“The Exorcist” Review

Upon release, “The Exorcist” became one of the highest grossing films of all time and also cemented horror as both a commercially viable and artistically pleasing genre.

When it comes to the scariest film ever made, a select few of the most iconic horror films emerge in the collective consciousness. There’s “The Shining” obviously, “Alien”, “Halloween” and a few other films that make the cut. But then there’s “The Exorcist”. The film was not just well-received when it first came out by both critics and audiences, becoming the first horror film to be nominated for Best Picture at the Academy Awards, but it also was the highest grossing film of the year. In a year with Ryan and Tatum O’Neal swindling during The Great Depression in “Paper Moon”, Paul Newman and Robert Redford reuniting for a big score in “The Sting” and both George Lucas and Martin Scorsese making a big splash with “American Graffiti” and “Mean Streets” respectively, more people went to see “The Exorcist”. This figure is quite reassuring because it shows how a film that combines commercial appeal with cinematic artistry can become one of the most iconic films of all time. 

It’s really not a brave or bold statement to say that “The Exorcist” is one of the greatest horror films of all time but it’s a true one nevertheless. Not only do I rewatch this film at least a few times per year, especially around Halloween, but it’s a film that I will always go to see in a cinema whenever it’s being rescreened. Why wouldn’t I? Not only is it amazing to see a believed film with an audience but being in that dark space with no cellphones and no distractions is the optimal way to see a film like “The Exorcist”. After all, when the film first came out, there were widespread instances of people fainting, getting sick or having hysterical fits of screaming. Who wouldn’t want to see that? 

One of my fondest movie going experiences involved “The Exorcist” when I saw it in 2019 at The Egyptian Theatre in my college town of DeKalb, IL. At the time, the theater was undergoing some renovations and, that week, they had removed their boiler system to install a modern heating system. So, I was in a cold theater (the staff gave us blankets to keep warm), seeing my breath fog up as I watched “The Exorcist” with a bunch of people, many of them were older and saw the film when it was first released. While I had liked the film before, it was that experience that made me fall in love with it. True, no one fainted but I did hear a lot of screaming and several people say “Oh my God” so I think it’s fair to say that “The Exorcist” is not only of the greatest films of all time but it’s also one of the best films you could see in a theatrical rerelease.

In Georgetown, an actress named Chris MacNeil (Ellen Burstyn) and her daughter Regan (Linda Blair) are staying in a nice home while Chris is starring in a film. However, the forces of evil are at work when Regan begins to display strange behavior. With every scientific treatment explored and every test done to figure out what’s wrong with her daughter, Chris begins to realize that Regan may be possessed by something not of this world. In her desperation, Chris turns to two priests, the seasoned Father Lankester Merrin (Max Von Sydow) and the skeptical Father Damian Karras (Jason Miller), who carry out the dangerous and archaic ritual of exorcism. 

The intensity of both the actors and filmmakers cannot be overstated and their work resulted in one of the most terrifying experiences to have in a theater.

While the concept of an exorcism is now common knowledge, largely thanks to this film and the many others that tried to imitate it, this was uncharted territory for both audiences and the filmmakers. Back in the day, the best chances you’d have to know about exorcism were if you were Catholic but even then that wasn’t guaranteed since, as the film mentions, the Catholic Church doesn’t really like to talk about the ritual too much. When Chris approaches Father Karras about performing the ritual and asking for an expert, he tells her there aren’t any and that “you probably know about as much about exorcism as most priests.” With this unknown idea being given the big-screen treatment, director William Friedkin and writer/producer William Peter Blatty (who also wrote the original book that the film is based on) had to make the rules that many other demon films live by. They did so with flying colors because not only is the film deeply scary but it’s also quite methodical. 

Those who have never seen the film might think that the titular act of exorcism takes up a significant chunk of the film’s two hour runtime but it’s actually just a small portion. A majority of the film is dedicated to the slow descent of Regan and how Chris uses every doctor she can find to try and determine what’s wrong with her daughter. In particular, the scene depicting angiography, where a needle is inserted into Regan’s neck, is one of the most uncomfortable scenes in the film because of how real it all feels. But the scene is quite necessary because it contributes to the slow burn that the film is crafting. Instead of having a bunch of jump scares, the film’s terror comes from the dread that is built up from the very beginning when, in the deserts of Iraq, Father Merrin finds an idol of the demon that will possess Regan. 

