| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Capt. Nemo
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
630 Posts |
 Posted - 10/18/2005 : 7:17:52 PM
|
This movie has been listed as the most scary movie ever made. Tales have been told how people fainted when they saw it the first time back in the seventies. It's sequal was savaged(with good reason) by Jabootu. And even then, a nod was given to the original.
I must say, I don't understand.
The movie seems to be about a girl who acted funny and as things got wierdier it was determined that it was the result of something supernatural. An exorsism was done to rid the evil spirit that resulted in some cool leviations and head twirling.
But I found the evil spirit's torments perverse rather than scary. If someone started acting like that around me, I would just leave the room in embarrassment. I'd feel sorry for the mother and all. But why should I be scared of an evil spirit that has already possessed someone and doesn't seem to threaten anyone else? Was anyone else in any danger?
Why was this movie scary?
Some people have said it is because I am not a Catholic. If that's it, then what is the papal Rosetta Stone that I am missing? Did this movie scare you guys? What's the story? |
|
|
R. Dittmar
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
420 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2005 : 8:02:57 PM
|
Captain,
I have to concur with your opinion of The Exorcist. Just as a caveat, I will admit to being born and raised Lutheran and that particular disposition may also explain my disdain for the movie.
Simply put, I've always objected to the notion that the devil can cause torment and agony to someone without that person's willingly giving in to sinfulness. There¡¯s no doubt that children can be sinful. The things I would have done as a child were I able to get away with them would sicken most people, but there¡¯s no way a Hollywood movie could have suggested that Regan was in anyway responsible for her state. Consequently, the movie is not scary as much as revolting. All that¡¯s on display to scare or shock is the senseless degradation of a seemingly innocent child. The only window dressing to hide this fact is that the tormentor is an incorporeal entity rather than a flesh and blood human sadist.
This has come up in the boards before with someone suggesting that the point of the whole ordeal was to re-affirm Father what¡¯s-his-name¡¯s faith, but that just turns me off as well. Why in the world would God let Satan torture some innocent child just so some deadbeat priest could come to his senses? If child abuse makes a movie one of the top 100 films ever made, then why isn¡¯t I Dismember Mama number 23?
|
 |
|
|
thepanteduffin
Diocesan Ecclesiarch of the Sacred Order of Jabootu
Canada
74 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2005 : 8:55:36 PM
|
To me, the movie was scary visually because of the make-up and the evil look in Reagan's eyes. Why Linda Blair didn't win the Oscar that year, I'll never know.
But on a more emotional level, I've always identified with Reagan's mother, and the horror comes from seeing someone you love be violated so terribly, without any reason, and you're absolutely powerless to do a single thing about it. More than that, since what does in the end save your child must first put her through a hellish agony.
One of the things I hate most about the sequel is also common to other sequels of great horror movies: it gives the demon a purpose for possessing Reagan. Wheny ou know what the demon is up to, to me it serves to define it more, and to understand it. Turns out unless you're a special child with healing powers (or whatever the hell other kids had), you're safe. In the first one, the demon didn't give any reason why it possessed Reagan. It just does. It's a random calamity, like cancer, accidents, mental illness. Something that can violate you in the worst way, in both body and soul, and all without rhyme or reason. That's pretty chilling.
I find the third movie in the series, while no masterpiece, is also a pretty decent flick, and it's got my all-time favorite use of the jump-scare, a technique I usually hate. I'm talking about a scene where the camera is stationary at the end of a hospital corridor for minutes on end during a nurse's night shift. After several suspicious movements in the background and a few visits from the nurse to patients' rooms, you see her (the nurse) emerge from a room and then the camera shock-zooms to a shrouded figure *right behind her* about to attack her. A great pay-off to a long set-up.
|
|
|
|
hbrennan
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
Philippines
1455 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2005 : 10:03:13 PM
|
I went to see "The Exorcist" with my folks and my sister, when it first came out. Asking why the movie was considered so scary is like asking why people found the original "Frankenstein" so horrifying. This was the 70's, people. This was ground-breaking horror right up there with "Jaws". Most audiences had never seen anything like it previously. It was horrifying and immensely shocking for the time. Here we have a child taken over by a demon while her mother is powerless to do anything. We have a demon debasing the child (and while taunting religious figures and committing murder). All stops were pulled and you had no idea what this thing was going to do next. You have a horrific battle between good and evil that ends up killing 2 priests. To find this not frightening is just an admission of how jaded our society has become. By the way - the book is a very interesting read. And to answer a theological question brought up. According to standard beliefs, the child was susceptable because of the family's atheism (this was more obvious in the book). In orthodox Chrisitanity beliefs, Christians are not open to demonic possession. Notice how the demon was able to inhabit the priest who was having a crisis of faith (Fr. Karras)- but not Fr.Merrin. This is why I recommend the book - it makes things a little more clear.
