The Exorcist (William Friedkin, 1973)

[matrixschmatrix]

It kind of runs the same with "scholarly" commentaries. Some of the worst commentaries I've ever heard are on CC, because it's so self-consciously overwrought from a to z. Like Pandoras Box is virtually unlistenable . . . these obscure professors and writers believe they are mounting the Olympus of cinema scholarship by recording these specific kinds of track and suck the fucking fun and excitement right out of the cinema. Cinema is alive, exciting, cinema moves and pulses and throbs, and to me there's few things worse than listening to a track wallowing in the mire of a completely voluntary hyperintellectualization of a text, and dispensing the madness as though it all were irrevocable fact.

Give me a raving fanatic like Greg Mank, Kalat, Mike Blake, etc.

I recently bought the US DVD of Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter? expressly for the Dana Polan commentary, and while he's well informed and generally keeps clear of Marian Keene-style straight faced insanity, it's so dry and humorless that it almost kills the movie- it 100% sucks the fun out of it, however much good stuff is in there.

[manicsounds]

How often does Dana Polan say "on one hand...." during a commentary? Average 18 (obviously an even number...)

I'm one of the few that actually likes listening to Friedkin ramble on. I know I've said somewhere else here that he could be reading a shampoo bottle ingredient list and it would still sound fine to me. So obviously it's not about content, but something like listening to an uncle talk, which I rarely get chances to hear these days.

I'm just disappointed this new set has only about 1 hour of new material, and the book is just an excerpt. Oh well, not the worst thing to happen.

[Finch]

A question for the techies: if the 4K scan exists and Warner had decided to use this as the basis for a new transfer, am I right in saying that this would still have had to be downconverted (to 1080p) and that a lot of televisions aren't 4K ready (if I recall correctly), so how much of a tangible improvement would have a new transfer likely been anyway?
I'm not excusing Warners for doing nothing with the video and audio (no original mono? boo) though the new extras seem to be more substantial than some of the original bonus stuff.

[tenia]

A question for the techies: if the 4K scan exists and Warner had decided to use this as the basis for a new transfer, am I right in saying that this would still have had to be downconverted (to 1080p) and that a lot of televisions aren't 4K ready (if I recall correctly), so how much of a tangible improvement would have a new transfer likely been anyway?
I'm not excusing Warners for doing nothing with the video and audio (no original mono? boo) though the new extras seem to be more substantial than some of the original bonus stuff.

Yes, you're right, but it would mean that the source would have been better. Of course, it could end being marginal, but it would most likely have closed the few limits of the previous transfer.
Think of the 2012 Casablanca release VS the previous one. That's the type of improvement you would expect.

Then, on the more general idea, the issue is more about Warner prefering to recycle old stuff rather than, you know, use the new material they just created. It's not new, though, they've done the same with A Clockwork Orange but the new documentary on the movie was using extracts taken from the new restoration... Go and figure.

[captveg]

9/23/14

The Exorcist - The Complete Anthology (The Exorcist (1971), The Exorcist - Extended Director's Cut (1971/2000), Exorcist II: The Heretic (1977), The Exorcist III (1990), Exorcist: The Beginning (2004), Dominion: Prequel to the Exorcist (2005))

Single releases of:

Exorcist II: The Heretic (1977)
The Exorcist III (1990)
Exorcist: The Beginning (2004)

It looks like Dominion: The Prequel to the Exorcist (2005) is exclusive to the box set.

[Gregory]

They need to release a new standalone Blu of just the original film to use the new 4K scan with the color problems fixed, which they should have done last year (and as Friedkin said they were going to do) — especially if they're doing all this.
More disappointing crap from Warner, who don't even correct their past mistakes because people will keep buying whatever they foist onto the market regardless.

[FrauBlucher]

Next year. They're saving it for the 44 year anniversary.

[sir_luke]

The Dee-luxe Diamond Mega Ultra Give Us More Money Edition

[manicsounds]

[domino harvey]

I think we're actually approaching the 666th time it's been released

[solaris72]

Price is quite good though- $35.99 MSRP.

