CaptainHowdy.com The #1 Exorcist Fansite Since 1999
- This topic has 24 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 16 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Ah, but if you watch the Friedkin introduction on the 25th Anniversary Edition, Friedkin says he believes that this film should put some doubt into your mind about inexplicable events. The viewer should be the judge and take away from the film what they viewed.
Again, that's what makes this novel/film so incredible.
There are lots of cases of “true” exorcisms … but are they all “real?” For your reading pleasure (I know I posted this in the past), have a peek at the post here: http://www.chasingthefrog.com/reelfaces/emilyrose.php
Lastly listen to the actual audio of a segment of the Anneliese Michel exorcism.
Have you read and listened yet? If so, my thoughts:
The article link: I believe it's written by an objective writer making clear points on epilepsy and demonic possession. Frontal lobe epilepsy can induce vividly wild hallucinations. Mix this in with a small village of mostly Catholics and you have a piece of the puzzle solved about why Anneliese say and heard demons.
The video link: The Exorcist was release in 1974 in Germany. Anneliese was a devout and strict Catholic. If she suffered from severe mental problems, watched the film, and then imitated what was in the film, that's a no brainer.
Should there a great divide between antiquated religious ceremonies and the practice of medicine/mental health?
Personally, I think this poor German girl's rantings resembles nothing that is demonic in sound on tape (but, it's about a 1/4 good representation on Mercedes McCambridge voiceover for Linda Blair.)
Google Anneliese Michel … she was not possessed; she suffered at the hands of religious zealots who led her to her death.
FB
Thank you, Fatherb. Yes, I get more enjoyment out of the novel by thinking that Regan might be mentally ill, but, honestly, in the movie it's very hard to have this doubt.
I've read a lot about Anneliese's case and it disturbes me, really. I can't even listen to that audio without getting goose pimples. I don't know what to believe..
fatherbowdern said:
Ah, but if you watch the Friedkin introduction on the 25th Anniversary Edition, Friedkin says he believes that this film should put some doubt into your mind about inexplicable events. The viewer should be the judge and take away from the film what they viewed.
Lastly listen to the actual audio of a segment of the Anneliese Michel exorcism.
The video link: The Exorcist was release in 1974 in Germany. Anneliese was a devout and strict Catholic. If she suffered from severe mental problems, watched the film, and then imitated what was in the film, that's a no brainer.
Should there a great divide between antiquated religious ceremonies and the practice of medicine/mental health?
Personally, I think this poor German girl's rantings resembles nothing that is demonic in sound on tape (but, it's about a 1/4 good representation on Mercedes McCambridge voiceover for Linda Blair.)
I think Freidkin has got somewhat stuck on that quote over the years. God bless the man, he was a genius director in his day but he's not the last word on the issue, IMHO Blatty is, and he made it pretty clear what he thought. he was writing a novel about faith and possession. the mental illness was a red herring.
I couldn't agree more on the Anneliese Michell issue. I think you've nailed it.
Jagged said:
I think Freidkin has got somewhat stuck on that quote over the years. God bless the man, he was a genius director in his day but he's not the last word on the issue, IMHO Blatty is, and he made it pretty clear what he thought. he was writing a novel about faith and possession. the mental illness was a red herring.
I couldn't agree more on the Anneliese Michell issue. I think you've nailed it.
You can believe in whatever you want. That's the great thing about the novel, too. The book is deeply religious, of course, but Blatty's intention was for the reader to be caught between the belief that Regan was truly possessed, and the notion that she was mentally ill.
Blatty on the novel:
“…is this little girl possessed or is she emotionally unbalanced. In approaching it, my tactic was to work with an M.D. who was concerned only with ailments of the body and a psychiatrist. I brought her to these people as a patient. I kept going and adding on new symptoms. The M.D. told me to take her to a psychiatrist. And then I went to a psychiatrist and with him I followed the same methodology. In part, I think that is why the story is so interesting and why you are always in some doubt and suspense, because at every turn there seems to be a new medical or psychiatric explanation for what is happening to the girl. Then as various paranormal phenomena would appear I would again call doctors and psychiatrists with different specialties
The name of the psychiatrist I spoke to, oddly, was Hitchcock.”
“The book mentions many scientific theories on paranormal activities, they help to maintain an “investigative” style of storytelling that serves to heighten the drama.”
Sofia said:
Jagged said:
I think Freidkin has got somewhat stuck on that quote over the years. God bless the man, he was a genius director in his day but he's not the last word on the issue, IMHO Blatty is, and he made it pretty clear what he thought. he was writing a novel about faith and possession. the mental illness was a red herring.
I couldn't agree more on the Anneliese Michell issue. I think you've nailed it.
