MovieChat Forums > The Exorcist (1973) Discussion > This movie must have broken a lot of tab...

This movie must have broken a lot of taboos.

posted a year ago by whynotwriteme (7120)
22 replies | jump to latest

The profanity and sexual aspects shown here are on a level that would even be controversial in a mass-market film today. I haven't watched the remake series but I doubt they would include the crucifix violation scene or have a child actress speak those lines in 2022. Even the desecrated religious statue with the traffic cone boobs and penis is something I don't think we would see today.

I'm curious about how this explicitness was allowed in 1973, and how audiences accepted it. I know it was in an era where a lot of barriers in the way of sex and violence were being broken in film such as The Wild Bunch, A Clockwork Orange and the mainstreaming of porno movies like "Deep Throat".

A film this explicit seems to have come out of nowhere for that time, though. It must have been extremely shocking. Were there calls to ban it? Why wasn't it X rated?

[–] BeaSouth (2780) a year ago

It got an X rating in the UK and I read that the release permitting it to be viewed in the home was banned by the UK until 1999. In America, Roger Elbert’s review said, “The film contains brutal shocks, almost indescribable obscenities. That it received an R rating and not the X is stupefying.”

[–] whynotwriteme (7120) a year ago

Wow! Banned even for home viewing in the UK all the way up to 1999?

I really find it amazing that something with this much overt obscenity came out in 1973 and was marketed to a mass audience. What a revolutionary time in cinema.

[–] fawltybasil (249) a year ago

Some people were vomiting, having heart attacks, and some even were said to have had miscarriages upon seeing it, which resulted in some US cities calling for it to be banned.

[–] Daf (105) a year ago

Marketed to a mass audience... and at one point was the 2nd highest grossing film of all time in the US! It had everybody talking, an absolute phenomenon.

[–] Martoto (4142) 6 months ago

It wasn't banned.

It was available on home video in the UK from 1981. After the Video Recordings act in 1984 it was required to be submitted for video classification by the BBFC. The classification board were a bit wooly at that time. They said they could not certify it for use in the home without cuts and couldn't recommend any cuts that they though might make it appropriate. The issue being that the 12 year old girl at the centre of the story might make it appealing to viewers of that age and the chairman of the BBFC's obssession with "imitable practices", i.e. anything that the chairman might imagine a child would want to imitate.

Since the movie had already been on sale for seven years, Warner Bros just shrugged and took it off UK shelves in time for the deadline for all uncertified movies in 1988. Warners did not submit the film for home video classification again until the 25th Anniversary in 1998.

[–] fawltybasil (249) a year ago

That's not entirely true. It had a cinema release in the UK in the 70's but certain local authorities cowered down to some pressure groups and didn't show it in their areas. I would imagine it would've been taboo in many places in Northern Ireland though just because of the religious aspect.

Throughout the UK, it was a box office hit, and it was actually one of the first films to be released in the UK on home video in the early 80s and contrary to popular belief it wasn't regarded as a video nasty. But then it was banned on home video in 1988 because of the obscene child images act or something until 1999.

[–] Puvwall (1215) a year ago

I agree it is intense. Those are good questions

[–] ShogunofYonkers (71656) a year ago

There was a lot of troubling stuff in this film. It’s one of the greatest horror movies ever.

It’s also an excellent novel as well. I read it many years ago, it might still be in print, I’d bet it is.

[–] pazuzu9 (296) a year ago

Check this video out: https://youtu.be/W30gYVW-2K0

CinemaTyler makes very good videos about movies.

[–] Information-Police (4053) a year ago

I went to Georgetown University a few years after the book and movie. I was kind of surprised that the University allowed the movie to be filmed on campus, but the Jesuits are pretty open minded AND the story shows the redemptive power of faith. I can tell you that they drew the line at the desecration scene, which was NOT filmed in the University chapel. The university chapel did undergo a big renovating and upgrade, as part of the compensation from the producers of the movie.

[–] Rusty (548) 10 months ago

I also can’t believe it got an R rating, it rips through taboos like no other mainstream film has. If I had to guess I’d say it got the soft treatment for ideological reasons. The Christian right would have approved of its pro-faith message, and the Leftists would have liked seeing the demon desecrating Christian morality.

