Retro Review: The Exorcist (1973)

Forty-five years later, it is perhaps hard to realise just what an effect this film had on cinema-goers in 1973. Quite honestly, there had never really been anything like it. Newspapers carried articles about the film, people were taken ill in cinemas as they watched it, and some ran terrified from their seats. I was 21 years old, and convinced nothing would scare me, so off I went to see it.

William Blatty adapted his own book for the screen, and solid director William Friedkin was in charge. The cast appeared to be first rate too, with Ellen Burstyn, Max Von Sydow, and Lee J. Cobb, as well as a young actress I had never heard of, Linda Blair. It seemed to me that all concerned were taking this story of the demonic possession of a young girl very seriously indeed.

We don’t have to wait long for the action to start. Young Regan (Blair) is living with her mother (Burstyn) in Georgetown, USA. One evening, she plays with a Ouija board, and contacts a spirit, who she calls Captain Howdy. Meanwhile, on the other side of the world in Iraq, Catholic Priest and exorcist, Father Merrin, (Von Sydow) has discovered a demonic amulet. Back in America, Regan starts to behave very strangely; swearing, cursing, and urinating on the floor. Her bed shakes violently when she is in it, and strange sounds and voices come from her mouth. Her mother tries to find out what is wrong, and enlists the help of doctors, priests, and psychiatrists, including a Father Karras.

One night, Regan is being looked after by a family friend, Burke. When her mother returns, she finds Burke dead, apparently after falling from a window. The police become involved, with a detective (Cobb) investigating the death. The psychiatrists suggest that an exorcism is tried, and father Karras enlists the help of an expert, who just happens to be Father Merrin. With Regan now having to be confined to her bedroom, the two priests begin their work.

What happens next has become the stuff of legend, as well as parody. Regan speaks with the voice of a demon, projectile vomits green bile, and masturbates with a crucifix. She is able to levitate, and to make objects fly around the room. Her head can turn 360 degrees, and her physical appearance begins to resemble a rotting corpse. The priests discover that the demon is Pazuzu, the same one shown on the amulet discovered by Father Merrin in Iraq. After long struggles with the demon inside Regan, the only solution seems to be to allow Pazuzu to leave her body, and possess someone else. So Father Karras makes this happen, taking the demon from the girl before leaping to his death from the window.

But the viewer is cleverly left wondering if that is the end of the matter.

Make no mistake, this is an incredibly powerful film, seen in the context of its time. I felt a real sense of dread every time anyone mounted the stairs to walk up to Regan’s room, thinking to myself “What now?” each time they entered. For their time, the special effects were startling, and often repulsive too. It was a hard watch, in every way imaginable. The cast took it all very seriously indeed, and young Linda Blair was incredible as the girl possessed by a demon. She was 14 years old at the time she played the 12 year old Regan, and looked younger.

I left the cinema feeling drained by the experience. My girlfriend at the time had been with me in the cinema, but had hardly watched anything apart from the introductory scenes. She was so scared, she had spent the bulk of the film hiding her face under the huge lapels of the jacket I was wearing. (It was 1973!) As we walked to the car, she asked me “Was it as bad as it sounded?” I answered “Worse”.

Advertisements

54 thoughts on “Retro Review: The Exorcist (1973)

  1. Pete, I own on DVD “The Exorcist” (“the version you’ve never seen”…which includes the scene where Regan comes down the staircase on all fours).

    When I was a student in Nice, France (1974-75), I picked up the book in French translation on a Saturday, and read it cover to cover (which I rarely ever do). And then I went to an after-midnight showing of the film in town. I had to walk back to my studio afterwards. It was maybe 3:00 in the morning. Anyway, the streets were deserted. And I could hear the echo of my footsteps on the sidewalk. Suddenly, as I approached one of those wedge-shaped buildings you sometimes find in French towns at intersections, a woman jumped out. Scared the hell out of me! It was a prostitute. It must have been a frustrating night for her! Of course, I turned her down. But that’s a moment I’ll never forget. As for the film, I think it’s just as powerful today as it ever was.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I never watched the film again after that cinema showing, David. I didn’t buy it on VHS or DVD, and I don’t think it has ever been shown on TV here. I can imagine how the appearance of that woman of the night would have made you jump though. 🙂
      Best wishes, Pete.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. There are two films I refused to see when they were first released and I have never seen to this day … The Exorcist and Silence of the Lambs. Three, actually, now that I think of it – A Clockwork Orange, as well. Part of my reason for not wanting to see them was that they were all far too good at what they were portraying on the screen and I couldn’t take that.

    Cheers!
    Susan

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I think you might manage The Silence of The Lambs, Susan. It is very well done, and not as graphic as you might think. (The fact that it is regularly shown unedited on TV is indication of that) A Clockwork Orange is disturbing for many reasons, and of course The Exorcist is hard to watch in the extreme.
      Best wishes, Pete.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. It wasn’t the graphic aspect that kept me away from SOTL, but the psychological – Anthony Hopkins was just TOO good in that role! As for CO, it was released during my final year in high school, and a couple of my classmates must have gone to see it about 10 times. Then they constantly talked about it, acting it out in the school hallways – and quite frankly scared most of us – so much so that I never wanted to see it after that! I should break down though and at least read the book. One day …

        Liked by 1 person

  3. This is the scariest horror film for me, bar none. I watched it a couple years after its release when I was sixteen and was terrified. I watched it again in my late twenties and was still terrified. I will never watch it again. The face of Regan has haunted my interior mind for years. It’s still crystal clear to conjure up her demonic face. She’s the reason I’m a scaredy-cat and avoid horror films today.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Something deeply disturbing about it indeed. Not sure if it’s because she is so child-like, or the way Blair portrayed that interior demon so well. I have never wanted to watch it twice. You did better than me, Cindy.
      Best wishes, Pete. x

      Like

    1. There may be a younger generation that doesn’t know of it, GP. Given the advances in special effects over the years, they might find it amusing, rather than scary. But I think it would still concern me to watch it again.
      Best wishes, Pete.

      Liked by 2 people

All comments welcome

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s