' opinions of this scene vary drastically, but I belong to that camp which finds the scene impossibly creepy. That one, brief scene alone gave me nightmares back when I first saw it, and I still can't handle seeing it now. Don't ask me to explain why I react that way, because I can't. Second, the film's ending has been altered slightly, and this was a bad idea. In the original version, Ellen hands Father Dyer (Reverend William O'Malley) the medallion dropped by Father Karras. Father Dyer walks to the house with it, stares down at those menacing concrete stairs, and the picture fades. In the new version the above events occur, but Father Dyer gives it back. No, wait, it doesn't stop there. He then meets up with Lieutenant Kinderman and the two talk about going to lunch and a movie. They wander off together and the film ends. Why these changes? I haven't the foggiest, but it ends the film on entirely the wrong note. The only other change I noticed was a minor one, but I'll note it anyway. In the middle of the exorcism, Father Karras and Father Merrin sit at the top of the stairs and have a philosophical discussion. It's an interesting discussion, but I don't think it was a necessary addition. It detracts from the action that takes place before and after.

I've often heard that the only people who will find "The Exorcist" scary are those who have deep religious beliefs. I don't think that's quite true. I don't have any deep religious beliefs (I'm a deist), but when I first saw the film it scared me silly. I've decided that a lot of the film's scares come from two elements: the set design, and the soundtrack. I didn't think it was possible for a simple concrete staircase to look eerie, but Friedkin pulls it off. A lot of his success is due to keeping the film's lighting low and giving each set a claustrophobic feel. As for the music, well, the music is everything. Jack Nitzsche's original score is brilliant, but I'd never want to buy the soundtrack since I'd never be able to sleep at night. I didn't think it was possible for "Tubular Bells" to inspire such feelings of dread. Are there flaws to "The Exorcist"? Of course, but they're negligible. The most prominent is the amount of time spent on the film's setup. It takes about an hour to get to the really spooky stuff. There is one scene I want to point out, one which makes me laugh like a madman whenever I see it. Regan is floating above the bed, the two priests are throwing holy water at her and shouting "The power of Christ commands you." They yell it over, and over, and over again. I didn't count the number of times but it must have been at least fifteen. I just want to reach in, shake Father Merrin, and shout "We get the point!" Oh well. The original version of "The Exorcist" runs a full 122 minutes. The new version runs a long 131. I'd recommend the film to those who want to see how to make a classic horror film and give it four and a half out of five stars.

Comments? Send to: johnbeachem@dependentfilms.net

Past reviews can be found at: http://www.epinions.com/user-elerad or http://us.imdb.com/ReviewsBy?John+Beachem

* * * * * - One of the best movies of the year. * * * * - Great flick, try and catch this one. * * * - Okay movie, hits and misses. * * - Pretty bad, see it at your own risk. * - See this one only if you enjoy pain.

---

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.