|
Originally published in the April 2001 issue of Widescreen Review.
Revisiting "The Exorcist"
Director William Friedkin Retouches His Masterpiece -- But Will The Public Accept The Changes?
By Michael Coate
"The Exorcist" Released...Again
How many times must we buy the same movie? Perhaps once more as filmmaker William Friedkin and Warner Bros. have revisited their famous production of "The Exorcist," one of the most terrifying films ever made, and one which has spawned two sequels and a generation of imitators.
William Peter Blatty, screenwriter and author of the novel on which the film was based, has contended for years that Friedkin cut out the spiritual foundation of the film. Over ten minutes of extra scenes have been added back into the movie, now dubbed "The Version You've Never Seen," including the notorious "spider walk" scene that audiences have clamored to see for years. (The scene had been included as a deleted scene on the 25th Anniversary DVD edition released in 1998.) Friedkin also couldn't resist the opportunity to spruce up some visual effects in the film...perhaps he saw the 1997 revision of "Star Wars"! The movie's soundtrack has also been given a makeover. The classic horror film enjoyed a successful theatrical re-release last fall and recently arrived on DVD in its newest incarnation.
The Scariest Movie Of All Time
"The Exorcist" had a storied production, from a shoot that went way over schedule, to sets burning down, to a number of mysterious deaths during production, prompting some to insist the film was possessed. Nonetheless, the film -- both a critical and popular success -- went on to garner ten Academy Award® nominations, taking home two of the Oscar® statuettes, one for adapted screenplay, the other for sound.
The film originally opened on December 26, 1973 and became a boxoffice sensation. It was a blockbuster before it was fashionable to refer to a successful film as a blockbuster. By the end of the film's run, it had become Warner Bros.' most successful release, with a domestic gross exceeding $150 million (a spectacular figure in 1973/74), and it remained the studio's top-grossing film until "Batman" eclipsed its phenomenal performance in 1989.
The film struck a chord -- positive or negative -- with audiences and the media. It had disturbed so many people that upon receiving a Best Director nomination in spring 1974, director Friedkin became the target of several death threats, including one sent by mail from an employee of the studio at which Friedkin was based (the perpetrator was bright enough to provide a return address, and was later apprehended!).
Based on Blatty's 1971 novel of the same name, "The Exorcist" tells the simple, yet disturbing, tale of actress/mother Chris MacNeil (Ellen Burstyn) and her 12-year-old daughter Regan (Linda Blair), who are staying in Georgetown while her mother is there working on a movie. Regan begins exhibiting extremely bizarre behavior, and after exhausting all medical and psychiatric avenues, Chris reluctantly seeks advise from Father Karras (Jason Miller) about the possibility of demonic possession. Karras, a young Jesuit priest, is fighting his own battles while struggling to cope with a loss of faith and the death of his mother, but agrees to help her.
"The Exorcist" was inspired by a 1949 Mount Rainier, Maryland incident reported in The Washington Post where a boy allegedly became possessed. The incident resulted in one of the few exorcisms reported by the Catholic church. Though on record, there are, of course, many skeptics. "I think in 99 percent of the people who say they're possessed or were possessed, that it's all jive," says director Friedkin. "But there are a handful of cases -- and this was one of them -- in the United States, in the 20th Century, that the Catholic church believed were authentic."
The $12 million production was filmed in New York City, Georgetown, and Iraq, and was originally scheduled for a 70-day shoot, but spun out of control and ultimately took over 175 days to complete. The production proved to be a difficult and trying experience for all involved. "Sometimes, you get a feeling when you're working that when certain directors go to extremes, you feel like, 'Hey, life is too short. This isn't worth it,'" says Owen Roizman, the film's director of photography. "But when the result is really good, then you forget all of those things and you are left with fond memories rather than bad memories."
Like many classics, the film was ahead of its time. It was so far ahead and so provocative, it is possible that Academy voters may have been too afraid to vote it that year's Best Picture (not that 1973's winner "The Sting" wasn't worthy of the prize). Certainly, if "The Exorcist" would be made today, it would stand a real chance of winning. But then, it would be incredibly difficult to even attempt to make a picture today like "The Exorcist," especially since so few modern pictures are made in the style the film was made in.
Although Blatty, a Catholic, introduced much religion and faith into the story, the agnostic Friedkin brought the film an objectivity that makes it difficult for anyone to not respond to the material. The film has been making people think for the past 27 years.
