Does anybody else find it ironic that director William Friedkin considers his masterpiece The Exorcist, named by the American Film Institute as the scariest film of all time and often cited as the greatest horror film ever made, a Christian parable? Other than the fact that it has scared the hell out of us (so to speak) for well over thirty years, what sets this film apart from today’s horror films? Why are today’s so-called “horror” films widely considered sub-par even by the most devoted fans of the genre? And what brought the genre from producing films like The Bride of Frankenstein, Psycho and The Exorcist to the nearly universally panned Nightmare on Elm Street remake and various PG-13 jump-scare heavy films of today? For starters, The Exorcist employs a compelling plot with characters we care deeply about.
Aside from Pulp Fiction, The Exorcist is possibly the most misunderstood film ever made. Often mistaken for a devil-worshiping form of cheap entertainment (no thanks to the Satanic-obsessed sequels), the film employs multi-dimensional characters we care deeply about. Father Karras (Jason Miller), for example, is so distraught by the poverty and suffering surrounding him that he questions the very existence of God. To top it off, his mother (Vasiliki Maliaros) is mistakenly committed to a mental hospital where she dies, possibly due to a lack of care on the behalf of the people who should have cared most for her--the doctors. Karras feels guilty, because he considers himself the one who committed her, possibly because he could do nothing to prevent it. On the other end of town, we have a mother (Ellen Burstyn) whose daughter (Linda Blair) has contracted an unexplainable illness. The mother is overcome with frustration because the eighty-eight doctors she has seen cannot help her little girl. But the reason for little Regan’s possession is not for cheap thrills, like so people think, but it is to test Karras’ character as a priest by embodying the very reason for his crisis in faith and with himself. As Father Merrin (Max von Sydow) says to Karras moments before their final encounter with the ancient evil, “I think it is to make us despair.” If this little girl can be consumed by evil, what is to stop the whole world with succumbing to the same fate? And then there is little Regan’s demon himself. He is so powerful that he can not only make items in the room levitate, but the lies he tells even deceives the audience. Therein lies the power of The Exorcist. Regan claims she is possessed by the devil himself, which, according to Karas, is “… the same thing as saying you’re Napoleon Bonaparte.” By withholding the physical image of the demon, Mr. Friedkin has successfully deceived the audience, and continues to have a hold on us even after thirty-eight years. That is, indeed, a very powerful villain.
In addition to the characters, the timing is also extremely vital. The finale is often criticized for the overuse of special effects to dazzle the audience. But whoever claims this has completely missed the point. Are the effects overused? Is the point simply to gross us out, or knock us unconscious as it did one critic in 1973? Not at all. Mixed in with flashing lights and famous 360-degree rotating head are various bold statements made by the demon to Karras: “You killed your mother! You left her alone to die!” The point is to demonstrate both the physical power of the demon, as well as his intelligence. He knows his victims and is able to attack their most vulnerable spots. But the slow setup, the silence before the storm, allows a build-up that hails the scene-to-come as the very event we have been waiting for. Therein lies the difference between The Exorcist and the cheap trash produced in today’s Hollywood system.
All the elements in today’s silly slasher films are the same. All the scares are the same, all the plots are the same, and, worst of all, all the characters are the same. Is there not something fundamentally wrong when there are countless online personality quizzes telling the quiz-taker when they would die in a horror film, and giving accurate reasons as to why they came to a certain conclusion? It says that this particular genre has not dared to be bold enough to venture outside of the formula. But if we fear the unknown, would it not be beneficial for a film created to scare, to venture into the unknown? Perhaps the horror genre has expressed too much fear that it has recessed to the safety and security of a familiar plot with the same characters used for over thirty years. Where are the thrills in that?
That is what sets The Exorcist apart from the rest of the sub-par films of today. It dares to employ real characters dealing with real issues, a compelling plot, and deep, psychological attacks from an all-powerful enemy. That is the classic formula. That is what thrills us. That is what keeps us coming back for more, hopeful that the next great horror film is just around the corner.
Liked this article? Press the "subscribe" button above. Receive e-mail alerts announcing a new review or article!
Comments