"...yet it hadn't destroyed his brain."
re: Charles "The Butcher" Benton (1956)
http://henrybrennan.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
|
Triviachamp
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
254 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2005 : 11:13:30 PM
|
| Times have changed. People have higher "standards" for what is scary these days. Might as well complain about every film made before last week for bad CGI and backscreening. |
|
|
|
Victoria Silverwolf
Diocesan Ecclesiarch of the Sacred Order of Jabootu
USA
80 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2005 : 01:03:10 AM
|
I remember seeing this film in London, of all places, during my only visit to Europe. I'm not sure if it is really "scary" to me as much as very intense. Of course, the word "scary" might mean a lot of things. It's easy to give somebody a shock with a loud noise, but that's hardly a great work of art. I guess the kind of "scary" I prefer is the eerie, moody sort of thing you get from a Val Lewton film or The Haunting. The Exorcist isn't quite like that, although it is a very well-made film.
Reality is a crutch for people who can't face up to science fiction. |
|
|
|
hbrennan
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
Philippines
1455 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2005 : 01:16:55 AM
|
quote:
Victoria Silverwolf wrote: I guess the kind of "scary" I prefer is the eerie, moody sort of thing you get from a Val Lewton film or The Haunting. The Exorcist isn't quite like that, although it is a very well-made film.
Back when it first came out, "The Exorcist' was both frightening and disturbing. The "fear factor" coming from the relentless loud assaults on the senses (you had to see it in an actual 70's theater with accompanying sound system)and the throwing away of standard conventions at the time. "The Haunting" is nearly timeless in it's ability to render chills. Both films tap age old fears. However, more people are able to relate to the standard ghost story than to theological constructs.
"...yet it hadn't destroyed his brain."
re: Charles "The Butcher" Benton (1956)
http://henrybrennan.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
|
Monkey
Archdeacon of Jabootu
Ireland
17 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2005 : 04:25:25 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by hbrennan
This was the 70's, people. This was ground-breaking horror right up there with "Jaws". Most audiences had never seen anything like it previously. It was horrifying and immensely shocking for the time.
I've found that two other films from the same era that get a very similar reaction. Anytime I've made any of my friends sit through Last House On The Left or The Texas Chainsaw Massacre they've been massively underwhelmed. |
|
|
|
UnknownSubject
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
Australia
212 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2005 : 11:32:53 PM
|
One issue that helps explain this is also that movies tend to rip off other movies, so that you end up seeing things duplicated so many times that when you see the original, there is no surprise.
Take, for instance, "M" by Fritz Lang. It is arguably the proto-serial killer flick, with a lot of the same features as modern serial killer movies (with all horrible acts occurring off-screen). However, you show it to a modern audience and they'll probably think it too slow with no horror / shock value because they've seen it done bigger and more in-your-face in more recent serial killer movies.
Spandex Cinema
http://sc.thebeholder.org
Latest Review - "X-Men 1.5" |
|
|
|
Victoria Silverwolf
Diocesan Ecclesiarch of the Sacred Order of Jabootu
USA
80 Posts |
Posted - 10/20/2005 : 12:20:02 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Monkey
quote:
Originally posted by hbrennan
This was the 70's, people. This was ground-breaking horror right up there with "Jaws". Most audiences had never seen anything like it previously. It was horrifying and immensely shocking for the time.
I've found that two other films from the same era that get a very similar reaction. Anytime I've made any of my friends sit through Last House On The Left or The Texas Chainsaw Massacre they've been massively underwhelmed.
Interesting. In my opinion, both The Last House on the Left and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre are rather poorly made films (unlike the very slick and professional The Exorcist) but both have a certain emotional power. In particular, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre has a certain claustrophobic intensity that gets to me.
