The only truly scary film ever made

Rating: 10/10 (27 November 2007)

I do not scare easily. In fact, I have seen everything from The Shining to The Ring to the Freddies, the Michaels the Jasons and The Texas Chainsaws to The Omen to The Saw films and back. I like horror films. Well, the Saw franchise notwithstanding. My point is, horror films do not get under my skin. Not in a bad way, anyhow. I should also note that I do not think of demonic possession as being within the realm of possibility. Moreover, having been born some years after The Exorcist came out, I am too young to be impressed by images and special effects that were considered especially explicit back in 1973. But for some reason, The Exorcist has me absolutely, permanently traumatized. It isn't scary to me in a fun, roller coaster ride way. It's scary in a shortness-of- breath, cold sweat, unremitting insomnia, shaking hands, nauseated way.
As I understand it, when the film debuted it was so terrifying that members of its original audience were carted out of theaters on stretchers for having heart attacks and the like. It was banned in cities throughout the world so "Exorcist bus trips" were organized to take brave moviegoers into neighboring towns where it could be shown. I heard that Billy Graham even proclaimed the existence of an actual devil dwelling in the film's master print (or something like that). Okay. That's all understandable since the most terrifying film to reach audiences up until that time was probably Rosemary's Baby. And there is a big, big leap in the evolution of the horror film between Rosemary and the Exorcist. But today, audiences are much more desensitized. For instance, I went to see The Exorcist when it was re-released as "The Version You've Never Seen." Its audience was comprised mostly of people close to my age, born long after the hype surrounding this film faded into pop-culture obscurity. The audience cheered, laughed and applauded. No one had a heart attack or screamed or even broke for a cigarette break to relieve the scares. Some people even left at the end, complaining that it was no big deal, that they wished they hadn't wasted their money on some hokey, has-been of an old movie.
Meanwhile, I am flinching at every little tap on the shoulder, seeing demonic activity in every shadow, and trying very desperately to erase from my memory the moments from this movie that disturbed me the most. And it wasn't the famous head spinning (admittedly, the head- spinning is kind of stupid) or projectile vomit that really bothered me. It was the subtler moments. Like the homeless "old alter boy" or the scene when doctors observe Regan moving around the examining room slowly, sort of hunched over, almost dancing. The clocks stopping and the fighting dogs. Noises in the attic. Defaced religious iconography. The cinematography in this film was very effective. There are a great deal of slow dolly shots, where viewers are led through the filmspace at an almost excruciatingly deliberate pace so as to invoke the dread of moving towards something horrible. It is so visually detailed that after I watch it, my most mundane surroundings (my living room, the city street I live on, subway platforms etc.) seem chock full of potential to terrorize. And the sound design was equally effective. I know the filmmakers used animal thrashings, pigs being led to slaughter and such, layering and distorting the sounds to pack the best punch. My hat is off to them. They certainly succeeded in creating a visceral experience that will probably be forever burned into whatever part of my brain makes me feel fear.
I give this film ten out of ten stars, although I wouldn't say I like it. It deserves the highest rating because it elevates the genre of horror as well as the cinema altogether to some of their most extreme possibilities. For the genre, The Exorcist demonstrates that it doesn't have to be second rate. It doesn't have to be cheap looking. It doesn't necessitate B or niche actors. It can be a cinematic masterpiece and be a horror film all at once. For the cinema, it demonstrates how emotionally affecting the medium can be.
To paraphrase the critic, Andrew Sarris, those who live the movies they see will have a great deal of difficulty with this one. Given what I know about this film combined with what I experienced during its most recent theatrical re-release, I suspect young audiences do not tend to "live their films" as much previous generations did. As far as I am concerned though, it isn't "the scariest movie ever made." It's the only scary movie every made.