The Exorcist (1973) - film review

Whilst making a film in Georgetown, Washington DC, the actress Chris MacNeil becomes increasingly concerned over her 12-year-old daughter, Regan, who is exhibiting strange psychological and physical changes.  When doctors fail to come up with a medical explanation for what is happening, Chris consults Father Karras, a psychiatric counsellor at the university, and asks him to perform an exorcism on her daughter.  Karras is at first sceptical, but when he sees that Regan is in the possession of demonic forces, he approaches his superiors in the Catholic Church.  They suggest that a more experienced priest, Father Merrin, should perform the exorcism, with Father Karras’s support.   What ensues is a terrifying confrontation between the forces of good and evil – and the outcome is far from certain...

Arguably the greatest, certainly one of the most successful and influential, of all horror films is The Exorcist, William Friedkin’s gripping adaptation of a bestselling novel by William Peter Blatty (who incidentally produced and scripted the film).  This is a defining film in the horror genre, treading new ground in its depiction of evil whilst managing to be chilling and revolting in roughly equal measure.   In the light of how far the genre has progressed in subsequent decades, it is hard today to comprehend the impact the film had on its first release.  Although there had been similar films portraying child possession – Roman Polanski’s Rosemary’s Baby (1968) springs immediately to mind – The Exorcist is in a completely different league, offering genuine frights rather than cheap thrills.  Friedkin’s documentary-realist style of filmmaking, coupled with some extraordinarily convincing special effects, made this one of the most shocking horror films in a generation.  And it still has the power to shock today.

The main reason why The Exorcist works as well as it does is because it convinces us that everything we see is plausible. Many horror films offer some security by dint of the fact that what is portrayed is clearly a fantasy that can never happen. This film is different. It taps into our fears of the unknown, reminds us that there are areas of human experience which science has yet to account for, and persuades us that demonic possession could be a reality. What makes this possible are the harrowingly convincing performances from a great cast. Particularly impressive are Jason Miller, making a remarkable screen debut as Father Karras, and the 12-year year old Linda Blair, who stoically endured untold miseries (and many, many hours in make-up Hell) to play the demonically possessed child, Regan.  There are also fine contributions from Ellen Burstyn, Lee J. Cobb and Max von Sydow (best known for his appearances in many an Ingmar Bergman film).   Friedkin even cast practising Catholic priests in some of the supporting roles, something which adds to the film’s authenticity.

Most of the cast suffered as a result of director William Friedkin’s highly unorthodox methods for getting his actors to give the reaction he wanted.  These included: firing off guns at random on the set, slapping an actor in the face immediately before a take and not telling an actor (in this case Burstyn) what was in store for her when she was fastened into a stunt harness.  The climactic exorcism sequence was filmed at sub-zero temperatures, just so that we could see the actors’ frozen breath (this was achieved by enclosing the bedroom set inside what was effectively an industrial refrigeration system). Had Friedkin applied the same techniques to animals, he would most probably have been prosecuted by one of the animal welfare organisations...

At the end of a gruelling two-year long production schedule, The Exorcist came close to being shelved when the executives at Warner Brothers were uncertain what to make of it when they saw it for the first time.  During a preview screening several members of the audience ran out of the theatre to be sick.  When the film was released in 1973, it met with a decidedly mixed reaction.  Much of the criticism focused on the film’s perceived artistic failings (shallow characterisation being the most frequently cited flaw).  However, far more vociferous were those (including the well-known evangelist Billy Graham) who were convinced that the film was inherently immoral, if not downright evil.  Naturally, this outcry from the moral indignant merely stoked public interest in the film and it became a runaway box office success (with people queuing for several hours to see the film in some towns).   To date, The Exorcist has grossed around 400 million dollars, making it one of the most profitable horror films of all time.  It was also nominated for ten Oscars, but won just two awards, in the Best Sound and Best Adapted Screenplay categories.

The Exorcist would have a lasting impact on the horror genre, resulting in a sudden shift away from the low budget Gothic horror films that had been so popular in the previous decades towards more realistic horror films in a contemporary setting.  It would also encourage filmmakers to include more explicit horror content in their films in an attempt to shock audiences more and more (something that hasn’t necessarily improved the quality of the genre).  The film that inspired numerous imitations itself had two direct sequels – Exorcist II: The Heretic (1977), directed by John Boorman and The Exorcist III (1990), directed by Blatty (an adaptation of his own novel, Legion).  There was also a prequel: Exorcist: The Beginning (2004).  None of these films comes close to matching the brilliance and daring of the original, which is now widely considered to be a masterpiece of its genre.

© James Travers 2009

Write a review for this film...

What do you think of this film?