You can believe in whatever you want. That's the great thing about the novel, too. The book is deeply religious, of course, but Blatty's intention was for the reader to be caught between the belief that Regan was truly possessed, and the notion that she was mentally ill.
Blatty on the novel:
“…is this little girl possessed or is she emotionally unbalanced. In approaching it, my tactic was to work with an M.D. who was concerned only with ailments of the body and a psychiatrist. I brought her to these people as a patient. I kept going and adding on new symptoms. The M.D. told me to take her to a psychiatrist. And then I went to a psychiatrist and with him I followed the same methodology. In part, I think that is why the story is so interesting and why you are always in some doubt and suspense, because at every turn there seems to be a new medical or psychiatric explanation for what is happening to the girl. Then as various paranormal phenomena would appear I would again call doctors and psychiatrists with different specialties
The name of the psychiatrist I spoke to, oddly, was Hitchcock.”
“The book mentions many scientific theories on paranormal activities, they help to maintain an “investigative” style of storytelling that serves to heighten the drama.”
That's Blatty describing the process of constructing the plot and how he wants the reader to feel whilst reading it.
Later in the same book he states:
“Even in terms of my novel, I have never known the demon's identity. I strongly doubt that he is Satan and he is certainly none of the spirits of the dead whose identity he sometimes assumes. If I had to guess, I would say he is Pazuzu, the Assyrian demon of the southwest wind. But I'm not really sure. I know only that he's real and powerful and evil and apparently one of many-and aligned with whatever is opposed to love.
See … this is what makes The Exorcist (no matter its format) such a wonderful endeavor on the part of Blatty's brilliance as a writer … spinning a small molecule into breathing, pulsing organism.
Father Bowdern
Jagged said:
That's Blatty describing the process of constructing the plot and how he wants the reader to feel whilst reading it.
Later in the same book he states:
“Even in terms of my novel, I have never known the demon's identity. I strongly doubt that he is Satan and he is certainly none of the spirits of the dead whose identity he sometimes assumes. If I had to guess, I would say he is Pazuzu, the Assyrian demon of the southwest wind. But I'm not really sure. I know only that he's real and powerful and evil and apparently one of many-and aligned with whatever is opposed to love.
Yes, I know, he stated that. I've read, 'Blatty on The Exorcist, from novel to film', a lot of times. I just love psychiatry and its theories, too. 😉
Have you read, The Story behind the Exorcist, by Peter Travers? Here's what Friedkin says to him in an interview (about this subject) :
“I would like to see people leaving the theatre arguing about whether it was possession or a disease with no name. But they won't be arguing about anything unless they believe it.”
Unfortunately, it's impossible to believe Regan's not possessed in the movie…
But, you see, it's a lot more interesting to me to have arguments/debates on this subject rather than having you tell me, “No need to over analyse that particular dark path”.
I can fully understand that. Hope you don't think I was being awkward for the sake of it.
It's just that to these eyes and ears it always seemed that question was answered by Blatty and mostly by the possession of and self sacrifice by Karras at the end of the story. Up to that point I naturally questioned it myself.
Yes, I do have the Travers book. Must confess I haven't read it for a long while though.
Father Bowdern said:
See … this is what makes The Exorcist (no matter its format) such a wonderful endeavor on the part of Blatty's brilliance as a writer … spinning a small molecule into breathing, pulsing organism.
Father Bowdern
How I love to absorb your words…
Jagged, oh gosh, no! of course I didn't think you were being awkward. You just didn't know how I feel about the whole possession vs. mental illness discussion.
“…self sacrifice by Karras at the end of the story. Up to that point I naturally questioned it myself.”
You know, that scene in the book is told in Chris's perspective. We don't see what happens there. So, it's not clear on how it ends. It could be that the guilt stricken Karras simply suffered a mental breakdown; due to his problem of faith, lack of sleep for several days, Regan's attacks in the form of his mother, shock of Merrin's death, etc…
THE BEST NOVEL IN THE WORLD IS THE EXORCIST!!
Aw shucks, Sof … there you go again making me blush!
You actually bring up a very good point about the exorcism lasting for days on end in the novel. You've probably read the actual diary of “R's” exorcism, and you know it lasted for days (that is, compressed days over several weeks, really).
The film represents the “condensed evening edition” of an exorcism. Speaking of compressing things, I believe only 20 minutes are devoted to Regan's exorcism. I believe the film would drag on with any kind of pauses other than the break Merrin and Karras took on the stairwell (unfortunately only in TVNS).
I wonder … would it be better to show that an exorcism lasts longer than a few hours – or – a few days, weeks? Of course, this could cripple fake exorcists like Bob Larson who extol thousands of dollars based on old voodoo tactics. I have posted this before, but here’s the link again about the Reverend Larson who can’t remember if he was a millionaire or not.
Enjoy … here.
Father Bowdern
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.