Brooke Shields & Richard Chamberlain to Star in Premiere of THE EXORCIST — Page 4

I don't remember a single person leaving the theatre or even gasping during or after that scene when I saw it. And as I said before, nobody fainted. Not to say it wasn't disturbing, but it was nothing compared to what followed for another 90 minutes. Ellen is describing a specific experience at the theatre she attended with the crew from "Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore."

I think the arrogance involved in deciding for everyone that this is the only thing that freaked people out across the nation, and the ignorance to claim seeing this film (or seeing any film) is exactly the same experience for all, is astounding.

---

Updated On: 5/22/12 at 06:08 AM

I can tell you the things that freaked me out when I first saw it ... granted I was really young. And i don't claim to "speak for an entire nation" like some ...

1) Seeing Linda Blair's full makeup for the first time while she was in the bed. I think the closest we got in the trailer was seeing a closeup of her eyes. So it was a real shock during the movie.

2) Seeing the almost-subliminal flashes of the black-and-white devil face that popped up occasionally. Very disturbing.

3) Seeing her head turn around on the bed ... but the freakiest part of that for me was watching her left arm move into her lap while her head turned around. It felt "almost' real, as a result.

4) The vomiting, but only for the unexpected shock of it. I do remember the screaming in the audience there.

5) When Regan speaks and sounds like Damien Karras's mother.

6) The music ... Tubular Bells playing while Ellen Burstyn took a solo walk with the fall leaves blowing around her. Horror movie music would never be the same.

---

For a few I've talked to, it was on a spiritual level that this film effected them for days, weeks, and some of them years, Carlos.

Idiot said he isn't all that "conventionally religious" and perhaps this is why it didn't scare him. I can see that. I also think there were a lot more "conventionally religious" people back in 1973. I'm not talking about the loud, religious freaks ... I'm talking about "average folks." More people in the collective society were going to church or had church-going backgrounds. So much has changed since then. We have less average folks believing and more concentrated religious freaks now.

But even for someone with casual beliefs or agnostics ... this movie got them thinking. I believe this is why Friedkin decided to use an almost documentary-style approach to the film. He wanted audiences to believe it was real. And if they believed in the Devil and demons after watching this ... then surely there must be a God, too. I would venture to say it might have effected agnostics more than firm believers. It messed with their minds and effected them on a deeply personal level merely by showing them "what if." I also believe this is why the Catholic church supported the movie.

A form of "scaring them straight."

That's another reason why I think subsequent horror movies don't resonate as much as this one does.

---

Updated On: 5/22/12 at 07:52 AM

This is a pretty interesting doc on the making of the film:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhDpcXh3OcQ

Plus, here's an episode of a Discovery Channel series about the real case that the book was based on:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iYA9JdO_q0

---

I love a thread that turns into CARRIE 2!


Popular 70's horror + Stage production that will never work = BWW FUN!!

---

Updated On: 5/22/12 at 11:38 AM

Including hype about mass fainting spells in audiences worldwide.

Can you explain what you meant by this? "He wanted audiences to believe it was real. And if they believed in the Devil and demons after watching this ... then surely there must be a God, too."

---

It DEFINITELY would not work if it were a musical.

---

Sometimes, SADM2, the ingredients of something are so inherently wrong....you just know.

But keep on, my little starry-eyed does...or as the GHOST campaign whispers to us: BELIEVE.

---

The Exorcist - Audience Reactions

---

Too bad Shields couldn't have played Regan in her youth. That would have been something to see. As for the play, I'll wait for the musical adaptation.

I have heard that he has gotten more and more extreme in his old age.

I found the book interesting. Having read it after seeing the movie I almost felt as if Blatty left a touch more room for doubt about whether the possession was genuine or whether it was a mental health issue. Just small things, such as Regan's possession mirroring the description of symptoms and progression that Chris reads about in a book lent to her by a psychic/medium whom attends the dinner party. It's also interesting that in the novel the final moments of the exorcism are not truly witnessed by the reader, we are switched over to the point of view of Chris and Sharon, who are waiting downstairs, so we only "hear" what is going on.

Now, having read more on Blatty I think he intended for it to be a genuine case of demonic possession (and I think Friedkin certainly made that clear in the film by showing the demon entering Karras right at the end), but there is still room for that sliver of doubt in the novel.

Yes, and the fish that got away was THISSSSSSS big.

Listen, I love folklore and know how it works, and I believe you believe your brother and I believe he believes that Exorcist trifecta happened when he saw it. I don't. But it doesn't matter. It's all part of the mythology, and that is the stuff Hollywood is made of.

---