[domino harvey]

Newsfootage of audiences in 1973 waiting for and exiting the initial screenings of the film

[Stefan Andersson]

Interesting comment about The Exorcist, The Boys in the Band and Friedkin´s color revisionism:

/Friedkin/"did the same purple/pastel thing with The Boys in the Band. Unfortunately, that is such an obscure film, we may never get a correct transfer. The 4k of The Exorcist went to the other extreme: the color values are mostly "natural," but the color and contrast are pumped up, giving some scenes (notably Fr Karras in the subway) a neon glow that is unreal. But he left the exorcism scenes a blue, blurry mess (there is a thread here where someone who saw a 2023 screening of an original 35mm print reported that the exorcism scene was very neutral). Hopefully, WB will correct the color timing on the next anniversary release."

Source:
https://www.hometheaterforum.com/commun ... ay.385552/ - post 19

[beamish14]

I don’t think Friedkin even fucked with The Birthday Party, no? Still kicking myself for missing a rare 35mm screening of it some years back

[Orlac]

I probably caught The Exorcist at the wrong time and the wrong age - I was both too old and too young.

In the UK, the film remained unavaliable on video for many years. Unlike the likes of Texas Chainsaw Massacre or Last House On The Left, this appears to have not been a formal ban by the BBFC (British Board of Film Censors, now Classification) but was due to the personal objections of chief censor James Ferman (the nanny who removed nunchakus from countless martial arts films even if they were just hanging on a wall, and refused to pass Texas Chainsaw Massacre allegedly because he couldn't risk "workers in Manchester" seeing it). Hence the film was avaliable on UK video prior to the compulsory video classification laws in 1984, and it enjoyed a big screen 25th Anniversary release to UK cinemas, but the video release had to wait until 1999, when Ferman left the BBFC (thank heavens!)

I first saw the film in 2001 when it had its UK TV premiere, hyped to the heavens (pardon the pun) by many, in particular critic Mark Kermode, who is a huge fan of it. And to my eyes (I was 14), it just seemed so contrived, but without being entertaining. The demonic manefestations struck me as so removed from Regan there wasn't the horror of the little girl being transformed. The dubbed on swearing was comical, the emotional content limited. And its not like I was jaded or anything, many other films of that era really give me the shivers. Night of the Living Dead was the gold standard for me.

However, I did re-watch the film a few years later when I bought the DVD and was able to understand and enjoy it much more - I think it helped me to have read the novel in the meantime. I even got a pleasant shock after seeing the film when I thought i saw the "subliminal" white and black face in the window, only to see it was the reflection of a black and white drawing of a pop star my sister had had hanging on the wall for months!

And now I've grown older, the film has gone from being midly creepy to very powerful and distressing. When you're a teen, a 12 year old turning into a monster looks kind of cool. But the older you get, your focus shifts from Regan to Chris, and you become the terrified and concerned parent.

By the way, there is a great parody in one of the Simpsons comics, where Lisa is possessed by the spirit of Madonna!

And to close things off, The Exorcist as read on tape by Christopher Lee is REALLY creepy! He should have done the voice in the film instead of Mercedes McCambridge!


And that damn Captain Howdy face haunts my dreams!

[domino harvey]

But the older you get, your focus shifts from Regan to Chris, and you become the terrified and concerned parent.

This is an interesting point. I struggled while watching it for the first time as an adult because it seemed to only be “scary” if you believe in demonic possession as a viable reality, which I do not. Which is to say that this has always seemed like a film that used a viewer’s religious background/upbringing against them to mine the terror (to the extreme levels many have experienced). But I like this idea of a non-religious “in” here for parents watching (and the film does devote a lot of its screen time to Burstyn)

[Murdoch]

I didn't find it particularly scary either, but I did appreciate how the film presents Chris and actually think the exorcism scenes are the least interesting part of the movie. It's been over a year since I last watched this, so my memory may be a little off here.

