For some reason I tend to dislike most things when I first discover them. It's often true for books, music, TV shows, and of course, movies. It's a weird thing but it's true. Although in this case, I might give myself a pass because The Exorcist is, to say the least, a strange movie. When it was first released it was a complete and utter cultural shock. People would feel consumed by a kind of morbid curiosity, they'd form huge lines to get into the theater, and some would even find ways to sneak in despite their age, something which, in the seventies, wasn't all that difficult. And after all that, they'd walk back out in utter shock... Some would even have panic attacks, they'd throw up or faint, they'd describe the scarier scenes and their voices would shake when mentioning the tiny details. I for one can't say my initial reaction was at all similar to that, and though a lot of people report some bizarre coincidences taking place when watching the film, even in the comfort of their own homes, I have none.
In many ways, I'm not prepared to say anything deep about it. I have to admit I belong to that group of people who, after finally summoning the courage to watch this movie for the first time, found it boring or even a little funny. Then again, I didn't even know “hunting” with a C was a real word but I guess that's where we're at. I suppose to some people the film just doesn't hold up, there's gotta be something in our culture that makes us see it as dated and the shock value therefore feels less shocking. When I first watched it I didn't see what all the fuss was about, I just watched it and moved on. But, as it often happens, it's hard to avoid instances of people praising the film and, weirdly enough, at times I'd search for those instances myself. But anyway, I've recently watched The Exorcist for the third time and now I hope that, when I watch it for a fourth, I can say something interesting about it.
So what can I say at this present time? Before getting into the gritty stuff, I could say that the movie is visually stunning. I love that seventies feel to it, I love how slightly grainy it is, how the sounds come across so real and with a strong impact, how everyone's voices are so smoky, how everyone is so eloquent and sharp, and I love how everything in the frame, or almost everything, is real. It sucks quite a bit that movies these days, especially those with higher production values, have this nasty obsession with making everything so clean and polished. It makes it so that the film lacks all sense of realism and grit, it becomes almost like a video game. I suppose for the seventies crowd the realism of The Exorcist was a boon because it makes the movie feel almost like a documentary. Compare that to horror movies nowadays and, with only a few good exceptions, I think you'll find that exaggerated production values makes the whole thing completely dull. I'd go far enough to say most modern horror movies are action movies in disguise. And to people these days, the realism and simplicity of The Exorcist is, sadly, a detractor. I used to think so as well but I've come to disagree, I now love the gritty reality of it all – the sand and the wind in the Iraq sequence, the gray skies in Georgetown, the autumn leaves, the classy black Mercedes driven by the MacNeil family, the clay animals sculpted by Regan, and so on. It just makes each frame feel like a real place. And as far as the nasty stuff goes, give me makeup and green pea soup over expensive CGI any day of the week.
This sense of realism extends a bit further, out of the MacNeil house, that is. The initial scene in Iraq is a highly realistic, perhaps even proper real, depiction of an archaeological excavation, though one in which supernatural forces are at play. We are swiftly but laconically introduced to Father Merrin, brilliantly played by a not-so-aged Max Von Sydow. The realistic old man makeup makes us think in the back of our minds that the man has been seventy since the seventies... The Iraq scene itself seems almost pointless on first viewing but it is actually brilliant at setting up not only the exorcism to take place but also the demon's nature. Merrin is constantly being watched and seemingly mocked as he discovers the demon's amulet and later confronts his haunting statue. If a naive first-time viewer, like me, jumps into the movie expecting shocking stuff, he will be sorely disappointed by this scene, but actually, like with most great works of art, it demands at the very least a second chance. And then there's the shift to Georgetown which, in being so jarring, maintains an aura of strangeness. There's just something weird going on, problem is we can't quite figure out what. As Chris MacNeil walks along the city streets we hear the film's famous Tubular Bells tune, though nothing exactly odd happens, except perhaps the sullen Father Karras capturing Chris' attention. In many ways the film resists or wholly ignores our need for things to be carefully explained.
As a sidenote, I'd like to briefly mention the casting. Originally, Audrey Hepburn was meant to play Chris MacNeil, and Marlon Brando was considered for the role of Father Merrin. As far as Hepburn goes, maybe I would have been pleasantly surprised, who knows, but when you really love a movie it's hard to imagine anyone else playing the main characters. Still, I find it a little hard hard to believe the actress famous for playing Holly Golightly and similar worldly women would be able to bring to the screen the utter despair that Ellen Burstyn did. I think the role demands a little bit more madness than what a classy lady like Hepburn could, or would, deliver. The case for Brando is perhaps even worse since one can't quite see him having the unfailing faith of Father Merrin nor his calm, wise nature. Hepburn would have given the film a much too melodramatic tone, Brando would have gone for a sequel to Apocalypse Now. Neither case would have fitted The Exorcist which actually resists both of those plot conventions. Chris isn't a prima donna and Merrin isn't a larger-than-life rogue warrior.
