I think Burstyn is supposed to be a serious actress not a glam movie star. I think this because Kinderman is a real film expert who likes stuff such as Othello and he is awed by meeting Chris.
I don't remember a single person leaving the theatre or even gasping during or after that scene when I saw it. And as I said before, nobody fainted. Not to say it wasn't disturbing, but it was nothing compared to what followed for another 90 minutes. Ellen is describing a specific experience at the theatre she attended with the crew from "Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore."
I think the arrogance involved in deciding for everyone that this is the only thing that freaked people out across the nation, and the ignorance to claim seeing this film (or seeing any film) is exactly the same experience for all, is astounding.
I 'taught' this film once in my film studies class. The class was so freaked out by it, that I took it off the curriculum. (This was about 4 years ago.)
I can tell you the things that freaked me out when I first saw it ... granted I was really young. And i don't claim to "speak for an entire nation" like some ...
1) Seeing Linda Blair's full makeup for the first time while she was in the bed. I think the closest we got in the trailer was seeing a closeup of her eyes. So it was a real shock during the movie.
2) Seeing the almost-subliminal flashes of the black-and-white devil face that popped up occasionally. Very disturbing.
3) Seeing her head turn around on the bed ... but the freakiest part of that for me was watching her left arm move into her lap while her head turned around. It felt "almost' real, as a result.
4) The vomiting, but only for the unexpected shock of it. I do remember the screaming in the audience there.
5) When Regan speaks and sounds like Damien Karras's mother.
6) The music ... Tubular Bells playing while Ellen Burstyn took a solo walk with the fall leaves blowing around her. Horror movie music would never be the same.
It's funny but for awhile the movie stopped having an effect on me because of all the behind the scenes features produced that gave away all the tricks and effects used to make the film.
But then something happened. I watched it again, alone, by myself and it really, really disturbed me. Yes I knew it was really a doll whose head spun around, yes I knew there was a device strapped around Blair's (or was it her double) mouth that pumped the pea soup out with the force that it did and still it was just so disturbing because it hit me at a very deep, spiritual level. So much so that I went to sleep with the bathroom light on and some music playing softly in the background.
I haven't watched it since then and the very thought of even listening to "Tubular Bells" gives me the willies.
For a few I've talked to, it was on a spiritual level that this film effected them for days, weeks, and some of them years, Carlos.
Idiot said he isn't all that "conventionally religious" and perhaps this is why it didn't scare him. I can see that. I also think there were a lot more "conventionally religious" people back in 1973. I'm not talking about the loud, religious freaks ... I'm talking about "average folks." More people in the collective society were going to church or had church-going backgrounds. So much has changed since then. We have less average folks believing and more concentrated religious freaks now.
But even for someone with casual beliefs or agnostics ... this movie got them thinking. I believe this is why Friedkin decided to use an almost documentary-style approach to the film. He wanted audiences to believe it was real. And if they believed in the Devil and demons after watching this ... then surely there must be a God, too. I would venture to say it might have effected agnostics more than firm believers. It messed with their minds and effected them on a deeply personal level merely by showing them "what if." I also believe this is why the Catholic church supported the movie.
A form of "scaring them straight."
That's another reason why I think subsequent horror movies don't resonate as much as this one does.
best12 are you suggesting Friedken made the movie as a religious tract?
Not at all. Especially not Friedkin. If you watch the docs about the movie, nearly everyone involved in the production says he would try whatever means necessary to illicit a desired reaction.
I would say that he had the same idea in mind for his audiences. He knew how to push buttons ... often by whatever means necessary.
Including hype about mass fainting spells in audiences worldwide.
Can you explain what you meant by this? "He wanted audiences to believe it was real. And if they believed in the Devil and demons after watching this ... then surely there must be a God, too."
I met Friedkin once in the early '90s. We had a very nice conversation. He's a charming, charismatic man, and when he talks with you, he almost instantly wants to find out things about you. It's very personable, and it put me at ease right away.
But I can see how by learning so much so quickly and earning trust as well, he could (according to those who have worked with him) use so much of who you are to get whatever he wants.