Reality is a crutch for people who can't face up to science fiction. |
|
|
|
hbrennan
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
Philippines
1455 Posts |
Posted - 10/20/2005 : 01:45:29 AM
|
quote:
Victoria Silverwolf wrote: Interesting. In my opinion, both The Last House on the Left and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre are rather poorly made films (unlike the very slick and professional The Exorcist) but both have a certain emotional power. In particular, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre has a certain claustrophobic intensity that gets to me.
"The Last house on the Left" was a poorly made film that was merely groundbreaking in that it brought that kind of shock closer to "mainstream". Sort of like "Deep Throat". At least that was my impression when I saw it in a seedy Times Square Theater when it first premiered. However, in my opinion, "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" was a brilliant film in the same way "Night of the Living Dead" was a brilliant film disguised as a cheap throwaway. The reasons have little to do with production values. It's really a film school discussion topic. Any thoughts from those who have film backgrounds would be interesting (to say the least).
"...yet it hadn't destroyed his brain."
re: Charles "The Butcher" Benton (1956)
http://henrybrennan.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
|
Neville
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
Spain
1590 Posts |
Posted - 10/20/2005 : 04:43:01 AM
|
| Maybe it is scarier if you are a Catholic, even a non-believer one, as i am. Having heard all my life about certain issues, like Hell and so on, and growing quite desinterested from all that notions, to see them in living colour in a movie that portrays them so carefully not to be that unbelievable, it is a shocking experience. |
|
|
|
MikeC
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
749 Posts |
Posted - 10/20/2005 : 06:08:22 AM
|
The EXCORCIST isn't 'scary' so much as it is
disturbing, for the reasons detailed above.
The debasement of a child for no obvious reason
is the stuff of nightmares, regardless of one's
religious affiliation/lack thereof.
However, I do recall that the remastered
version that was theatrically released a few
years back did scare the hell out of me
because I'd never seen it on a full screen
in good stereo, and there were quite a lot
of semi-subliminal disturbing bits in it.
MikeC |
|
|
|
gangrene
Diocesan Ecclesiarch of the Sacred Order of Jabootu
60 Posts |
Posted - 10/20/2005 : 9:40:26 PM
|
The scene where Reagan is sitting up in bed wrapped in linen looking like the Priest's mother always gives me chills, and I agree that the subtle things they added in the new version were pretty creepy. I've always liked this film, though it is rather slow to get going, but I think that is deliberate. A horror film has to be smart to be scary and that is what Hollywood never seems to grasp...
Exorcist III is also good.
Steve & Pam,
www.gangrenewidescreen.com
|
|
|
|
Matrixprime
Diocesan Ecclesiarch of the Sacred Order of Jabootu
USA
69 Posts |
Posted - 10/21/2005 : 8:37:53 PM
|
Well, I'm 28. I didn't see the Exorcist until four years ago. And it creeped me out. Nemo, I think part of it you hit when you said you aren't Catholic. I'm strong in my faith (though not much for the organization part of it). While I'm on the fence about whether possession is real or not (I try to keep an open mind) the movie does a pretty good image of depicting how one could be. It does a good job of showing 'evil' without the cheesy fire and brimstones (like Spawn, for example). In short, the movie does a good job of illustrating the Catholic brand of evil (tm). Plus, there are scenes like that with the crucifix, or when she insults the priests, that are shocking on the blasphemous level. The characters are also pretty well defined, with nuances to them, and the SFX are pretty gritty. Plus there's the little subliminal items (like the face in the shadows on the subway) that tick away.
Part of its probably based on your thought processes. Blood, guts, and gore usually doesn't phase me much (other than to make me realize its gross) but I have to look away when the syringes pop out. Likewise, when my father died, me and my mother had to go into the room to see him one last time, so stuff like the morgue scenes in CSI or ER hit me a bit stronger than most people. On the other hand, my brothers love ER, but are more likely to be bothered by the gore in, say, Dawn of the Dead.
Amusing anecdote regarding Exorcist, by the way, and also the reason why I finally bothered to hunt it down. My mother was a true softy - liked Buffy, but had to close her eyes on the violent scenes, and didn't like when people 'went evil'. She liked action movies, but couldn't stomach the SnapCracklePop SFX so she'd look away or go get a drink at some scenes. And this was after raising three boys.
Why do I say this? Because the first time my father and her ever went out on a date, the first time they went somewhere, was to the movies, to see.....The Exorcist.
