CaptainHowdy.com The #1 Exorcist Fansite Since 1999
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
The winged lion is far more likely a depiction of an Assyrian lamassu. It’s for protection against demons.
Couldn’t disagree more. Much as it would have been a thrill, it would have been too much too early in the film and the rest of the upcoming shocks would loose their impact.
What you don’t see and are left to imagine is always scarier that what you do see. Contrary to what many believe I don’t think there is actually that much depicted horror on screen in the Exorcist. Three or four strong scenes at best. The rest, like all really effective horror films is implied.ooh, well spotted. Just checked it out and it is indeed as you say. I never noticed those eyes in the trunk of the tree before.
Easy. She’s on the box of Ivory Snow that’s sat on the counter behind Chris as she irons Karras’ sweater.
The stairs are over to the left. The house Blatty wrote about does not actually exist. It’s just a garden there in reality. For the movie they added a false wing to the nearest house (the one you see here), but even then it was still a distance to the steps.
Blatty said in interview he thought it was the entity known in ancient times as Pazuzu that did the possessing (hence his choice of statue etc. at the beginning of the book) but he couldn’t be sure. You are correct that there is no direct evidence as it’s not easy to unite catholic faith with a Babylonian demon, at least not on the surface. Suffice to say that his take was that whatever was responsible for the possession was responsible for what the Babylonians and Assyrians called Pazuzu. Exactly what the nature of that entity may be is open to conjecture and impossible to pin down.
That doesn’t work. It’s a completely different take, look at the light. On the scene with the blood the banister rails are strongly lit from below and to the right. The non bloody take is evenly lit with completely different shadow patterns on the carpet and on the rails.
I never read this before (there’s probably a link here somewhere). I’d say that amounts to Friedkin saying the blood was CGId.
I think it’s an example of Friedkin second guessing himself to answer his critics (on original release no-one understood why the film opened in Iraq). Much like the rest of the inserts in TVYNS it’s a big mistake, serves no purpose and spoils what was already near perfect.
I liked bits of the 1st medical examination (I found Lindas performance unconvincing though), the language lab sequence and the extra scenes with Merrin. The rest of the inserts were tacky and overstated to an extreme.
