CaptainHowdy.com The #1 Exorcist Fansite Since 1999
- This topic has 7 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Oregonian 1979 – Mahar – Part 2
Also, Blatty’s inspiration, he insists, is from real life. “The Exorcist” is based on a 1949 case in Rainier, Md., and as a student at Georgetown University, Blatty knew the exorcist who had seemingly solved the problem.
And possession and exorcism, whatever [they are], can be a truly horrifying spectacle. Exorcisms do not invariably succeed, and exorcists do not invariably survive the attempt. In his allegedly true book, “Hostage to the Devil…,” Malachi Martin sums up the attitude of many Catholic priests. He cites a pastor who “new little about possession and wanted to know less.”
Hollywood, of course, took it all quite seriously. Not since the James Bond movies inspired a river of secret agent movies a decade previously had a movie generated so many copies – and so much revenue.
“The Exorcist” itself took in $82 million in domestic rentals; its copies “The Omen” and “Damien – Omen II” (from Fox, which this time did get on the bandwagon) totalled $40 million domestically.
Other films inspired to varying degrees by “The Exorcist” include “Abby,” “Beyond the Door,” and a sequel, “The Power,” “The Manitou”, “The Medusa Touch,” “Carrie,” “The Fury,” “Jennifer” and the film version of “The Late, Great Planet Earth.”
Upcoming films include “The Amityville Horror,” “The Prophecy” and several others. Some have been the flops they deserved to be, but altogether, “The Exorcist” has probably stimulated $300 million in movies and books worldwide.
Well, that’s commerce, of course. Movie people in any country will copy anything to make a buck. But they can’t sell to an unwilling audience. “Rosemary’s Baby” had not generated the same kind of bandwagon just five years earlier. There was a sinister magic to “The Exorcist.”
Part of it, naturally, was novelty. Audiences were ambushed. “The Exorcist” will always have at least a small niche in film history for introducing the right monster at the right time. It was as much a film landmark as “Dracula,” “Frankenstein” or “King Kong.”
But why was it the right time? No one could answer that for sure, even in retrospect. But “The Exorcist” may also have a small niche in social history. “Rosemary’s Baby” seemed to suggest – using a Time magazine cover – that God was dead, not God, but the god of man’s religion. “The Exorcist” seemed to confirm it.
“The Exorcist” may come to be seen in time as the bellwether of the spiritual frustration, indifference and disillisionment that has resulted in millions of people joining cults.
Some religions may seem moribund, and some may be dead, but the religious impulse may be stronger than ever. Some people have a strong need to worship, and power attracts worship. “The Exorcist” demonstrated in dollars that power does not have to be constructive to demand respect.
THE END
Jason called it the thinking man’s horror… I can’t think of a better term… There might be, but the words are lost on me. It’s what Bill Blatty said. It’s a love story. Karras lays down his life for another human. It’s a beautiful, pure sacrifice. His suicide proves to me, at least in the novel and film, the existance of Soul. Love. Thank you again for sharing.
The Oregonian
May 13, 1979
by Ted Mahar of the Oregonian staffIt’s been five years since “The Exorcist” started jolting audiences in the spring of 1974, just as the Watergate Follies was beginning its last scenes. The film is back again in its second reissue since its first release, which implies that its first reissue three years ago was worth the trouble of making new prints and purchasing a major ad campaign. It’s also looking like “The Exorcist” was a social phenomenon that touched nerves in deeper ways than first appeared.
… Like “The China Syndrome,” the film got an unexpected promotional boost from the news {Watergate, the disgrace of President Richard Nixon], although on a considerably smaller scale. One of those “White House sources” opined to his immediate rue that those well-known 17 missing minutes [of Nixon’s incriminating Oval Office tapes] must have been the work of a demon.
The remark was facetious and rhetorical, but jokes about “Rosemary’s Baby” and other ridicule were instantaneous.
From the vantage of five years it does not appear that “Exorcist” novelist and film producer William Peter Blatty was tapping a flowing well. Whatever one may think of him or the film, he must be given credit for starting his own trend in his own time, however much it may have resembled previous trends.
“Rosemary’s Baby” didn’t really start a trend. The one ripoff made by a major studio, 20th Century Fox, was “The Mephisto Waltz,” and it just wouldn’t dance at the box office; nor did it start a film career for Alan Alda, as several other films hadn’t.
