The Exorcist: A Review of both the movie and the book

Currently I am on a break from writing my dissertation. So yesterday, I decided to treat myself to a back to back film binge-watch. What I ended up with was three very diverse film which were: The Exorcist (1973), Alexander Nevsky(1938) and Aladdin (1992). On this blog, I just want to discuss my feelings on each of these films. I admit to the fact that I am not an expert on film theory nor film-making, and that I am simply writing from the perspective of a simple person who enjoys watching them immensely.

THE EXORCIST (1973)

Ok, first things first, how cool is that movie poster !!

That man ( who is actually Father Lankester Merrin and basically is the titular character of the movie and the book ) standing at the edge of the mansion's entrance while the light from the window from the top left of the poster reflects his arrival. It's almost like a stage is being prepared for a legendary face off and though The Exorcist also depicts the age old struggle between good and evil, I feel that the poster tends to invert those struggles. Father Merrin, the exorcist is a shadowy black figure whose posture tells us that he is at the cusp of something momentous. With the formal attire, the hat and the bag combo, he is eerily like the modern day depictions of the Grim Reaper, He is mysterious and his intentions , according to a viewer, are ambiguous in this poster. In contrast is the bright and almost pure light emanating from the window, In fact, the radiance of that light manages to illuminate everything but the exorcist. In a way, we could interpret that this light is welcoming its challenger in the most disarming manner. Without the famous visuals of Linda Blair's portrayal of a possessed girl, the poster is actually a confusing one. It makes you wonder about whose side you want to take in this movie, the shadowy figure or the bright beckoning light above.

Another point of note: William Peter Blatty is a terrific writer and when he mentions this scene in the book, it's equally breathtaking. And to be honest, the poster remains true to the portrayal in the book and frankly it becomes one of those rare moments where reality is just as one imagined it to be. In fact, since the movie so very faithful  to the novel ( obviously since Blatty the author was also the one who wrote the screenplay of the movie ), some of the best scenes in the book are beautifully realized in the movie too, and maybe that is why this film remains still memorable because it was really able to capture the author's vision.

I don't want sound monotonous, but in all honesty, the book was a more satisfying experience in comparison to the film. The book was catchy, thrilling in all the right places and had a very smart understanding about what the audience would enjoy (which is something Blatty and Friedkin did manage to bring into the movie too). Overall for me, the book was like reading those old spy novels where the focus was more on the process of investigation then on the whodunits, with a good dose of supernatural added to it. In fact, this book reminded me highly of Stoker's Dracula. Leaving aside deep literary questions about the book's writings and intentions, Dracula is actually a fun past-time read. It has all the elements of a fantastic escapist fantasy with its one-dimensional evil monsters and its band of do-gooders who finally face-off in an epic struggle between good and evil. You could never put Shelley's Frankenstein and Stoker's Dracula in the same category, but you definitely can do that with The Exorcist and Dracula. Both have in fact, a somewhat similar premise. In both cases, the monsters are technically foreigners, Dracula from Transylvania and the demon Pazuzu from Iraq. They both take over or end up manipulating female 'virgin' victims, Mina and Lucy in Dracula and Reagan in the Exorcist. Both demons are dispelled by the power of Christian devotion and rituals performed by male medical and religious authorities. In the case of Dracula, it is Dr. Abraham Van Helsing who is both a doctor/monster hunter and in the case of the Exorcist, Father Damien Karras who is a renowned psychologist and Father Lankester, the exorcist/ archaeologist/ doctor. And finally, what holds all these elements together is the saving or the  unrelenting power of love, specifically expressed through Mina's fiance Jonathan Parker and Reagen' s mother, Chris MacNeil. A clever thing that I credit both to Blatty and Stoker is their reworking of the Gothic genre by borrowing heavily from Christian mythology and from its fringe practices. There are always stories, belief, rituals and magic that remain on the fringes of mainstream Christian beliefs but also exist alongside them as localized cultural tropes and symbols. They are never truly explored in religious teaching to the masses but at the same time their existence validates the importance and 'goodness' of the religion, just like gargoyles or demon masks guarding the outside of religious structure. Their presence invokes a sense of fear, of the unknown but also a sense of guardianship. Blatty cleverly delves into our interest in these peripheral and almost paganic ritualistic practices such as demon possession, exorcism, Satanic cults and the Black Mass rituals. He exploits your curiosity and towards the end, you are equally invested in the book not just for it obvious supernatural elements but also how these elements are rationalized into the modern day thinking and how its protagonists (including the ever conflicted Father Karras - an excellently created character besides Chris, the mother who is also an atheist) grapple to come to terms with matters completely alien to their contemporary mindset.

