provocative, unsettling, much documented cult horror

Rating: 7/10 (23 January 2000)

The Exorcist is an impressive film for the reasons one might least expect. The effects now appear antiquated; heads on poles, doddering wardrobes, grotesque make-up, organic spinach soup for vomit etc. Meredith McCambridge's growling echoes childhood nightmares of things that go bump in the night', teamed with the rumblings of a disgruntled stomach. The exorcism scene is a transparent attempt at fulfilling all fifteenth century documented accounts of such spooky goings-on. The swearing is the laughable stuff of eighteen certificate Manga cartoons. So, why the uproar?
Why the dear? Why the fainting, puking and spontaneous flooding of churches? Because, this film plays on our What If?' insecurities. What if this is all more than pure cinema and exploitative publicity? And if so, what does this imply? Forces of good and evil form the basis for all cinematic classics - just watch come Disney or Lucas - but in such abstracted ways that theory seldom eclipses theatre. The reason the Exorcist still speaks to an audience now familiar with the power of computer generated fear, is that one always has this question mark of spirituality hanging over their dusty halos or polished horns.
The fact remains that the Exorcist will remain disturbing for as long as the majority of us remain unsure. Ellen Burstyn (the mother) agreed to appear in the film, only on the condition that her line I believe in the Devil' would be cut. Think about it.
Accepting the existence and/or possibility of an omnipotent dark force invading your merry little quiet life requires not only courage but also belief. Shock tactics involving bloody crucifixes and four-letter words fail when their likelihood in reality equals zero. That is why The Exorcist' is so terrifying. Special effects means nothing when your belief is suspended.