It is between these three characters, Chris, Karras and Merrin, and later on a pseudo fourth with Kinderman, that the film effortlessly juggles its story. Merrin is introduced in the very beginning and then sidelined until the very end, Karras is introduced early on but very slowly developed over the course of the entire film. Until then, the heart of the story is essentially the bond between Chris and Regan but eventually both of them are sidelined as well – Chris because the exorcists take center stage, and Regan because of the demonic possession, of course. It seems like something that would greatly hinder the film, and I bet to some people it has, but it's rather effortless and even gutsy how the story weaves its threads until they all finally converge.
And when they do it's to great effect. The medical intervention scenes are so realistic that they would make people would feel nauseous and pass out. It's once again this documentary feel of the movie. It's all so gritty and real, you can actually feel the needles, the cold and sterile environment of the doctor's office, the brutal science of it all. But of course, the theme of the film is that science isn't quite enough. Whatever it is that's going on with Regan is beyond all that. And that's where the strength of the movie lies, namely this struggle that Karras has with his own faith. Indeed, he is quite possibly one of the most depressed characters in movie history, everything about him just screams sadness, guilt and lack of meaning, he just doesn't know anymore... but he still cares. On that note I find it interesting how some christians, if not most, rather despise this film. I've come to find that quite the opposite should be true, it seems to me that if you're a christian you should love The Exorcist. Faith isn't meant to be a simple thing, meaning and suffering aren't meant to be totally vanquished until the end of the world. Evil is still very much alive and we're all forced to confront it. There's no cure for life, as it is often said as an off-the-cuff remark, and nothing, not even the Gospel, is a cure for it. Instead it is meant as an assurance that suffering has meaning.
Father Karras spends a great deal of the film denying such a sad truth, the truth that demons exist. He can't quite accept that Regan really is possessed. Being in part a man of science, Karras still remains skeptical of the true affliction, reasoning it could well be some kind of mental illness or delusion. And funnily enough, the film doesn't shy away from it, remarking how exorcisms haven't been performed in centuries due to modern discoveries on human psychology. So the demon barges in as a wake-up call, mocking Merrin as their battle begins, and always challenging his lack of faith throughout. In fact, Karras is almost consumed by his own skepticism. He makes a good case for mental illness but can't quite explain how “Regan” has knowledge of his mother's death or how “she” can replicate the haunting saying – Can you help an old altar boy, father?
And then, of course, the demon himself is strikingly depicted. It almost seems like all of the best lines in the film are attributed to him. When initially meeting Karras he asks for the straps to be loosened, then Karras, in his typical skeptical fashion, challenges the demon to loosen them himself, to which he replies – That's much too vulgar a display of power, Karras! Yet later on, the demon decides to use his power to open the drawer of the bedside table without touching it. When challenged to open it again he says – In time... It's quite interesting to see depicted in these scenes how, as we all may remember from sunday school, the devil's greatest sin is pride. In truth, the demon is weaker than man-made straps, and the power to control objects with his mind, though initially impressive and, I suppose, proof of the supernatural, is actually entirely vain and shallow.
So how can one talk about realism when praising the depiction of a demon? Yeah, well... I think writing a good demon is just writing a normal man but then stripping him of anything good. The demon only reveals our fallen nature, and I'd say the goal of this movie is to let it be known that the prince of this world wears a paper crown.
Still, I don't know what I'm saying though. In essence, I've come to realize that I need to add this film to my list of all time favorites. Is it a horror movie in the typical sense? Maybe not, but then again the only horror film that I would consider to be proper horror is The Shining. When it comes to books I can't think of any. Hell, I wrote a horror book that I'm not entirely sure is a proper horror book, whatever that means... It's almost like The Exorcist is a film without a country – it ought to appeal to horror fans but many find it boring or dated, and it ought to appeal to christians but many find it evil and blasphemous... Billy Graham has even claimed that an actual demon lived somewhere inside the reels of this film. And to that I say, if such a thing is true, then true faith lives somewhere inside Jason Miller's performance as Damien Karras.
Comments
Post a Comment