In contrast to the book, I found the movie a tad bit disappointing. It has a slow pace and some of the most memorable scenes as well as most of the action happen only towards the last 45 minutes. But in order to stay true to the book, the movie in presentation of the plot and its characters, becomes almost mechanical. Characters come and go abruptly. They seem to be introduced simply out of obligation to the book. Burke Denning's murder is never shown but only hinted at, which is kind of disappointing. Even the investigation by Lieutenant Kinderman, which was clearly portrayed in the book, is sidelined and just becomes another obligatory addition to the plot. I understand that you cannot add everything from the book and you need to be editing your scenes accordingly but the problem with the film is quite the opposite. The editing is in fact, too tight. Crucial scenes are cut off and the plot becomes almost one note. If it were not for Ellen Burstyn's distraught mother act in each scene of the film and Linda Blair's possessed daughter act, this film would have been quite forgettable. And minimalist dialogues do not help the movie at all. I was not very impressed with Miller's portrayal of Karras either. He made Karras too maudlin and frankly too wimpy. If only I could go back in time, I would have forced Friedkin to recast that character. Jack Nicholsan, who was the original choice, would have done troubled Father Karras justice. Father Merrin is not very developed in the book, so I do think the portrayal in the movie was just fine. If anything, the movie fleshes out his character much more nicely.

Father Merrin and Father Karras in Reagan's room trying to perform exorcism on her.

The best part of the movie is obviously Linda Blair's portrayal of a young girl possessed by the demon Pazuzu.  Credit is also due to William Friedkin's directions in portraying the horror scenes and Dick Smith's special make up effect which give a chilling and convinced depiction of true horror. Everything is in sync here and truly more than being scared, you are horrified and deeply saddened by what is happening to the poor little girl. The head turning scene was really cool. You could not tell that was actually a dummy!!... I think the only scene that truly horrified me was when the Demon violently forces Reagen to insert the crucifix into her vagina repeatedly, leading to massive bleeding. That scene was very difficult to watch.

You really can't tell it is a puppet!!

Finally, I think it is only in the ending scenes that the movie triumphs over the book. The death of Father Merrin and the eventual possession of Father Karras and the sacrifice of his life in order to defeat Pazuzu, are really intriguing (unlike in Dracula where all the main characters are still alive and intact). The book depicts these scenes from only a third person perspective who is more like an outside spectator so what you get is a very detached ending to a very spectacular affair. In the movie, the perspective is shifted directly to Karras and we see him get possessed and then committing suicide by jumping from the window. You see his angst, his troubles and finally his resolve towards his faith in these last few seconds and suddenly you feel the burden that he had decided to carry in order to save an innocent girl. Frankly its a mesmerizing scene and only scene where I can truly appreciate Miller's acting. Thankfully, the film ends on happy but an abrupt note unlike most films in the horror genre. There have been sequels to this film but I personally would like to consider it a stand-alone feature though I do look forward to reading Blatty's sequel to the Exorcist which is titled Legion.

Pazuzu possesses Father Karras

Overall, the film was entertaining but a little too robotic in its execution. The best things about the film are the fact that it chose to have Blatty as its screenplay writer who in turn was clever enough to bring to life the most exciting and visually thrilling scenes in the book. The acting and the special effects fully complemented the intentions of the plot and gave it life despite the many plot holes and cardboard characters. I admit despite my many misgiving before watching this film, I was actually not scared when I finally watched it. Surprise, surprise...