When “the Exorcist” hit, it got a fresh audience. And part of its success was no doubt because the basic subject matter was substantially new to most viewers.
Indeed, at first some folks were a little confused even about how to classify it. Sure, it was a horror movie. Maybe the devil was supposed to be behind it all, but an elemental battle between Good and Evil is at the base of most horror movies. So “The Exorcist” was simply a literal depiction of what had been symbolic in a great many horror movies.
But “The Exorcist” had a socio-religious effect beyond the average horror movie. If anything, it touched off more serious religious debates than “Rosemary’s Baby”. Surely it generated more dicussions of good, evil, God, man, scriptures, destiny and other topics than the entire output of Cecil B. DeMille.
DeMille’s cinematic oatmeal – with the occasional bare belly and decolletage – reinforced comfortably bland, Sunday school images of well-known religious folk tales.
Abrasive, jolting, scatological, disgusting and simplistic though “The Exorcist” may have been so many, it jabbed some viewers into a reflection on the nature of existence that they certainly were not accustomed to [seeing} in movies.
Some were shocked that a mere movie could generate so much discussion of the devil, regarded by many as a kind of bogeyman left over from superstitious times. It was as if a movie had been made about the bogeyman – although that didn’t happen until John Carpenter and Debra Hill’s “Halloween” came out a few months ago.
But people did take the devil seriously, or some did for a while, and it was not at all alien to Blatty’s intentions. After all, the preface to his book contains a few examples of human barbarism in war, the Mafia, the Holocaust and other unnatural disasters, the implication being that a devil is not an impossible explanation.
End Part One
You’re welcome, Blizzi, and thank you for reading and commenting. You said it again – it’s a… _love_ story!
So many audiences lost sight of this and missed the point. I knew at least one person who insisted it was a downer cuz Karras “killed himself – committed suicide”. I can reluctantly grant that opinion – maybe after one viewing, with all the confusion and shock. But not with more than one viewing – as it’s been pointed out here and elsewhere, the attentive viewer just can’t miss Karras’ conscious invitation/challenge to the demon: “Come into me, goddam you, take me!”
Then – as photography, make-up, and Miller’s acting show – the demon _does_ enter him. And then – again, as photography, make-up, and Miller’s acting show – Karras momentarily “returns to himself,” crying out, “NO!”, and takes the demon with him out the window.
To confirm this, as soon as Karras jumps, Regan is restored finally “to herself”, with Chris and Kinderman as witnesses. Dyer becomes a witness to Karras’s renewed faith as the dying priest makes “a good confession”. It is again confirmed by Regan’s implicit acknowledgment of Karras’ (and Merrin’s) help when she kisses Dyer after gazing at his “round Roman collar.”
Only brickheads could fail to see this interpretation, even if they disagree with it.
Moreover, love raises its noble head in other parts of the film: Karras’ friendship with Dyer; Dyer’s concern for the MacNeils; the emerging friendship of Karras and Kinderman; the easy friendship between Dyer and lay people (e.g. at Chris’s party); Chris’s fierce love for Regan; Karl’s obvious concern for Regan (“she is going to be vell?”); Denning’s sly, teasing familiarity with Chris; Karras’s heart-breaking love for his mother; Merrin’s solicitude for the tormented Karras.
You’re right: it’s a love story, plus many other things.
God… Going over it again pulls my heart strings. Thinking of Miller’s last moments; It was the most intense, pure scene I’ve ever seen on screen. And things that wash over me a bit from only looking at the basic plot; Karl did love Regan. I remember this for fleeting moments, but I don’t give it much of a chance to sink in. And Merrin! The way he spoke to Chris. And Karras. And the man with chickpea in the corner of his lip. Touching. You took the words from my mind about Regan acknowledging Karras’ sacrifice through kissing Dyer. He was a surrogate. No charecter ever stole my heart as Karras has. Miller’s performance kicked off my current path. Found the book, dear Bill Blatty, and what I want to do in life. Write. Even if it’s nowhere near the same quality. I choke up at the final scene everytime… I think Bradbury had said it to Blatty. That it’s a love story. Now I MUST watch TNC because that is quite possibly going to tie with Exorcist. Talk about grenades and Shakespear and chicken shit. Oh my. I’m in love already 🙂
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.