The Version You've Never Seen
Part director's cut, part writer's cut, part restoration, part marketing gimmick; "The Exorcist: The Version You've Never Seen" was prompted by many factors, not the least of which was writer Blatty's continued complaints over some cuts made by Friedkin. Blatty maintained for years that the spiritual foundation of the film was softened by the exclusion of several moments from his script (and original novel) which Friedkin shot, but deleted before release. This not unusual writer-director conflict is covered in the 25th Anniversary DVD during the documentary and interview segments. But "The Exorcist" wasn't a unique case for Blatty's fussiness. Another example is his 1979 directorial debut "The Ninth Configuration," which exists in multiple cuts (none available on Region 1 DVD) and multiple titles ("Twinkle, Twinkle, 'Killer' Kane").
For years, Friedkin believed that the spirituality didn't need to be spelled out in the film. Quite simply, he thought audiences "got it." Blatty disagreed, and a 27-year "friendly disagreement" ensued. Eventually, Friedkin agreed to reconsider another look at the film which prompted the recent alterations. "This is the version Bill Blatty always wanted," Friedkin explains. "The restored footage not only deepens the spiritual foundation of the film, but adds some truly terrifying moments as well."
In a September 2000 Los Angeles Times article, Blatty was quoted as saying the film in its revised form is a "more satisfying, fuller experience. A little more electrifying, definitely more spiritual, not to mention scarier -- it's complete."1 Blatty also contended that the original ending made it unclear to the audience about whether or not good had triumphed over evil. Audiences familiar with the original may find the new ending overstated and possibly even a bit ambiguous.
There are several scenes added to the new version, the most famous deleted scene from the film involves Regan's "spider walk" down a staircase during the scene where her mother is hosting a party. "I cut it out originally because it simply didn't work," states Friedkin. "I didn't think it looked good. Now, I used CGI to cover up seeing how it was done." Friedkin also figured out a way to integrate subliminal imagery in a few places, including a kitchen scene and also in Regan's bedroom. While shot during the original production, these subliminal effects were never integrated into the film until this latest edition, according to the director. "At the time, we had to shoot and make everything we did work in front of the camera, which is one reason I think the acting in the film is so good. All the actors saw this stuff and didn't have to stand there in an empty room and imagine what was going to come later."
A theatrical re-release had been planned for the film's 25th Anniversary in 1998, but those plans were ultimately dropped. Instead, the film was included in a package of films that Warner Bros. put together to celebrate the company's 75th Anniversary that same year. Warner Bros. packaged together many of their classics and sent the fest on a national tour. New 35mm prints were struck for the films, and in addition to "The Exorcist," the package included "Bonnie And Clyde," "Superman," "Blade Runner," "Blazing Saddles," "Unforgiven," and many others. Also in '98, the film enjoyed a major theatrical re-release in the United Kingdom, which was noteworthy simply because that country's censor had refused to approve the film for a video release, denying British citizens the opportunity to legitimately obtain the film on video for years. To little surprise, the film did extraordinarily well in only a couple hundred cinemas.
Despite the lack of a North American re-release during 1998, because the year did mark the 25th Anniversary of the film, it proved that the company's home video marketing division couldn't rest, thus another DVD release followed in place of the theatrical re-release. But rather than yawn at the prospect of having to purchase the film again, most fans of the film snatched up the discs, delighted with the remastered soundtrack, Friedkin introduction and outstanding documentary "The Fear Of God" -- supplements not found on Warner's initial 1997 DVD offering.
For "The Version You've Never Seen," Friedkin supervised the new cut (which runs eleven minutes longer) and sound mix, though the studio still wasn't confident in a nationwide theatrical re-release.
In spring 2000, it was decided to quietly test the film in a few college towns across the country, including Ann Arbor, Michigan; Athens, Georgia; and Austin, Texas. According to the studio, the film performed well enough to consider a full nationwide theatrical re-release. That re-release began September 22, 2000, and the DVD release of "The Version You've Never Seen" followed three months later on December 26.
Scary Images
Warner Bros. considered "The Version You've Never Seen" to be a restoration project as well, feeling that since the film was being revisited, why not also take an opportunity to address any age-related damage that the film's original negative may have incurred over the past two-and-a-half decades. Friedkin was pleased with the results, especially when viewed from the DVD, and believes the days of presenting movies on film are numbered. "I much prefer digital video and DVD to celluloid," says the director. "Pretty soon celluloid will take its place in the history books where it belongs. It is no longer the way to deliver cinema to an audience."