On a side note, I don't think "The Exorcist" could work as a musical, even if Sondheim tried it. I could see it as an opera perhaps, along the lines of "The Saint of Bleeker Street," which scared the crap out of me as a child.
I'm not sure if Shields has managed to develop some decent dramatic chops over the years (it's been a while since I've seen her in a serious role), but she does have an inherent likability: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfXRcCVMEdk
Can anyone else sort of see Diane Lane in the role? She started out doing theater.
I have to admit ... I don't think I realized Blatty was THAT Catholic. I knew he wanted the church's approval and support for the book and the film (and he got it, too), and I would even go so far as to say he wrote "The Exorcist" as a religious tract (even if I don't think Friedkin worried about that aspect beyond how it would effect audiences, as I said above).
Still, that is the very reason why the Catholic Church supported the book, the movie, agreed to appoint advisors to the film, and even allowed two of their priests to play priests on screen.
But Blatty really is hardcore. And even at 85, still taking a controversial route to make his point. Wow.
I have heard that he has gotten more and more extreme in his old age.
I found the book interesting. Having read it after seeing the movie I almost felt as if Blatty left a touch more room for doubt about whether the possession was genuine or whether it was a mental health issue. Just small things, such as Regan's possession mirroring the description of symptoms and progression that Chris reads about in a book lent to her by a psychic/medium whom attends the dinner party. It's also interesting that in the novel the final moments of the exorcism are not truly witnessed by the reader, we are switched over to the point of view of Chris and Sharon, who are waiting downstairs, so we only "hear" what is going on.
Now, having read more on Blatty I think he intended for it to be a genuine case of demonic possession (and I think Friedkin certainly made that clear in the film by showing the demon entering Karras right at the end), but there is still room for that sliver of doubt in the novel.
Finding Namo, my eldest brother saw the film in theatres and he's the one who saw fainting and crying and and at least one person left behind their partially digested din-din on a seat next to him.
Best12bars, you're right that by the time my brother saw it, the hype had reached a frenzy and people were daring themselves to go to see "how they'd react."
The film deals with inherently repellent subject matter and presents Satan in a way even our darkest imaginations can't realize the way it is done on film. I saw the film once in theatres when it was re-released in the late 90's and nobody did anything other than gasp at certain images. I believe my brother though, and it corresponds with the general hype the film had been receiving at the time. Also he's not the type that cooks up stories like that for attention.
Yes, and the fish that got away was THISSSSSSS big.
Listen, I love folklore and know how it works, and I believe you believe your brother and I believe he believes that Exorcist trifecta happened when he saw it. I don't. But it doesn't matter. It's all part of the mythology, and that is the stuff Hollywood is made of.
I bought into the hype when the movie came out and waited 2 1/2 hours in line. There were no faintings. Yes there were a couple people troubled by the movie who discussed it upon leaving, but nothing near the hysteria portrayed in the media. It was the Hollywood PR machine working overtime. That said, I still find it a well made film and after seeing the recent extended cut a few years ago, wholeheartedly agree with the editorial decisions made for the actual release cut!
Bea Arthur Nude Sells For Nearly $2 Million At Auction
Drama Desk Award Winners - MATILDA, VANYA AND SONIA, PIPPIN, VIRGINIA WOOLF & More!
John Bantay Talks to Richard Jay-Alexander About Musical Mondays Farewell
STAGE TUBE: MATILDA Cast Performs on The View!
CHUCK Star Zachary Levi and Krysta Rodriguez Set to Lead FIRST DATE
Photo Flash: First Look - Kelly Rowland & Paulina Rubio on THE X FACTOR!
VIDEO: First Trailer for Joseph Gordon-Levitt's DON JON
Gwyneth Paltrow Returns as the Face of Hugo Boss' Latest Scent
BWW Reviews: Yellow Sound Label's KERRIGAN-LOWDERMILK LIVE is an Exceedingly Fun and Charming Album
iWatch Update: Apple's Wearable iOS Device Coming in 2014?
BWW Blog: Leah Edwards - Practice. Perform. Repeat
BWW Reviews: Pauline Koner, American Original
Regional Orchestra of the Week: Reno Philharmonic, NV
joined:5/12/03
Posted: 5/22/12 at 03:09am