CaptainHowdy.com The #1 Exorcist Fansite Since 1999
- This topic has 8 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Good evening ladies and gentlemen,
Â
I've recently re-watched The Exorcist for the first time in well over ten years; the last time I attempted to watch this film I was the tender age of 12/13, staying up late to watch this scary film.
Needless to say; I didn't last the course!
Â
It has taken me a decade to be brave enough to watch it again and, honestly, I was both satisfied and disappointed. Satisfied in that I've finally been able to watch the whole thing and disappointed in that the film doesn't scare me! Don't get me wrong; it's still chilling but it has yet to deprive me of sleep (again)!
Â
It turns out that a lot of the memories I had of The Exorcist pre the re-watch I had imagined; for instance, I was almost certain that the film contained a scene at night when Regan and her mother were woken up by repeated banging (like a fool hitting drums) but, alas, no such scene existed. Certainly not as I 'remembered' it anyway!
Â
This got me to wondering whether or not any of you had any misconceptions about the film on the first viewing? When I first watched it I assumed that Regan was possessed because the head of the demon found in Iraq was in the loft of the house in Georgetown and now, looking back, I have no idea where I got this idea from!
Â
What about you fine chaps and chapettes?
It has not made me scared. I find parts of the film when the demon swears funny. Probably cause its the kind of society I am in now a days. Puts a smile on my face. So does the book too.
I actually re watched this lately myself and i believe this is the 8th time ive seen it. Needless to say ive been sleep deprived for a couple of days and still think that the film is absolutely terrifying. I do understand that the swearing can be funny to people. In my opinion regan's fit of swearing an uncontrollable violence amplifies the film's shock for me, i thinks its because pre-possession regan is the picture of innocence, sweet, caring and almost a caricature of purity. And i actually thought the same as you reganmacneilfan regarding the opening in iraq.Â
If you look around this site, you will see that many fans have had misinterpretations about specific parts of the film.
In my opinion, both Blatty and Friedkin wanted some of these misinterpretations – or – shall we say, “intelligent intentional misdirections.”
If this duo had been afforded all the time and money they really wanted, I can only imagine how much more intricate the film could have been.
Father Bowdern
If this duo had been afforded all the time and money they really wanted, I can only imagine how much more intricate the film could have been.
That's another thing (I may be covering old ground here, I'm quite sure[!!]) but doesn't the ending of the film seem a little 'rushed'? I've not read the book yet (it's the next one on the ever-growing pile [I'm currently reading Thomas Allen's “Possessed”]) so I'm not sure of the exact chain of events, but the actual exorcism is, in my opinion, over and done with really quickly. Does anyone agree?
Were there reasons for this; budget / time constraints etc . . .
Â
Just a thought.
ian.von.battenberg said:
If this duo had been afforded all the time and money they really wanted, I can only imagine how much more intricate the film could have been.
That's another thing (I may be covering old ground here, I'm quite sure[!!]) but doesn't the ending of the film seem a little 'rushed'? I've not read the book yet (it's the next one on the ever-growing pile [I'm currently reading Thomas Allen's “Possessed”]) so I'm not sure of the exact chain of events, but the actual exorcism is, in my opinion, over and done with really quickly. Does anyone agree?
Were there reasons for this; budget / time constraints etc . . .
Â
Just a thought.
ian.von.battenberg said:
If this duo had been afforded all the time and money they really wanted, I can only imagine how much more intricate the film could have been.
That's another thing (I may be covering old ground here, I'm quite sure[!!]) but doesn't the ending of the film seem a little 'rushed'? I've not read the book yet (it's the next one on the ever-growing pile [I'm currently reading Thomas Allen's “Possessed”]) so I'm not sure of the exact chain of events, but the actual exorcism is, in my opinion, over and done with really quickly. Does anyone agree?
Were there reasons for this; budget / time constraints etc . . .
Â
Just a thought.
Â
The Exorcist has a history of being one those films in which budget and time escalated beyond what producers (Warner Brothers) anticipated. There are lots interesting points about delays that cost not only time, but money; i.e., the original shooting was scheduled for 85 days. However, a fire torched the MacNeil house studio set and filming was set back six weeks causing the actual production to ramp up to 224 days.
You can imagine how freaked out producers were when the final budget reached $12M in 1973 (that's approximately $130M today). You can also imagine how freaked out producers were when Friedkin filmed the opening Northern Iraq scene last and well over the allocated budget. To this point, I can say that Blatty and Friedkin were already finished with the filming of the exorcism portion of the film. Considering the lack of CGI special effects then, the film is impressive in covering the vast majority of Blatty's intended viewpoints from his novel about what happens during those few minutes.
Father Bowdern
ReganMacNeilfan said:
Wasn't there a thing where the film was possessed?
Sure … if you believe in folklore and film-grossing hype!
Father BowdernÂ
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.