Owen Roizman, the film's cinematographer, is more optimistic about the future of film, but agrees about the freedom offered by digital technology. "Quality control and the transfer process these days is exceptional," says Roizman. "With digital technology, we can enhance the images and change the images a little bit, and even make them better than the original in many ways. With DVD, you can get dynamic images and great sound." He adds that while he enjoys watching movies on DVD, he feels there is "no substitute for sitting in a theatre and seeing a beautiful image on a big screen."
"The Exorcist" re-teamed Roizman with Friedkin, whom had collaborated two years earlier on "The French Connection." What you see in the finished film is a reflection of the degree of difficulty in making it and the dynamic and friction that existed between the cast and crew. The film is very psychological in nature, and that approach is reflected in the cinematography. "We took an approach where we wanted the picture to look very realistic, but not like a documentary or something with rough edges like we had done with 'The French Connection,'" recalls the cinematographer. "We wanted it to look good, but we didn't want it to look like a classic horror film. We didn't want any under-lighting on faces or any trite clichés often done in horror films. We wanted it to be believable so that the audience would subconsciously believe that what they were seeing could possibly happen." Because many scenes set in the MacNeil house are played at very low light levels, Roizman believes that choosing to shoot the film spherically, rather than anamorphically, and composing for a 1.85:1 aspect ratio was probably the best choice for the project, and the thinking at the time was that the scope format was more suited for "exterior films or big pictures."
Unfortunately, the first time American audiences at home were able to experience the film in the original ratio it had been intended to be seen in wasn't until the 1997 DVD was released. Prior to the release of that first DVD, a Japanese import LaserDisc had been available, but they were difficult to locate and were considerably more expensive than the already fairly expensive domestic LaserDisc. Of Friedkin's films (16 features in a career spanning 30 years), the reason so few have been available on LaserDisc, and now DVD, in their original theatrical ratios is because he says that the studios believe the general public prefers having their television screens filled with an image. "This business of not showing everything that was shot in 1.85:1 in widescreen letterbox is, to me, an inaccurate presentation of the original composition, and I'm not in favor of it," opines the director. "The only reason [pan-and-scan] gets done is because the studios tell me that the public prefers it."
Remastered In Surround EX
Certainly one of the highlights of the new version of "The Exorcist" is the remastered EX-encoded digital soundtrack. While not the first time in a discrete digital format, the new mix included going back to original audio elements and essentially starting from scratch to create an all-new mix, whereas other digital soundtrack versions found on the earlier DVD and LaserDisc releases were sourced from existing stereo material. Controversial, but highly effective, the debates will surely rage over how effective multichannel sound is over monaural, and the additional debate over altering previously created soundtracks.
Since being introduced in 1999 with the soundtrack mix of "Star Wars: Episode I -- The Phantom Menace," Dolby® Digital Surround EX™ has been utilized on over twenty productions, including "Toy Story 2" and "The Haunting." This new release of "The Exorcist," however, marks the first time a film has been remastered in the process and given a theatrical re-release. There are plans for other films to be re-released theatrically (with DVD releases to follow) remastered in Surround EX, including "The Terminator" [since original publication, WSR has learned that "The Terminator" will be released directly to DVD -- Editor] and "E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial" (in 2002). Additionally, "Terminator 2: Judgment Day" and "Se7en" were remastered in EX, but released directly to DVD instead of receiving theatrical re-release treatment.
Surround EX adds an extra channel to the surrounds of a Dolby Digital 5.1 soundtrack by matrix-encoding a center back channel into the left and right discrete surrounds, offering additional creative opportunities for sound teams to engage the audience. "The Exorcist," however, posed a special challenge in that the sound team had to provide an opportunity to utilize current technology to enhance the overall soundtrack experience, but yet, stay true to the film's original mix. The revised mix was designed by Steve Boeddeker (who also contributed some new music cues) and re-recorded by Michael Minkler and Gary A. Rizzo, and completed at Todd-AO. The supervising sound effects editor was Richard King, with the Foley work for the new sound mix being recorded on Stage A at Sony Pictures. "As a huge fan of the original, I felt this need to defend it, and that's not to say I wanted to stick to its mono format, but to defend it by trying to stick to what they had originally intended stylistically," reveals Boeddeker regarding his approach to the project. "I think it is more difficult to revisit if the director's intending to take as many challenges as Billy was taking on this one. I understand where he is coming from. He's going, 'I want this to sound like what it would have sounded back then if we had the technology available to us.' That was his approach completely. For me as a fan of the movie, I was having a hard time having my sound designer hat on because I'm just sitting there going, 'Yeah, yeah, yeah, but it's "The Exorcist." We don't want to mess this up!' So that was a big, big challenge. You have a director who really wanted to push the envelope and try to make this a whole new experience, and that's a really fun and daunting task."