Did I also mention she was raised in a very religious household?
Bah Weep Granna Weep Ninny Bahn - Universal Greeting
Est Solarus Oth Mithas - Solamnic Knight Pledge |
|
|
|
Capt. Nemo
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
630 Posts |
Posted - 10/21/2005 : 11:42:34 PM
|
A point that was brought up (or at least implied) was that the fear was about affliction. That someone you love can be targeted by evil and what it could do to you. Fine point. But in this movie (at least for me) the problem was that the girl already had this affliction. It would have been scarier if somehow we were teased with the possibility of affliction. You know. That feeling you get while the doctor is reviewing your medical test to see if you have cancer or something. That would definitely get my attention. The Exorcist has none of that. We (the audience) know what the prognosis is. The movie itself is just going through the motions to arrive at the conclusion that there is an evil paranormal spirit. That in and of itself can be interesting and a great plot for a movie, But its not scary.
I may be a lot of things but "jaded" is not a term that applies to me. I reject the notion that there are higher standards before CGI. In fact, I think the special effects in The Exorcist were impressive considering Friedkin wanted the whole thing done "in-camera" and without any processing tricks. I have nothing against make up. If it’s done well, I can handle it. I let movies in even ones I was not impressed on the first go around. The best example of this is 2001: A Space Odyssey. I saw this movie after I saw 2010: The Year We Make Contact and I was initially disappointed. That's because 2001 was not a supposed to be a plot driven with love, conflict, betrayal, passion and compassion. The movie was meant in the same spirit that someone would look in to a kaleidoscope. You're are supposed to LOOK at it. Stare and marvel at the cosmic beauty. When I saw it again and realized the context that I was supposed to be watching it in, then I enjoyed it. And we a very big screen TV and DVD player, I can experience that Stargate the way the movie gods intended. Now to getting to the example you site, Jaws was a scary movie. A post seemed to imply that audiences or I had been desensitized and could fully appreciate that movie. Have no fear. When I first saw the film, I loved it. My stomach was in knots when Hooper dove in to the water to look at the hull. Seeing the shark attacks and the Orca exploding resulting in their doom was really exciting. The movie is still fresh and scary with fears that anyone could have about swimming in the ocean. I watch Jaws now and again. It's like listening to good music. I also saw M in a theatre and I loved it. It was interesting and never slow. In fact, other people who had seen it with me started imitating it by painting an "M" on their hands and seeing whom they could tag. The movie seems to hold up with modern audiences just fine. As for myself, I think it’s a great film.
Unfortunately, I can't say the same about The Exorcist. I first saw it in the theatre when it was re-released. And I was ready for a scare. But it didn't happen. I watched and waited. But it just didn't happen. You say it was a loud assault on the senses but I didn't get that. What's so disturbing about a guy remarking about pubic hairs in his drink (the fact that bit sticks with me ought to tell you something)? I rented movie later but I still have no strong emotion about it. So I can't say The Exorcist holds any value for me as a scary movie. One movie that I believe tried to copy the banality of The Exorcist was The Amityville Horror. The movie just thought it was enough just to have weird things happen here and there. They even have a Catholic priest who spends most of the movie outside the plot. I actually kind of surprised that the History Channel made a scarier documentary about the house than the original filmmakers. I wonder if Texas Chainsaw Massacre was even meant to be scary. I think it was made more for the grossout factor. To see how many gross scenes we can put in a movie. There is an audience for that sort of thing. If the mood ever strikes me, I will watch it on its own terms.
Now, the question will have to be raised as to what do I find scary. Two films have achieved that for me. The first is Aliens. This movie is scary because you are always afraid that something will jump out of the shadows and bite you. To get out from under them, you need to face claustrophobic conditions and face hostile environments that would be perfect metaphors for hell. You know they're out there, you know they're close, and you know they mean you harm. The second was Martin Scorcesse's Cape Fear. The character of Max Cady has a real menace about him. The rape scene in that movie never fails to make me turn my head and look away. You know that people who are near him are in danger because you can see what he is capable of. And I think that audiences still pick up on that every time they see the movie. It's a testament to Scorcesse's directing talents.
The Exorcist doesn't belong with these films. I can't put my finger on it but what does this film lack that these two films have? |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Forum Locked
Topic Locked