[Petronius]

Hello, all.

This is my first post after checking out this great site for a few weeks!

I have been a fan of The Exorcist for as long as I can remember. TBH it scared me so bad the first time I watched it (I was 13 or 14 at the time) that I didn’t dare watch it again for years. I have seen it many times since then and I still get the willies.

The one thing I didn’t do was read the book and I just finished it today. ( I know, I know 🙁 ) but….I was really torn about what medium was the better way to tell the story. I found the book more descriptive and had more story on the Karras/demon conversations as well as the detective’s thoughts throughout the investigation. OTOH ….I found the movie scared me more due to the music and atmosphere….the excellent use of lighting and pauses left me sweating…no kidding!

So…what was the favorite for you? the movie or the book.

Cheers

John

[Petronius]

I’m guessing by the views/posts ratio that this question has been asked before 😉

cheers

[fatherbowdern]

Welcome Petronious to our clever Captain Howdy’s site!

Both.

The Book: Simply because Blatty, like Poe, lets the reader use their imagination even when he sets the stage with intricate details in his novel. Obviously there is a much more refined and in-depth look into each of the characters. Just as the onion line goes, Blatty reveals every layer to the very core of each character in perfect harmony while striking chords of intrigue into his reader.

The Movie: It is the combination of two great talents, Blatty and Friedkin, who both had the unique abilities to bypass the systematic and rote trends of past horror films. Friedkin’s pacing and documentary-style application to this masterpiece created a far-fetched story into a shockingly possible reality.

Father Bowdern

[Petronius]

Thanks for the reply, father.

I know it sounds like walking the fence but I to agree both are great in their own ways.

With that said I do prefer the movie over the book but only slightly. I think one of the reasons is that I saw the movie many times before I read the book. Knowing the story well resulted in a less scary and suspenseful read imo. otoh I was frightened badly by the masturbation scene from the book.

cheers

John

[fatherbowdern]

Petronius,

I see your point. I was the same age as the character in the film when I first saw the film in theaters back in the 1970s. My father had to accompany me and my mother refused to go. Needless to say, my parents knew a small amount of information about the film based on word of mouth, but not enough to gauge the affect on their 12-year-old son.

After the first viewing, I was terrified and understood very little about the plot. However, I had an adult to accompany me when I went back to see the film about a year later after reading the book. With every viewing, I had very distinct feelings about the film. The book was yet another journey into terror altogether.

I do feel that the first form of medium can always influence you more than the other. For instance, I read The Shining before seeing the film. King’s book was so popular that probably the vast majority of the audience had read the book already and anticipated seeing what they read on the big screen. Instead of scares, it received many laughs and poor reviews. I attribute those laughs mainly to the acting talent selected such as Jack Nicholson who played Jack Torrance with a One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest maniacal fervor. The ways in which Kubrick would “slam” the date stamp on every day caused a ruckus and didn’t help either. I’m not giving a review of the film based on today’s standards of The Shining, but rather a recollection of how mediums can influence us.

Father Bowdern

[Petronius]

That’s an interesting perspective, Father.

Familiarity does temper the effect of one medium over the other. I think The Exorcist is one film that matched closely to what my imagination did reading the book. That is a rarity for me at least.

Did you find the book easy and a quick read? I was done it a couple of days which is lightning for me!

[fatherbowdern]

Yes. I’ve read the novel several times and it’s quit a page-turner. I haven’t read it in years, but I have it on my vacation schedule to-do list.

BTW, we have a pro on the novel on here. Her name is Sofia and she is well-versed in every aspect of the book. She can explicity tell you things about the book and where they are located. Her perspectives are often unique, very succinct, plus I enjoy her take on different angles of the novel. (Smooch, Sof!)