Of course, the film’s acting is stellar and some of the best of any film from the 1970s. Keep in mind, horror at this time was still largely seen as a more disposable genre, especially amongst critics. Sure there were some horror films that were well respected like “The Haunting” and “Psycho” but, in the minds of many, horror still screamed of B-movies, creature features and other lame attempts at eliciting thrills. But with “The Exorcist”, everything changed, especially with the film’s acting. Ellen Burstyn’s Oscar-nominated performance is exceptional as this woman who is torn apart by seeing what’s happening to her daughter. The more time passes and the more doctors tell her that nothing is wrong with Regan, the more desperate she becomes, especially when Regan’s outbursts become more violent. 

Jason Miller’s performance, which also landed him an Oscar nomination, is just as layered as Burstyn’s and it’s incredible to think that this was his feature film debut. Father Karras may be a priest who’s well-respected as a psychiatrist but he’s having a crisis of faith after the loss of his mother. With his religious beliefs in jeopardy, the conflict that is brewing within Karras while he’s trying to help this family is just as compelling as the possession of this little girl. Like Chris, Karras is a firm believer in science and is quick to dismiss the idea of anything demonic being associated with Regan. Of course, he realizes that this is a possession and the film ultimately becomes about his redemption and the restoration of his faith. 

William Friedkin’s (Right) direction not only cemented his status in the era of the New Hollywood but also created this realistic portrait of demonic possession and exorcism, two concepts that weren’t tackled too much in mainstream horror.

Linda Blair obviously has gotten a lot of praise over the years for the physicality of her Oscar-nominated performance along with how well her performance meshed with the chilling voice-acting of Mercedes McCambridge, whose gravelly androgynous voice of the demon that has inhabited Regan is stuck in my mind for all eternity. However, Blair also excels in her portrayal of Regan at the beginning of the film. She brings this innocence to the role and her chemistry with Burstyn really sells the mother/daughter relationship that is going to be shattered and then reassembled. 

While Max Von Sydow had been in some American films before his performance as Father Merrin, this film was what cemented his legendary status that he has already achieved in Sweden by starring in several Ingmar Bergman productions. Despite being the titular character, Father Merrin only appears at the film’s beginning, where the existence of evil is implied, and at the end, where he leads the exorcism with Father Karras at his side, but he delivers so much weight to the demonic forces at work. What’s even more impressive is the fantastic make-up that was applied to the 44-year-old Von Sydow to make him look like he was in his 70s. With the looks to match the elderly wisdom of his character, Von Sydow easily commands every scene he’s in. 

But, upon rewatching the film, I find that the supporting characters of Father Dyer (Father William O’Malley), a friend of both Chris and Father Karras, and Lieutenant Kinderman (Lee J. Cobb), a detective who becomes involved with the mysterious circumstances around the possession, are much more endearing. While they are out of the loop for most of the film, not knowing what’s truly going on with Regan, they drive the story forward with Father Dyer introducing Chris and Karras and with Lt. Kinderman informing Karras of his investigation into the death of Burke Dennings (Jack MacGowran), the film director that Chris was working for, which is heavily implied to have been caused by the possessed Regan. With Father Dyer being portrayed by a real life priest, he brings a sense of legitimacy to the production through his performance as well as serving as a technical advisor on the film. With Lee J. Cobb, one of my favorite actors, as Lt. Kinderman, it adds a level of realism to the plot. Yes exorcism is a religious tradition but the consequences of the possession interact with the rest of the world. 

After seeing “The French Connection”, William Peter Blatty wanted William Friedkin to direct “The Exorcist” in order to give it the realistic feelings that Blatty wanted to convey. While this was a good choice and watching the film certainly puts you in the possession of seeing a possession slowly play out, Friedkin didn’t just repeat himself with this film. He surpassed his previous work. “The French Connection” is a remarkable film with tight pacing, a ruthless sense of energy and dripping with realism but it was made on a much lower budget of nearly $2 million as opposed to the $12 million that “The Exorcist” was made for. With the increased funds, Friedkin was really able to push cinema to the next level with the control of his production.

Along with director of photography Owen Roizman, who shot “The French Connection” for Friedkin, Friedkin is able to capture such iconic images using all the tricks of light and perspective that make you as uncomfortable as possible. However, a lot of the neat tricks of the film are reserved for when the story takes you into the house and especially when it takes you into Regan’s bedroom. That’s when you see the creepy lighting and, of course, the bedroom being chilled to such a cold temperature that the actors’ breath could be seen. But when you’re away from the possession, there’s a stark realism that feels very much left over from “The French Connection” and even feels like a documentary at times. This is especially apparent when Regan is being tested in the hospital where everything is pale and cold with the sounds all feeling so jarring and no music to be heard. 

