Captain Howdy, that's not very nice!

Rating: Null/10 (16 January 2003)

Oh, how people still love to deride this fantastic piece of cinema: `blasphemous;' `too scary;' `dated;' `disgusting;' and for our friends with short attention spans and a low threshold for drama, `boring.' Well, what can I say? I suppose these are the same folks who can't sit still through `2001: A Space Odyssey,' `Citizen Kane' or `Chinatown.' I suppose it takes too much time to sort through all of that nasty subtlety. Better have it all neatly sorted out for you straight away instead of having the reward of discovering new insights with each viewing. Chances are our film-going pals (or should we merely say `consumers') wouldn't dare waste time reading my drivel either, so who am I writing for really? For me, I guess. I'm just a snob who likes to write. As a film lover that passion comes with the territory. So, where was I?
Ah yes, `The Exorcist!' What does it mean to me? (theme paper lovers rejoice!) First of all, I've always been a horror fan. No, wait, I take that back. I like to be scared. But this does not a horror fan make. There are only a handful of horror movies I've found effective, the worst variety being the tongue-and-cheek teen slasher nonsense of `Nightmare on Elm St.' and `Friday the 13th.' Then, of course, there are the closely related out-and-out gore fests that provide the blood & guts simply for the sake of doing so; suspense, logic and character development be damned! Don't get me wrong, I'm not a prude. I can stomach a lot. `The Exorcist' is certainly graphic, but in a way that is necessary for telling the story (`Goodfellas' is another that uses violence as an integral element to its central story). It treats its subject matter with consideration, intelligence and appropriate seriousness. Its characters do not automatically jump to assumptions and neither, likewise, should the audience. The events depicted should represent a challenge of faith and belief, even if it's just on a rhetorical level for those less religiously inclined.
You do not forget the images from this film. What's interesting to me is that those who seem most offended by the images (especially the crucifix scene) are so on a religious basis. Director William Friedkin has stated that audiences will `take from the movie exactly what they bring to it' when interpreting the meaning. I can only speak for myself when I say that `The Exorcist' is ultimately a powerful statement FOR keeping faith and the religiously minded shouldn't shy away from the implications it presents just because it's shocking. I was raised Catholic (even did the Jesuit prep school bit!) and have come to believe that one cannot hold any basis for their faith unless they have put it to the test by inviting challenge and a subsequent struggle for its defense. Being confident in faith requires this  even though it leaves many unanswered questions. Religion is not about being sheltered and unknowledgeable.
The `Version You've Never Seen' included a very telling conversation on the stairwell between the two priests during a break in the exorcism. Merrin basically tells Karras that the demon wants to show us that human beings are animalistic, worthless entities  garbage. Life is meaningless. `The Exorcist' clearly embraces the sanctity of the human condition and its purpose on earth, which is precisely why the possession must be as repulsive and vulgar as possible (the exact opposite of what we value). Otherwise, this challenge of faith is stick-figure and doesn't get at the essence of what could possibly offend the very foundations of the beliefs (whatever that may be) that keep us grounded in our everyday existence. I can't think of much worse than a young, innocent girl uncontrollably violating herself with a central symbol of Christian faith  the crucifix (and don't forget, there are other contributing elements to this scene as well). The actual Jesuit priest who played Fr. Dyer has also stated in interviews that the depiction of such material was highly justified.
Just a few words about `The Version You've Never Seen.' Having never seen film theatrically, I consider it one of the great movie experiences of my life to watch this with a full audience (went twice!). Late on a Saturday night, the place was mobbed with kids and, judging from their reactions, I'm guessing many were seeing it for the first time. Both times I saw it, the same phenomena occurred. Complaints of `boredom' arose midway through the Iraq scenes. Smatterings of laughter broke out during the early possession scenes. Squeamish sounds emanated during the hospital visits. Chalk much of this up to immaturity; it's totally normal and expected for teens to react this way to uncomfortable material. I saw the same reaction to the nudity in `Schindler's List.' Each time during `The Exorcist,' however, one sequence never failed to shut everyone up real quick  the crucifix scene. After that point, the audience as a whole knew this wasn't a joke anymore. From that point on they were rapt. Those thinking that this film, due to its age, doesn't have the ability to scare are simply wrong.
As for the new scenes, some are better than others. The new opening shot of the house and the Virgin Mary statue gave me the chills. I've already mentioned the stairwell dialogue. The `spider walk' was fantastic (I'm glad they cut Reagan with the forked tongue scampering after Chris). The glowing figures on the walls seemed a little intrusive, and the ending was ultimately unnecessary, although interesting. Blatty said that he wanted it in because he didn't want people to `think the devil won.' But I fall hard with Friedkin on this point: `you take what you bring to it.' To me, as with Friedkin, it is clearly a reaffirmation of faith and a rejection of evil. One of the special aspects of the original cut is that it could be interpreted in the other direction, just as with life itself.