Boeddeker hopes that the remastering of films like "Star Wars" and "The Exorcist" will open the door to other classic films being remastered. "There are so many absolutely brilliant movies that deserve to be brought back out into the light again, and I think one of the reasons that so many studios don't consider it is because they need to get something out of it financially," says Boeddeker. "I think that 'The Exorcist' proves that you can do that, and that you can give something a second life as far as the money goes, and also there's a whole new audience that now got a chance to check the film out. It is a little bit of a drag to have to go back and sort of goose up or put new makeup on something to try to get a teenager to see a movie that came out before they were born, but if they do get a chance to see it and they appreciate it, then that's great."
The original 1973 soundtrack, recorded by Chris Newman and mixed by Buzz Knudson, was awarded that year's Academy Award for Best Sound. While mixed in mono (multichannel mixes were in the minority in the early-to-mid '70s), the soundtrack is a memorable one, with sound effects that match the film's eerie visuals perfectly. Actress Mercedes McCambridge supplied highly effective special voices for Regan and initially refused screen credit, according to Friedkin, in an attempt to further enhance the mystique of the film. Ultimately, she was listed in the film's credits.
This latest re-release was not the first time "The Exorcist" returned to theatre screens. The film was first theatrically re-released in 1979. At that time, it was still viable for studios and exhibitors to theatrically re-release films, especially since popular ones typically took longer to appear on network television, and the home video industry was in its infancy, with release patterns not yet firmly established. While re-issues historically are not known to be good boxoffice performers, there have been exceptions, most notably the animated Disney classics, which received re-issue treatment every six to eight years on average. Until the maturity of the home video industry in the mid-1980s, other successful re-issues included the "Star Wars" films, "Jaws," and "Raiders Of The Lost Ark." All-time classics like "Gone With The Wind" and "The Wizard Of Oz" also enjoyed numerous re-issues.
Prompted by the film industry's renewed interest in releasing films in 70mm in the mid-to-late 1970s, demonstrated by successful 70mm Six-Track Dolby Stereo releases of "Star Wars," "Close Encounters Of The Third Kind," "Days Of Heaven," and "The Deer Hunter," Friedkin supervised a Dolby Stereo remix and 70mm blow-up for the 1979 re-release of "The Exorcist." The film was also released in 35mm Dolby Stereo, and it was this 1979 stereo remix that was utilized on subsequent video editions until the advent of the Dolby Digital audio format on LaserDisc and DVDs. The 1979 remix was also the basis for the first discrete digital versions that appeared.
But it gets more complicated! "The Exorcist"'s soundtrack history is almost as bizarre as the film itself. A Dolby Digital 5.1-channel remastered soundtrack had been included on the 1998 25th Anniversary DVD and LaserDisc releases, and interestingly, also appears uncredited on the first DVD issued in 1997...but only on the full screen edition. The widescreen edition on that disc's flip side had the credited 2.0 track. Who made that decision?!
For the new DVD release of "The Version You've Never Seen," Warner has included, for the first time, a second English-language Dolby Digital track. In this case, a 2.0 Lt-Rt matrix track downmixed from the 5.1/EX track. Some purists might have preferred that the film's original mono track be this second track for historical or comparative purposes, and especially since other studios have done so on occasion. Paramount Home Entertainment, for instance, has included some mono originals in addition to remastered 5.1 tracks on selected titles, including "The Odd Couple" and "White Christmas." This has become a controversial topic and caused an uproar among fans last summer when Universal Studios Home Video made a decision to remix the 1975 Steven Spielberg classic "Jaws," but elected not to also include the film's original mono mix as a soundtrack option on the DVD. Some will argue that Universal's DVD practice of only including one original-language soundtrack prevented them from considering a second mono track, but the studio also released a DTS® DVD edition of "Jaws" as a separate release. The DVD spec calls for all DTS releases to also include a Dolby Digital track (typically 2.0), and this would have been a prime opportunity to place the original mono track there, instead of a 2.0 Lt-Rt that was derived from the new multichannel mix. Something for the studios to consider....