Father Bowdern

[AllBahianGirl]

Welcome Newbie. Ah it’s great to have another Exorcist fan. I’ve only recently joined this group myself because the Exorcist is one of my fav books and one that I never get tired of reading. I saw the movie for the first time in St.Louis at the age of 13 in 1973. Now that movie didn’t sit well with me for two reasons the first one being that the girl possessed by the devil was the same age as me and second that the movie was based on a true story of an exorcism that took place in my hometown of St.Louis. In 1974 when my Mom,my sister and I moved to California I was overjoyed to be getting away from the devil who I thought was only in St.Louis only to come to California and find more numerous,crafty devils. When I went back to visit St.Louis in 2005 for Thanksgiving at my Mom’s(she recently moved back to St.Charles,MO)there was an 8 page article in the St.Louis Post Dispatch on the history of the house where the possessed boy lived with his aunt and uncle. The house was up for sale because the previous owner had “disappeared” so an investor picked up the property to re-sell it. He didn’t want the history of the house to be disclosed to the public for fear nobody would want to purchase a house that was the site for some of the exorcism that took place in St.Louis in 1949. Actually the possessed boy was from Maryland but his aunt and uncle lived in St.Louis and for whatever reasons the priests in Maryland were either too afraid or too inexperienced to perform the exorcism that the boy needed so the boy was sent to St.Louis so that those good ole St.Louis Jebs who I went to Catholic School with in the 1960′ could perform the exorcism. The Jebs were successful in performing the exorcism though it took months and the St.Louis Post Dispatch article in 2005 had quotes from the last remaining exorcist Father Halloran who was the youngest exorcist on the team and the strongest one being that he ran track at St.Louis University so he was in good physical shape to hold the possessed boy down when he jumped out of that boy to open up a can of whip a*s on the priests.Father Halloran passed away later that year in his 90′s. I had my Mom drive me by the home in the Bel-Nor section of St.Louis a well-kept suburb in North County with big beautiful brick homes and well-maintained trees and HUGE yards. It was fall so folks were out raking their leaves and the street was so pretty filled with yellow and orange leaves. The house itself is a modern two story brick dwelling hard to imagine anything devilish going on in there. We didn’t go inside cause the real estate agent wasn’t with us so we drove by,parked and checked it out from the curb. I wonder if the house ever sold cause it’s a reasonable price,well-maintained house but I guess you’d have to find out why the previous owner “disappeared” before you set foot in it.

Anyhoo I’ve read the book more than I’ve seen the movie though I saw the movie first. The movie stays very true to the novel moreso than other books that have been made into movies but the only thing I wish in the movie is that the directors should have expounded more on the death of Burke Dennings as that was a major part of the book and a precursor to the fact that there was demonic activity about to be unleashed on some unsuspecting folk. The second thing I still couldn’t figure out and get over in the book is the time that Reagan went to the church at night and left a big steaming pile of excrement on the altar for the elderly sacristan to find the next morning when he opened the church for mass. I just want to know how she pulled that one off without being seen walking down the street in her nightgown in the middle of the night and then entering the church to pull that sick stunt. I wonder if there has been any previous threads about that particular desecration cause I was no more good after I read how she desecrated the church in that manner and I sure would have hated to be the elderly sacristan to open up the church doors and find it.

Also I didn’t like how the book ended with Father Karras taking the rap for Burke Denning’s death. After the way Father Karras suffered in his life and the guilt he felt about not being able to take better care of his mother due to the fact that he joined the priesthood I wanted a happy ending for him. I hated the fact that the memory of Father Karras amongst the Jesuits would be one of a sick priest who committed a murder. I know that deep in hi heart Detective Kinderman had to know that Father Karras was not the murderer but he closed the case letting Father Karras take the rap anyway. Father Bowdern can you give insight as to why Father Karras had to take the rap for being the murderer of Burke Dennings when all evidence still pointed to Regan? Did Detective Kinderman just want to close out the case and get on with the business of living or was that done to protect Chris and her thriving career cause if the tabloids were anything then like they are today National Enquirer would have a field day writing a story about a successful actress whose possessed daughter killed Mom’s producer in a way indicative of demonic ritual murder.