I think looking at the Exorcist under the lens of its time period is helpful. This film came out a year before women were even allowed to have credit cards (the Equal Credit Opportunity Act passed in 1974) and a good portion of the movie (I think the first two thirds or so) is largely about Chris, this divorced single mother, going from doctor to doctor trying to figure out what's going on with her daughter, and each doctor saying there's nothing wrong and making her feel as if she's crazy. The best shot of the movie to me is Chris surrounded by doctors, each one speculating about Regan's condition and explaining away the strange phenomena she's experiencing while Chris just becomes more frustrated.

Film critic Amy Nicholson, in the podcast Unspooled, I think really hit the nail on the head when she described the film as about "being a mother, feeling as if something is wrong and no one will listen to you." While Friedkin's focus is clearly on religion versus modern science, there is a separate throughline from that theme which is this single woman navigating this system and not getting any answers, and the more people she talks to, the more she's made to feel like no one is listening to what she's saying.

For all the focus people put on the exorcism and Linda Blair, for me this is Ellen Burstyn's film all the way.

[therewillbeblus]

The Exorcist finally clicked for me this year, after more than two decades of sporadic revisits. The parent angle has definitely helped amplify my esteem for the film, but I find Father Damien Karras' journey much more interesting, in how he wrestles with his non-preferred narrative. I relate a lot more strongly to his crisis of faith, and a self-conscious, exhausted demeanor when it comes to being 'strong' and a 'leader' in committing to facing fears. Jason Miller plays the part perfectly - he leans into a state of low energy around all of these preoccupations with self, which could be conflated with 'weakness', but really only as far as he perceives himself. The finale reminds me of how mental health struggles combined with still forcing oneself to show up to a crisis can lead to a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy of botching the job to some extent and self-destructing through over-extension as a means of coping. It's both inspiring and tragic.

Also, watching both cuts in close succession, I prefer the theatrical

[Big Ben]

The Exorcist finally clicked for me this year, after more than two decades of sporadic revisits. The parent angle has definitely helped amplify my esteem for the film, but I find Father Damien Karras' journey much more interesting, in how he wrestles with his non-preferred narrative. I relate a lot more strongly to his crisis of faith, and a self-conscious, exhausted demeanor when it comes to being 'strong' and a 'leader' in committing to facing fears. Jason Miller plays the part perfectly - he leans into a state of low energy around all of these preoccupations with self, which could be conflated with 'weakness', but really only as far as he perceives himself. The finale reminds me of how mental health struggles combined with still forcing oneself to show up to a crisis can lead to a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy of botching the job to some extent and self-destructing through over-extension as a means of coping. It's both inspiring and tragic.

Also, watching both cuts in close succession, I prefer the theatrical

I feel very sincerely that Karras is, and has always been the focal point of the film and I agree with you that the crisis of faith angle should be what people focus on. I feel that thematically Reagan's possession is just the vehicle for that, but naturally because it's categorically more disturbing it was marketed as being the most important part of the film for obvious reasons and it sincerely devalues the story overall. I am no longer religious but the thing that I have always approved of about the novel/film is that I have always felt it was a sincere expression of faith, something that is missing in almost all religious stories today. Karras' sacrifice is ultimately what makes the film sincere in my eyes, because he ultimately engages in something that a lot of modern religious oriented films would never engage in, self sacrifice. It's been pointed out for decades but Karras only ever meets Pazuzu, the demon, and at no point actually talks to the child the demon has possessed. In spite of this his faith allows him to make the ultimate sacrifice. It's ghoulish yes but it's a categorically selfless one. No doubt Kevin Sorbo and Kirk Cameron would prefer to complain that secularism is destroying the world instead of contemplating the possibility of actually behaving like Christ did.

