[Toetag]

Wow.  Thank you for setting me straight.  I gave my interpretation of the film.  Nothing more.  Whether it's correct or not, I don't know, but it's still my interpretation.

Am I an expert?  Nope.  I've seen the movie over 50 times (both versions) and I read the book over 10 years ago.  I consider myself a great fan of the movie.  My mother saw the movie in eary 1974 when she was pregnant with me.  I saw it for the first time when I was 11 (I couldn't sleep for months).  I own all of the versions of the film on DVD and/or Blu-ray.   Do any of these things make me an expert?  No, but I do have an opinion.

You seem to have a monopoly for responses on these forums, many of which, I might add, are very informative.  However, I am very suprised at your nonconstructive response to my post.

If I'm wrong, and you have a constructive way to set me straight, please, by all means, do so.  If not, you should probably not respond at all.

Getting back on topic…When I was young, I read a poem by Robert Frost entitled “Stopping by woods on a snowy evening”.  It's one of his more famous works.  The interpretation that the teacher gave me was filled with hidden meaning and symbolism.  I rejected those ideas and asked her, “Why can't it just be about a man riding home late at night, and stopping to admire a beautiful nature scene?  Why does it have to be symbolism for his death, etc?”  To me, it was nicer that way.

She gave me an answer similar to yours.  Basically, her interpretation was the proper one and it was her way or the highway and mine was just wrong.  Poetry, and all other works of art, like cinema, have room for interpretation.  We, as consumers of art, are free to decide what each piece means to us.

I consider the original 1973 movie to be a stand alone work, open to interpretation.  I prefer it like this.  You, as I am, are free to interpret it as you choose.  I would never desparage you because your opinion differs from mine. 

Father Bowdern said:

My, my, toetag. Such a fine forensic analysis for things which you have no clue. It's not even necessary to go into details about the issues you have wrong. Perhaps the lithium has not quite built up an effective quality in your system yet. My best to you and your other asylum inmates. 

Father Bowdern

---

[Toetag]

I have to disagree with this.  The name Pazuzu doesn't appear until the sequels, which are abominations, in my opinion.  Pazuzu was conjured by the people that made those movies, not by Blatty or Freidkin, and is therefore untrue.  The entity that is possessing Regan in the first movie (and the only one that really matters) is Satan himself.

 

This idea is dismissed by most people and even Karras when he says, “It said he was the Devil himself.  That's the same as saying that you're Jesus Christ.”, but Karras is also sceptical that Regan is possessed at all and look how that turned out.  Also the statue in Iraq may be of a specific demon, however, it stood as symbolism of good versus evil, not Merrin VS. Pazuzu.  They only told us about his past exploits just to beef up his character a bit because he has very little screen time until the end.

 

Father Bowdern said:

Amanda,

Regan is possessed by the demon Pazuzu. “In Assyrian and Babylonian mythology, Pazuzu (sometimes Fazuzu or Pazuza) was the king of the demons of the wind, and son of the god Hanbi. He also represented the southwestern wind, the bearer of storms and drought (Wikipedia).”

At times during the film, it can be confusing about who is inside of Regan due to the various voices used. For instance, differing singular or multiple vocal entities emanate from Regan at various times. These are merely a part of the intentional mental illusions that Pazuzu exploits onto his victims in order to reach his ultimate goal of the grand showdown with Father Merrin in the film’s final exorcism scenes.

This is the very same demon in the initial scenes in Iraq when Merrin uncovers the small amulet head of Pazuzu, thus, opening something akin to Pandora’s Box. We see this same demon a few minutes later when Merrin is facing the large statue of Pazuzu at the archeological dig site. That scene is a crucial point because Pazuzu lost the battle against Merrin’s exorcism that lasted for months in Iraq. Pazuzu merely uses Regan as his instrument to find a way to even the score with Merrin.

I hope that helps.

Father Bowdern

---

[Author]

Posts