The new EX mix for "The Exorcist" provides an excellent case for the use of three surround channels, with amazing and convincing use of the 360-degree soundfield to help tell a story. Now, the debate lingers as to whether or not the changes should have been made to the film's original mono track. Gary Hecker, one of the Foley artists on the remix, believes that going back and revisiting soundtracks is a positive thing. "I think it is good [to remaster movie soundtracks] because sound adds so much dimension that people may not realize," says Hecker.
One of the reasons soundtracks are being given much attention has been because of the home theatre movement. It's no longer just a matter of having good sound quality in movie theatres. Consumers are now realizing that they can match, and even exceed, the sound performance capabilities of their local multiplex. "People are appreciating soundtracks now because they are purchasing these sound systems for their home theatres and realizing it can make a difference," Hecker adds. "Whereas before, I think audiences were taking sound for granted because they didn't really know the process and probably thinking that a lot of it came from the production set, but very little of it actually does."
Despite the complete reworking of the soundtrack, many familiar with the film will find that the integrity of the original mix remains intact, and that the sonic clarity, improved dynamic range, and spatial characteristics of the new mix more than make up for any artistic embellishments. Commenting on the creative intent of the new mix, sound designer Boeddeker adds that when people view the new version of the film, he hopes "audiences notice the hair on the back of their neck standing up."
The Artistic Debate
"The Version You've Never Seen" began its North American re-release on September 22, 2000, on over 600 theatre screens and took in just over $8 million in its initial weekend. During the run, it peaked at 1,600 screens and eventually pulled in over $40 million -- making it one of the most successful theatrical re-issues of all time. Friedkin was thrilled -- and surprised -- at the film's recent success. "Normally, re-issues play at the Nuart [a Los Angeles revival theatre] for a week, and that's it," says the director. "They're estimating that this re-release of 'The Exorcist' will do over $100 million worldwide! Re-issues don't do that!"
This doesn't mean everyone who has seen the new version approves of the changes made to the film. Despite the boxoffice success and renewed media coverage, the film in its new incarnation has stirred up a frenzy of controversy among fans and critics alike. The debate rages on as to whether or not motion pictures should be tampered with years after original release, especially when it is a classic or popular film. For many, there is a belief that once a movie is put into the marketplace, it "becomes" the audience's, and is no longer "owned" by the filmmaker. By monkeying around with a film, especially a cherished film with a huge fan base, it's entirely possible for a filmmaker to betray the audience's trust. Others, naturally, disagree.
With "The Exorcist," Friedkin has been careful to point out that he doesn't want audiences to consider the new version of the film as an outright "directors cut." But what happens now, however, is audiences are forced to always discuss the film with the qualifier of "which version"?
This is hardly the first time a film has been altered by its filmmaker. But it does mark an unusual case where the filmmaker was known to have been pleased with the film from the get-go. Typically, films are altered for other reasons, such as a director being displeased with the finished product ("Star Wars"), or the filmmaker feeling the movie was released unfinished ("Close Encounters Of The Third Kind") or when a film is tested poorly ("Blade Runner"). The more common instance occurs when a filmmaker and studio disagree over the running time. "The Abyss" was a recent example of this, where the filmmaker was given an opportunity to revisit the film and "restore" it to its original vision.
Many people have expressed their reaction to these situations. One such individual who has reservations about altering films is Leonard Maltin, film historian, critic, and author. "I really disliked the ending that was tacked on," Maltin says. "I think the original ending worked so much better. I feel the new ending is anticlimactic and pointless. When you have a great movie -- and I think 'The Exorcist' is a great movie and holds up beautifully -- the last thing you want to do is fiddle around with it. I'm enough of a purist to think that once you've made the film, it's sort of set in stone. Now that [view] may be too rigid, and I don't know that that's going to be the case anymore in our DVD era because films are becoming more malleable commodities with the alternate versions and with the ability for directors to go back and try different things and show you the deleted scenes. But when you got one that worked.... Why not go back and tinker with a film that failed or one that was rushed out before they had a chance to complete it?"
Maltin didn't particularly like the integration of the new visual effects either. "You know, George Lucas sort of put his seal of approval on this sort of thing [revising and/or adding new visual effects], and again, not everyone agreed that that was a good idea. The problem is a kind of odd situation, where for years Hollywood ignored the whole issue of film preservation. Now they're using it as a sales buzz word. 'Rediscovered footage.' 'Lost footage.' So now, when you re-issue a film or someone tries to re-issue a film in its original state, I hear people saying, 'Did they add any footage to it?' Well, why would you have to?"