William Peter Blatty, who wrote and produced “The Exorcist”, clashed numerous times with William Friedkin, especially over the changes made to the theatrical cut. However, the two have a profound respect for each other and Blatty’s true vision was realized with the release of the director’s cut.

When you watch films of Friedkin’s, especially “The French Connection”, “The Exorcist” and “Sorcerer”, one thing that is very noticeable is just how good they sound. The sound design of “The Exorcist” is next level with so many creepy effects being utilized. Every sound made by the shaking of the bed or the crinkling of papers or the sounds made by the crucifix during the scene that I’m not even going to describe because of how much it sickens me are all remarkably well-executed. Even the clicking sounds of people’s shoes on the ground get my blood pumping just because of how much stress is being piled on. 

In most films, we often see just one or two people responsible for editing the picture which makes sense. You want a select few people who understand the vision of the director to cut the film and make it really work. However, four people were responsible for the editing of “The Exorcist” and it really does work here because Jordan Leondopolous, Bud Smith, Evan A. Lottman and Norman Gay were all able to focus more of their individual attention on certain sequences and make a film that feels so tight. The way scenes are cut gives the film this great intensity with even the quiet moments being so full of melancholy. 

With the film being exactly 50 years old, it does beg the question “is the film still scary?” The answer is an emphatic “hell yes!” When I saw the film recently in a theater, I was so full of panic watching it despite the fact that I’ve seen “The Exorcist” many times. When the actual exorcism does get underway, you feel trapped in this freezing room with these two priests who are up against a demon from Hell. While the intensity of the possession and seeing Regan become stripped of her humanity is terrifying enough, what really gets under my skin are the things that we don’t see. When Burke Dennings is killed, we don’t see the body but the description that Lt. Kinderman tells Father Karras, that Dennings’ head was turned completely backward, is incredibly scary when left up to the imagination. 

Another notorious death in the film, that of Father Merrin, also thrives in ambiguity because Father Karras finds his body next to Regan who’s just curiously looking at it. While Karras has had a history of heart problems and it’s probable that he just had a heart attack, there’s also the possibility that Regan killed him which is just so horrifying to comprehend. But while the few deaths of the film are left in the shadows, the death of Father Karras isn’t. After finding Merrin’s body, he begs the demon to take him instead of Regan and, in a selfless act of redemption and faith, Karras commits suicide by jumping out the window and falling down the same stretch of stairs that Dennings died on. From the shocking nature of the act to the way the footage is cut together, this death is incredibly intense because you not only feel relieved that the demon has been defeated but you’re also filled with this emptiness because of the deaths of Karras and Merrin who gave their lives to save this family. 

Of course, the original cut of the film that shocked audiences in 1973 is a fantastic film. However, 12 minutes were cut from the film by Friedkin because the studio wanted a shorter running time so theaters could have more showings. This decision angered Blatty because he felt that the scenes that were cut were essential to the story. Fortunately, those 12 minutes were restored in a director’s cut (although it really should be called the writer’s cut) that was released on the big screen in 2000 and now is widely available on physical media. 

When comparing the two, I find that I prefer the director’s cut. I agree with Blatty that certain sequences should have been left in the film because so much more nuance is added to the characters. While the infamous spider-crawl (which was cut from the original film because the wires could be seen and were removed with CGI for the director’s cut) isn’t that important to me, I love the conversation that happens between Karras and Merrin as they discuss the demon and how it is trying to turn them against their faith. The final few minutes also give a nicer ending to Father Dyer and Lt. Kinderman as they meet up, to see Chris and Regan leave Georgetown, and strike up a friendship. Not only does this serve as a nice set-up for “Exorcist III” but it also makes these characters more integral to the story and gives them more definition. While the original film does have a slightly darker ending, I think the director’s cut works better. 

“The Exorcist” is just one of those films that gets better every time I see it. Whether it’s the theatrical or director’s cut, I’m continuously impressed that this film got made and how it showed everyone that horror is a genre that can be done with such finesse and should be praised more. I always have felt that organizations like the Academy have unfairly looked down upon horror and, despite all the great films in the genre, only five horror films have been nominated for Best Picture: “The Exorcist”, “Jaws”, “Silence of the Lambs”, “The Sixth Sense” and “Get Out”. However, the fact that “The Exorcist” was the first film to be nominated shows just how much of an impact the film made and the effect that it continues to have on cinema. So many horror films want to make the splash that “The Exorcist” made and very few have been able to do so. While many of us can look at certain horror films from the past few decades and remark how their frights have lessened with time, we can all agree that “The Exorcist” hasn’t lost its touch.