[Aristillus]

…thanks for copying and pasting that here.

 

Huh? Copied and pasted what?

[Aristillus]

They were never going to use Lind's own voice for the demon speaking, even MacCambridge had to abuse her vocal chords with over-smoking and such to get the raspiness to her voice. Even in the book Blatty gave the demon a more deep bass raspiness, so it was obvious they never going to leave Linda's voice in except where it was put through distortion at the higher registers.

Linda spoke the words and then Mercedes was overdubbed, that was how it was always going to be.

[Aristillus]

The Exorcist ultimately draws its power to unnerve by its assault
upon the viewers senses, psychology, and belief system. Bringing a
quasi-realism on the subject of disembodied evil to somehow, through
some means, gradually overpower the will and free mind of a human being.
The utter contrast between the fictitious Regan and that of the
Babylonian demon Pazuzu is really a statement, or rather an ideological
voice, whereby evil disincarnate is able to express its nature through
the body and mouth of a child's innocence.

Blatty made the body
and mind of a 12 year old girl the meeting point between (almost)
cherubic innocence and the most intensely experiential evil. The problem
with the Exorcist is that it blatantly makes the existential state of
evil as having a distinct and separate conscious reality (which Blatty
believes to be real), being ever present and seditious, and
wholly affective, not only upon the one undergoing possession, but also
on those that witness it, where the effect is more keenly experienced
and profound. It is the witnesses that are shocked. It is the witnesses
who are tested, and it is the witnesses that ask the questions…why?

In
both the book and the film, Blatty alludes to the 'cause' of the
possession as being through the innocent usage of an ouija board. Yet,
in truth, possession (if real?) is not something caused, but an
'gaining' or an unwitting 'allowance', the more innocent and naive the
mind, the more open the door is to incroachment by a more powerful and
experienced disincarnate conscious agency.

Daily, each of us
become possessed by our desires, things we yearn for, unrequited love,
passion and sex, wealth, happiness, etc, but we do not ascribe upon
these things a conscious intelligence as being manipulative against us,
they are simply aspects of expressions of our motivations. Blatty
ascribes an motivation for evil disincarnate as seeking the utter rank
and stagnation of all of God's creativity, and the dissolution and
contemptuous loss of His grace in mankind…”To make us despair…to
make us believe that God could never love us.”

Afterall, what kind
of God would allow such experiential suffering as demonic possession
upon a child? A truly loving God, we cry, would never allow such a thing
to happen! Therefore, by implication, God is not loving, or He does not
love mankind. Yet, if this were true, the rite of exorcism would not
win the day. It would seem that even though mankind may doubt God's love
and grace, the possessing demonic agency most certainly doesn't, and
flees at Its touch. This is what the film is stating, and to some degree
acts like it is PR spin for God…or more to the point, that of the
dogma of Christian religion?

If anything, what is truly being said
is that possession does not make the possessed the battleground between
good and evil, between God and the Devil, but merely the point where
both are expressed. The real battleground is in the hearts and minds of
the witnesses, for that is where evil is most infectious.

[Author]

Posts