Unintentionally funny


I don't know but it has to be an early seventies thing that people consider this to be some kind of "deeply disturbing" movie. For me all the scenes with demonic girl are just cringey, almost silly. There's no underlying suspense or creepy atmosphere. Maybe it's the "sacrilegious" stuff and dirty language what made it so controversial back in the days.

reply

For most people the whole idea of demon possession is deeply disturbing. And it's presented in a realistic manner.
There is plenty of atmosphere. The words and actions of the possessed Regan were and still are shocking. There
were various reactions to the tension in the film, including nervous laughter. Although Blatty
and Friedkin attempted to attach religious significance to the story much of the popularity of
the film was due to the shock value.

reply

I don't think it's 'an early seventies thing'. I've witnessed The Exorcist working its magic on people who weren't alive in the 1970s. The film has demonstrably stood the test of time.

It has never remotely worked for me. I think I too had a few chuckles at its expense when I first saw it. And when I was younger I was utterly baffled by its status as a classic. 'The best horror movie of all time'? Not even the best horror movie of 1973.

But I've long since come to understand just how subjective horror is. There are films I find disturbing (Blue Velvet, for example) that some of my friends think are utterly risible. Not every film will push everyone's buttons in the same way. Or at all. And when they don't, we might find them unintentionally funny instead.

The Exorcist is well-crafted. It almost entirely eschews jump scares. Lots of people do feel it has underlying suspense and atmosphere. And its slow-burn build-up is so effective (for those people it actually works on) that the film manages to scare them despite many of its practical effects looking decidedly ropey half a century on.

I think, however, what IMDBRefugee1SD says is interesting:

For most people the whole idea of demon possession is deeply disturbing.


I'm not sure that's true. I think for most people the idea of demon possession is a bit silly and antediluvian. But it's obvious that The Exorcist would be much more disturbing for people who are able - either due to religious conviction or suspension of disbelief - to take the central premise as seriously as the film itself does.

reply

No atmosphere? Are you joking? The Exorcist is one of the most atmospheric movies ever!

reply

The Exorcist works better as a drama with horror elements than a horror film, true. If nothing else it's a much better film as the drama elements are top notch to anyone who can view the film from multiple characters' points of view.

I think today's more jaded responses to the film come form people being accustom to what they know today and reflecting back instead of keeping it within the frame of what it was when it was new. At the time The Exorcist was far beyond any other existing horror experience and straight out horror films were considered B grade at best. I can't imagine many horror films today with a solid dramatic basis.

reply

I know a 27 year old who recently saw this movie for the first time. She were impressed, saying that it was better than many modern day horror movies ie. "The Conjuring." She did not call the movie "deeply disturbing," but it did inspire her to go buy and read the book immediately after.

I think the lack of music, establishing shots, tone, color scheme, setting, and acting all make this movie very good and not just a movie of its time. I too, hate when people say movies are good just because "fOr thE tImE it wuZ gUd." Give me a break. I would strongly disagree that The Exorcist falls into this category.

reply

I agree it's held up really well. So many elements produced a great movie I still freak out when Father Karras sees his mother in the window just before he jumps out of it.

reply

1973 reactions comparison:

A friend of mine saw it before I did and talked about how "the head turning all the way around" scared the bejesus out of him.

I went and saw the movie. OK, i knew the scene was coming, but still: I thought it was an interesting effect(especially the sound) but...not scary at all.

I daresay that brief moment of horror -- did it scare you? did it not? -- is as good a place as any to judge the terror quotient of The Exorcist.


reply

Unfortunately I wasn't able to see it until I was 18 years old in 1983. It was on HBO one late night while I was home on leave from Air Force Basic Training. So, I saw it on my parents console TV it moved a little slow in the beginning but that's how a lot of movies were back then. What a cast with Ellen Burstyn, Lee J. Cobb, Max Von Sydow, and Jason Miller playing the guilt ridden priest. My grandma was deeply catholic and a terror of a human being so Miller's pathos really stood out above all else.

reply