As with the best horror films, The Exorcist is much more than a genre piece, it’s a superbly crafted meditation on faith that uses extremely disturbing content to render pure evil, rubbing your face in the profane to make a case for the sacred.

It’s not rollercoaster ride horror like Elm Street or Scream, it’s actually trying to scar your brain to make a point.

[–] Kawada_Kira (7269) 6 months ago

"and the Leftists would have liked seeing the demon desecrating Christian morality."

Lol where do people come up with crap like this?

[–] Melton (2136) 6 months ago

From reality. Leftists promote atheism. Religion was banned under Communism because the population must worship the state above all.

[–] Kawada_Kira (7269) 6 months ago

Out of the few dozen communist governments that existed, the only one that ever actually banned religion was Albania, and that was because the churches and mosques were intricately tied into the old feudal landholding system, not because "tHeY mUsT wOrShIp ThE sTaTe". I don't expect someone imbecilic enough to think leftists drool at the sight of demons "desecrating Christian morality" to understand anything about the complex history and spectrum of leftist opinion on religion (or anything else) though.

[–] whynotwriteme (7120) 6 months ago

I don't expect someone imbecilic enough to think leftists drool at the sight of demons "desecrating Christian morality" to understand anything about the complex history and spectrum of leftist opinion on religion (or anything else) though.

You must not have spent much time on internet forums if you think Rusty's observation was imbecilic.

[–] Melton (2136) 6 months ago

Wrong. Communism tries to ban religion wherever it can, with varying levels of success, because it’s a purely materialist ideology which demands total devotion to the state and therefore finds devotion to god to be ‘problematic’.

Leftists love seeing religion desecrated, they’re fanatical atheists who hate god.

[–] Satan2016 (23316) 5 months ago

China too.

[–] BKB (5978) 6 months ago

I just purchased The EXORCIST Extended DIRECTOR'S CUT on Blu Ray which is like 10 minutes longer than the theatrical version and the obscenities fly hard

[–] Melton (2136) 5 months ago

The ‘Director’s Cut’ (also known as The Version You’ve Never Seen) is terrible, with cheap and unnecessary flashes of the demon face early on which spoil the build-up, and added scenes which ruin the pacing and mood - like the tonally awkward tacked on ending, and the spider-walk scene which is too much too soon. It was a version that Friedkin put out to please Blatty, the writer, and to make some extra money. It’s an unholy abortion and should be avoided at all costs.

The Theatrical is the definitive version, and the true Director's Cut. It’s now available on 4K disc, buy it and throw away your old blu-ray.

[–] pazuzu9 (296) 5 months ago

I think the scene on the stair case between Karras and Merrin was wise to put back in but other than that the added scenes were bad especially the flashing faces.

[–] Melton (2136) 5 months ago

That one is OK but I preferred having the demon’s motives unexplained, on balance I’d leave it out, though it’s a nice moment in itself.

The one I would keep in is the doc telling Chris that Reagan told him to keep his fingers away from her ‘cunt’. Very effective and her hospital craziness needed a bit more build-up.

Other than that the Theatrical wins on every level.

[–] Tabbycat (748) 3 months ago

It was absolutely a shocking film in 1973, as intended.
People in theaters fainted or got sick.
Back then there was a certain understanding that movies could be a rough experience. At the time, the opposite of television. (Today it’s arguably reversed.)

I’ve read extensively on its MPAA rating, including everything I could find published on it. There is no doubt that the film, at that time, contained “X” material (the bloody crucifix masturbation scene in particular). Everyone who saw the theatrical cut expected it to be so rated, including Warner Brothers, who publicly declared they would not cut a single frame and would release it with an X if it came to that. They knew they had a monster hit, and had no intention of watering it down one bit.

In the end, the eight-member ratings board simply voted to give it an “R.” No negotiations, no appeal. Was there pressure? Did Valenti or other industry figures have a little “talk” with the board? I could find no evidence of that. Maybe they simply decided individually this wasn’t a hill to die on. I won’t say we’ll never know, but it’s been half a century and nothing new has come to light.