Regarding the cuts, the only reason the second one exists is because Blatty insisted upon it. I agree with you that the theatrical version is superior, because the "Version You've Never Seen" ultimately hampers the pacing and makes the film a bit too emotive near the end, something Friedken, ever the grouse, thought as well. Mark Kermode said it best (And I'm paraphrasing here) I think, when describing the differences between the two cuts; "The original cut doesn't allow you to breath, the second cut does."

[therewillbeblus]

Karras' sacrifice is ultimately what makes the film sincere in my eyes, because he ultimately engages in something that a lot of modern religious oriented films would never engage in, self sacrifice. It's been pointed out for decades but Karras only ever meets Pazuzu, the demon, and at no point actually talks to the child the demon has possessed. In spite of this his faith allows him to make the ultimate sacrifice. It's ghoulish yes but it's a categorically selfless one. No doubt Kevin Sorbo and Kirk Cameron would prefer to complain that secularism is destroying the world instead of contemplating the possibility of actually behaving like Christ did.

I like your assessment, but actually prefer a slightly broader reading of ambiguity, where he's engaging in self-sacrifice for both selfless and selfish reasons. Karras is so down on himself that there's something very self-consumed about his surrender to death, almost like he was waiting all along for an opportunity to complete suicide in a manner that might somewhat align with his faith, which is completely paradoxical except for this exact moment in time. The "Take me!" exclamation can be read as an empowered assertion to morals, but it can also be read as a cathartic, desperate claim to be rid of his own internal torment. I see Karras as a figure totally consumed with self, who is able to break from that to care for others because he genuinely does, but can't get out of his own way most of the time. Hence the languid but tender engagement with the situation at hand. I think both things can be true though, and that's what makes the film and character study so rich. If it was just a climb towards a uniform, clean "selfless" faith testament, I don't think it would be in step with the character's complexity, weighed down heavily by his own self-consumption, that cannot be relieved through magical reprieve except in this one tragic, quite-literally supernatural scenario.

[Mr Sausage]

Given how much the film embraces its own Catholic terms, Karras’ sacrifice being a kind of personal suicide seems unlikely given what a grave sin it would be. Enough potentially to guarantee hell, and certainly enough for the final rights his friend performs to be an abdication of duty. A sacrificial reading makes more sense. In regaining the faith he had lost to skepticism, suicide as personal annihilation would become less rather than more of an option. I prefer to see the ending as the kind of hopeful tragedy Christianity is good at: the moment he regains his full sense of worth and purpose is also the moment he must make the ultimate personal sacrifice. By battling and conquering a very real demon he is conquering his own internal demons and earning salvation. Self-sacrifice over self-immolation.

[therewillbeblus]

I'm rereading what I wrote and it definitely plays differently than I intended it to. I didn't mean to insinuate that it was conscious or purposeful suicide or anything, but that he has this subconscious desire to alleviate the pervasive dysphoria he experiences, that drains his energy and affects his mental health, and that this could have - combined with a genuine feeling of regaining his faith and strength - contributed to the willingness to sacrifice. It can be selfless in part, but also selfish (or self-focused) in part as well, because his potential wilting motivation to remain an agent in this world can be a secondary influence. So it's less ambiguous for me in terms of which one it is, rather than allowing for multiple 'parts' of his psychology to be fueling that action, and it's even more interesting that those parts are so opposing. I agree with the hopeful reading, but I think there's a tragic one too beyond just the mortal result than can coexist.

[Mr Sausage]

I get ya. There’s a congruence between self-destruction and martyrdom. And it fits Karras’ self-loathing. By demanding the demon to “take me”, he is in effect saying: ‘I am the more worthy subject, because I am tainted and this child is not. I deserve it.’ It’s not an admission of strength but of weakness. The ultimate self flagellation. Jesus famously cast out a demon into a herd of pigs and then sent them hurtling over a cliff. By casting the demon out of Regan into himself and then throwing himself from a height, he’s figuring himself as the sacrificial pig, a lowly animal. That he is allowed last rights by his friend signals that he has done his penance, finally, and no longer needs to suffer.

Great reading blus. I like it.