The Exorcist | William Friedkin is the greatest horror ever

ROME – Psychologists in the hall, millions of spectators from all over the world, the iconic Tubular Bells by Mike Oldfield as the soundtrack. The Exorcist by William Friedkin went far beyond its cinematic dimension as an authentic New Hollywood gem, embracing that of the social experiment. A media phenomenon with a cursed aura capable of upsetting the minds of the most fleeting spectators. The rest is a true story that at the base of The Exorcist. As the director himself reminded us in the presentation contained in the prologue of the Home Video edition: “It is based on a story that took place in Silver Spring, Maryland, in 1949, and was widely reported in the American press. When I saw the archives at Georgetown University I knew it was going to be, or had to be, more than just another horror film: a realistic film about inexplicable events.“.

The opening credits of The Exorcist

Based on the 1971 novel of the same name by William Peter Blatty, the rights of economic use de The Exorcist (you can find it on KILOS) were sold to Warner Bros for a little less than $ 650,000 for a transposition that Blatty himself took care of. At this point it was a question of finding the right directorial face that could transpose a similar amount of narrative. For Warner the first and only choice corresponded to the name of Stanley Kubrick who, however, would have preferred to be able to work on the screenplay as well (he will be able to make up almost a decade later with Shining). Arthur Penn followed suit – that later Gangster Story she wanted anything but to make another markedly violent film – Mark Rydell and Mike Nichols who couldn’t imagine anyone as a leading actress especially given little Regan’s age. The choice thus fell on the rising star Friedkin. The reason? His past as a documentarian.

Linda Blair as Regan MacNeil in a scene from The Exorcist
Linda Blair is Regan MacNeil

What Warner and Blatty wanted was someone who could give the story a strong, realistic feel. Here, this is the key word: realism. With his innovative filmic language Friedkin was able to show an explicit violence narratively justified by the context and made naked and raw by the director’s approach. That of him narrating cinema through images made flesh that is alive The violent arm of the law showed the dirtier side of cop life, with The Exorcist ended up generating the ultimate horror: “I have always thought that a film must be, above all, an emotional experience. It should make you laugh, or cry, or be afraid. But also to inspire you, provoke your reaction, or make you think“. On the other hand if the former Rosemary’s Baby told the devil in latent form, letting his presence be perceived, The Exorcist he expresses it in an aggressive and violent form, except that Friedkin’s realism also affected the direction of the actors.

“The power of Christ expels you!”

In order to condition the spontaneity in the reactions he used to use quite orthodox methods (the same for which Gene Hackman The violent arm several times he was about to attack him). Linda Blair and Ellen Burstyn, for example, were violently tied and jerked: Burstyn suffered irreparable damage to the spine. William O’Malley was even slapped. As if the processing of de The Exorcist went down in history for a sequence of incidents that occurred to cast and (relative) family members. After less than two days of filming, a short circuit caused a fire that totally destroyed the interiors. Jack Miller’s son had a motorcycle accident while on his way to visit his father on set. In addition, nine people related to the film (directly or indirectly) died, including Max Von Sydow’s brother, Blair’s grandmother and Jack MacGowran.

Ellen Burstyn as Chris MacNeil in a scene from The Exorcist
Ellen Burstyn is Chris MacNeil

As if that were not enough, one of the extras (Paul Bateson) turned out to be a serial killer of homosexuals from which Friedkin would later draw inspiration for the killer of Cruising. The particularity of The Exorcist however, it is the opening sequence. An authentic film-in-film in which Friedkin sets the tone of the story by introducing us to that Father Merrin / Von Sydow whom we will see again only in the prodigious climax covered by the role of deus ex machina but which is presented to us here by building an aura of a legendary but weak hero. , through red writings on a black background and a polarized color from gray to the whiteness of dawn to fiery red. Then an editing cut. Friedkin does not fully show us his face, choosing instead a glimpse at sunset. Between shaking hands and heart pills, something seems to upset the man. “Evil versus evil»Says his collaborator, calling him Father. The grandfather clock stops. The silence of the excavation.

“Evil versus evil”

In a semi-subjective that becomes first and very foreground, the statue of the demon Pazuzu rises: between armed men and dogs biting each other in the throat, the very close-up of the demon overlaps the angry growls, then the opposition between the two , the fade, and we come to Georgetown. From here Friedkin lays the foundations of a centuries-old struggle in the subtle bond of the Evil One between Iraq and the US citizen. In this way, the violence and horror shown to us are not only an end in themselves but reasoned, calculated, inserted ad hoc in a wider narrative framework: the eternal dichotomy good / evil justified by Friedkin: “Over the years, I believe many people take from The Exorcist what they put into it. It is a story that perhaps makes you question your own value system. also your sanity because it strongly and realistically tries to place the idea of ​​spiritual forces in the universe“.

