CaptainHowdy.com The #1 Exorcist Fansite Since 1999
- This topic has 25 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Since the film hit the screens Howdy’s flashes have been referred to as ‘subliminal’. I agree, it’s probably not the correct term to use, but it is the most recognizable and simplest way to describe them. Unless any one has any other suggestions? Demon Flashes or something?
In the slow way films were cut back in the 70’s, its clear as to why these flashes were considered ‘subliminal’.
The Pazuzu statue implemented in TVYNS that fades onscreen to the left of Regan’s doorway looks pretty subliminal to me.
LOL, how can something look subliminal? None of it was subliminal, because it was all visible. Subliminal means that it occurs below the concious level. There is no subliminal imagery anywhere in the Exorcist, that was just part of the hype – like saying Led Zeppelin had Satanic messages playing backwards. People wrote sensationalistic articles to sell papers. Friedkin may have even called it “subliminal” when referring to the quick edits in an interview, but it really wasn’t at all. I remember this film and all the hysteria that surrounded it. That was just silly hysteria.
To answer your question Mr Howdy, I just think “subliminal” is misleading, and feeds some of the silliness that surrounded the movie, like when some people said that “evil was encoded into the film”! Had Friedkin wanted to add subliminal images (like single frame edits) to the Exorcist they could have done so very easily. In the 70s subliminal editing did exist, and was even used in some advertising. The demon face edits were not intended to be subliminal, they were designed to be quick, scary flashes – visible to the naked eye. So whats wrong with calling them “quick edits” or “flashes”? I mean, that’s what an editor would call them.
Psychological term (adjective) for Subliminal: Existing or operating below the threshold of consciousness; being or employing stimuli insufficiently intense to produce a discrete sensation but often being or designed to be intense enough to influence the mental processes or the behavior of the individual: a subliminal stimulus; subliminal advertising.
When I first saw the film at age 13, and many time after that, I would agree that the “flashes” that Friedkin used were of course intentional. After all, it’s a psychological / horror / dramatic film. I read and heard many times that Friedkin did put “other” real “subliminal” images in the film; e.g., skulls, people lying in caskets, bloody car accident death scenes, and the list goes on. Friedkin was brilliant at directing his sound engineers to work with common sounds that makes individual uneasy; e.g., the sound of a dentist’s drill on a tooth, pigs being slaughtered, hornets being angered, etc.
So, my point … “subliminal” in the eyes of many individuals for this film is exactly what the Captain is saying. Friedkin used the term and probably combined the terms of both “flashes” and real “subliminal” images into the same term.
Unless we can ask one of the editors (there were six minimum) or Friedkin who tenaciously watched his film being cut, we won’t know. That is unless someone is willing to look at the old 70mm film frame by frame.
Other than that, did it get the hype? You bet, we’re still talking about it aren’t we? 🙂
Bottom line Captain: Don’t change it. You are on target by using “Subliminal Imagery” even though we know we can see them on screen.
Good! When you were asking: “Unless any one has any other suggestions? Demon Flashes or something?”, I thought, “Oh, no don’t even ask!” 🙂
Well gosh, I was trying to have an intelligent conversation about this, I didn’t expect to get bullied. If you used the word inappropriately, why not just acknowledge it? Quick, scary edits don’t qualify as “subliminal”. I dont understand how longstanding fans of this film, like myself, would want to perpetuate hype like that? It’s just plain gossipy and misleading. There is no “subliminal” editing anywhere in “The Exorcist”. There never was. Anybody out there?
It took years before fact was seperated from fiction regarding the subliminals in the film. Which is testament in itself to how tricky some were to spot. It was only with the advent of home video that we were able to freeze frame these images and take them for granted. I never really spotted them at the cinema, at most I may have thought “what was that”? Whether they were actually subliminal or near subliminal is barely worth the argument.
It’s really about the quick scary edits having a subliminal effect. Not the images themselves being subliminal.
Some images are only there for a few frames. How much more subliminal can you be in cinema?
Freidkin always claimed it was the subconcious effect of these images he was striving for.And I still know of one definite appearance of Captain Howdy that is not generally acknowledged here or anywhere else.
In fact I know of only one other person who has ever agreed with me that it is there. I’d consider that subliminal for now.Slam234 … you’re not being “bullied.” They’ve been called “subliminal images” for decades now and you should know that since you are also a “longstanding” fan yourself. I split my answer in two parts: “What you see ‘subliminals'” and “What you don’t see ‘subliminals.'” I truly believe what I heard in the past that Friedkin put other images (see my post above) in the film as you suggested (see your post above). Of course they could have been added a myriad of things to the film that we’re just not aware of, but plays in our subconscious. I see all the “subliminal” images including the one Justin mentions right before this post about the close-up of CH super-imposed on to Reagan’s face. It’s hard to see, but it’s there.
I guess Slam234 you had a negative starting post that really didn’t induce an “intelligent conversation,” but rather gave “simple replies.” Emails and blogs can just suck when someone reads them and I’m sure you meant them better than they read.
As far as hype? Not sure at this stage of the game. But “silly hysteria” worked to bring in the bucks and still ranks up there on top-grossing horror films (and rightfully so).
The only one I know of that most people generally miss (it’s not in the subliminal section on here) is the very faint image of Captain Howdy over the right side of Regan’s face during the close-up shown when Merrin arrives at the house.
I assume that’s what you’re talking about (because it is your avatar)?
I dont think you’re hearing me, so I will say it again. There is no subliminal imagery in The Exorcist.
Granted, technically there is no subliminal imagery in The Exorcist – technically.
However the ‘flashes’ you refuse to call subliminal have been called that for decades now, right or wrong. People come here looking for those ‘subliminal’ images they’ve heard about that appear in The Exorcist (because yes – some people miss them when they watch it), and I want them to be easily found on the menu. So it’s as simple as that.
It’s nothing personal at all – in fact I agree with you – they are NOT subliminal images – but I am not changing my menu name to reflect this, nor do I feel this simple site should have to try and change how things are referred when talking about The Exorcist. Warner Brothers still call them subliminal images – so does Friedkin, if I recall.
And honestly, they are close enough to subliminal to be incorrectly labeled as such.
I still haven’t had any worthy suggestions for an alternative – so the menu stays as is. I still have no intention of changing it.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.