[Petronius]

Hello, ABGirl

Thanks for the welcome and interesting post!

I have never had any knowledge or known anyone who was thought to be possessed. Your story is intriguing!

I always saw the mystery of who killed Dennings being strongly suggested towards Regan of course but the hedging by Kinderman was due to his inability to come to terms with this being a psychiatric problem let alone a demonic one.

I have to be honest. I never finished the movie or book with the thought that Karras would be the scapegoat for Dennings murder. I must have missed something?

cheers

[fatherbowdern]

From AllBahianGirl: “Father Bowdern can you give insight as to why Father Karras had to take the rap for being the murderer of Burke Dennings when all evidence still pointed to Regan? Did Detective Kinderman just want to close out the case and get on with the business of living or was that done to protect Chris and her thriving career cause if the tabloids were anything then like they are today National Enquirer would have a field day writing a story about a successful actress whose possessed daughter killed Mom’s producer in a way indicative of demonic ritual murder.”

I’m sorry to say I cannot recall Fr. Karras indicting himself of Dennings’ death. It’s been many years since I’ve read the book, but I know Sofia can offer the best insights …

About the actual house where Ronald Hunkeler lived, you can click this link. Also, you can watch “In the Grip of Evil” located here.

Father Bowdern

[etrigan69]

I never got that either. It was assumed that it was an accident but Kinderman didn’t want to let it go. I thought Kinderman just kind of wrote it off as an accident even though he knew Regan committed murder in her “illness”.

I also believe that the Hunkeler case was nothing more than a bored troubled teenager taking his family and the priests for a ride. I think that’s why he has never got involved with any of the hype from The Exorcist. Embarrassment.

The Opsasnick story http://www.strangemag.com/exorcistpage1.html

http://www.strangemag.com/exorcistpage1.html

[Sofia]

” can you give insight as to why Father Karras had to take the rap for being the murderer of Burke Dennings

“Readers of the novel fail to pick up on the subtle hints that the killer and desecrator might be Karras. He is a candidate for somnambulism produced by an ‘unconscious rebellion’ against the Church; for not only is he filled with compulsions of guilt but he was refused in his request for a transfer to New York so that he might be close to his mother,who died alone.’ So, he could have expressed his anger by killing Dennings, while in a state of complete somnambulism.

“Her perspectives are often unique, very succinct, plus I enjoy her take on different angles of the novel. (Smooch, Sof!)”

Awww FB, you are a pro, too!
Smooch back at you xxxx

[Petronius]

I like your analysis, Sofia but I must confess I never suspected Karras.

The hints must be subtle or I’m just not that observant ( most likely the latter 🙂 )

[fatherbowdern]

Well, I still have this on my vacation reading list (especially on the plane because people usually stare at titles). This one has brought some attention on subways, planes, etc. in the past.

Sof, are you quoting from another source (I don’t think you are)? I ask only because I see the beginning quotation and the ending one after the comment I made about you. Knowing you pretty well, I believe it came from you and it actually makes sense in an altogether different fashion because it uses a lot of the verbiage from the film like “somnambulism” and “unconscious rebellion.”

Ah, you clever girl! I love that stream of thought that pours from your creative brain. 🙂

Father Bowdern

[Gav]

For me, although both are works of genius, I would have to say I slightly prefer the novel. As disturbing certain scenes are in the film, I honestly get more freaked out after reading the scenes from the novel. One scene that gave me sleepless nights (even with the lights on) was the masterbation scene – “Chris blinked at the mad-staring, grinning face, at the cracked, parched lips and foxlike eyes…” Creeps me out everytime!

I really liked the character of Karl in the book, his secret meetings and guilt over his daughter, and the care and commitment he shows towards Regan is so touching, something I really thought should have been incorporated into the movie.

[Author]

Posts