The signs of the Devil on little Regan

“If you believe the world is a dark and evil place, then The Exorcist will give more strength to that idea. But if you believe that there is a force of good, which fights and then triumphs over evil, then you will take from the film what we have tried to put into it.», An evaluation enriched by the characterization offered by the characters on stage: everyone wrong but true. The MacNeil Home Defective Family Unit characterized by the absent man of the house, a playful and full of life daughter (Regan / Blair), a tenacious single mother, articulate foul language, non-believer but invoking God’s help (Chris / Burstyn), and that fearful and skeptical Father Karras / Miller, doubtful of his only apparently unshakable faith with which to play with the religious subtext of the story and seal the filmic ratio: “It is a film about the mystery of faith. I believe that the fact that it has lasted for more than 25 years is due to what it leaves you after the vision“.

“It is a film about the mystery of faith. I believe that the fact that it has lasted for more than 25 years is due to what it leaves you after the vision “

The real plus de The Exorcist however, it is the scenic context of the MacNeils, and that Evil one left to grow in the distance through simple gasps in the attic, a soft and shadowed light, and then degenerate into the raw mechanism of possessions expressed in death threats, urinated on the carpet, vomit, crucifixes used for acts of onanism, incesting incest, up to contortions, vocal manipulations, as well as physical in seeing Regan’s face emaciated and torn. The growth of the demonic presence of The Exorcist it allows Friedkin to indulge in an effigy of the Madonna with “pointed” and bloody private parts, or in the famous dream-subliminal sequence of Father Karras who, after leaving the Metro, tries in vain to reach his deceased mother and finally enveloped by the Devil. Elements so spontaneous that The Exorcist doesn’t even need to jump-scare calculated to the thousandth to generate horror and tribulations: simply let them live in their evil nature.

Father Merrin at the showdown in the main scene of The Exorcist
Father Merrin at the showdown in the main scene of The Exorcist

It is therefore not surprising how, once the scenic conflict has been resolved, The Exorcist unleash all its horrific charge by pushing the accelerator to the maximum. In the quiet moment in which Friedkin allows the viewer to take a breath of fresh air, returning us to the comforting sight of Merrin and his stage entrance as a consummate cowboy ready for the duel he has been waiting for all his life, Friedkin delivers a warning to a line of dialogue, almost as if to remind the public how, having crossed that threshold, nothing will be the same as before in his experience as a spectator: “Especially important is the warning to avoid any dialogue with the demon. The demon is a liar, he will lie to confuse us and he will also mix the truth with lies, his is a psychological and powerful aggression“. At that point The Exorcist it transcends its own film medium to present itself as a frightening one-on-one challenge between the experience of the room and the fruition itself.

In the climax, Pazuzu emerges from the chrysalis-body of an exhausted Regan

Because between frightening gasps and obscenities, turned heads and manipulations, holy water and spitting, in a precious game of overlapping and dissolving from which to make Pazuzu re-emerge from the Iraqi prologue to make him externalize in a human body now made simple shell / chrysalis, The Exorcist it is unleashed between visions and blows to the heart in a climax that sees the victory of the devil, the surrender of good, and the compliant inability of light to prevail over shadow. Yet, and almost fifty years after its release (it was presented on December 26, 1973) it seems increasingly evident, Friedkin’s work lives on an astonishing cognitive dissonance. In an episode of Eli Roth’s History of HorrorQuentin Tarantino told how, at the time, his mother allowed him to see (literally) anything, except The Exorcist: he feared that the Devil could possess the spectators. This and other anecdotes have helped enrich his legacy.

“Over the years, I think many people take from The Exorcist what they put into it. It makes you ask questions about your own system of values ​​”

The film cursed par excellence it is far from being a ferocious demonic invocation. In the exquisitely realistic and raw cut of the constructed images, the choice to show us the Evil One and his signs in an explicit and violently alive way generates, yes, empathy and a crisis of values ​​in the viewer, but Friedkin’s eye is so refined as to show it to us through a documentary lens that ends up mitigating the ferocity of intent so as to allow us to take that necessary step backwards with which we do not fall into an otherwise inevitable spiral of despair and madness. On the other hand, the spectator is there, he is alive, he sees Regan flourish again and life returns to normal. That of The Exorcist it is just a legendary and superfine directorial game which, in transcending the genre, ends up surrendering itself to cinematic immortality, reminding us of a precious lesson: the imaginative power of the Seventh Art has no limits.

  • STORIES | The Exorcist | The true story that inspired the film
  • LONGFORM | Nosferatu | Murnau, Herzog and a masterpiece that lived twice
  • STORIES | The Exorcist | From Blatty’s book to Friedkin’s film

Below you can see the trailer of the film:

The Exorcist | William Friedkin is the greatest horror ever