Despite having reservations about some of what Friedkin changed, many, including Maltin, were very pleased to see the landmark film again. "I was very happy to revisit it on a theatre screen and still feel what I felt the first time around," says Maltin. And therein lies the rub. Sometimes, to see a film again in a technically better version, you may have to accept some tinkering. This is precisely the dilemma with much of the audience who experiences this film and others like it. The core of the original film is still intact and as effective and memorable as ever.
Don't Forget The Extras
For "The Version You've Never Seen," director Friedkin was persuaded to sit down to record a new audio commentary. For fans interested in on-set shenanigans or production tales, you may be disappointed. Instead, Friedkin masterfully discusses the thematic elements that make the film so effective and provides insight into his approach to visually interpreting the script. For students of narrative, the track, which is similar to the one featured on the 25th Anniversary DVD, is not to be missed. What people may find ironic, however, is that when listening to the track, it becomes hard to believe that "The Exorcist" was actually made by the same filmmaker who was responsible for movies like "Cruising" or "Jade"!
Friedkin, like so many contemporary filmmakers, has embraced the concept of the audio commentary, having recently completed a recording that will appear on the upcoming 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment DVD release of his other masterpiece, "The French Connection" (due for DVD release September 25). He also has recorded commentary for Paramount's "Rules Of Engagement."
To appease some fans or to initiate greater interest, Warner could have considered adding a seamless branching feature to the new disc, which could have allowed the possibility of including both the new and original edits of the film, as well as possibly allowing both the original monaural and updated multichannel soundtracks. But since the DVD with the original edition is still in print and has been a big seller, the studio may have figured, why bother? It also would have been interesting if Lalo Schifrin's original music score could have been featured in some form. Here was a case where, like Alex North's score for "2001: A Space Odyssey," the original score was not utilized in the film. The Hollywood legend is that Friedkin hated Schifrin's score so much that he threw the master out of the mixing facility and into the street! For fans who are interested in considering what "The Exorcist" could have been like with Schifrin's original music, a portion of the score is available on a CD soundtrack available in a previously issued VHS set and the Creative Design DVD collector's set.
Additionally, DP Owen Roizman had shot several hours of 16mm behind-the-scenes footage during the production that was edited into an hour-long presentation, and he tried to persuade Warner to use it on a DVD release. Unfortunately, no deal could be reached, and the footage remains unseen to this day by the general public. Nonetheless, Warner's new disc was nicely done, and serious collectors and fans will want to own both versions.
"The Exorcist" Times Five
To confuse matters, there are actually as many as five DVD editions of the movie: a 1997 DVD, the 25th Anniversary DVD release from 1998, two Creative Design Collector's Sets issued in 1999, and now, "The Version You've Never Seen." The first release from '97 has been discontinued. The Creative Design sets include an oversized slipcase, the 25th Anniversary DVD, some lobby cards, and a collectible booklet. The second Creative Design version adds a Linda Blair autograph to the collector's package.
For fans of the film, at least there's a choice of still obtaining the original version (the 25th Anniversary DVD), but something suggests most fans' collections will have more than one copy in them. Plus, the supplements are not carried over from one DVD release to the next. No matter what one thinks of the revisions made to the film, no one will be able to argue that Friedkin's tale of demonic possession doesn't remain as chilling and frightening as ever. The film masterfully incorporates the element of faith as a major theme, but without being overtly religious. No matter what one's own faith, one cannot help but have a reaction to the events depicted in the story. What works so effectively is the idea that the film dares to prove the existence of God by giving the Devil a moment in the limelight.
As for explaining why the film remains as popular today as ever before, Friedkin offers a simple explanation: "If you get a film that works, it's all because of the movie god that steps in and gets you the right elements. I'm very gratified that the film is still a living thing and not a museum piece."
The legacy of "The Exorcist" has been changed, but not necessarily tarnished. It may be a while before anyone gets to experience the film again on the big screen, but until then, the DVD is the thing. Let the nightmares return!
1. Bill Desowitz, "His Own 'Exorcist,'" The Los Angeles Times (September 21, 2000).
Special thanks to Becca Allen, Steve Boeddeker, Charles L. Campbell, Carl Samrock Public Relations, William Friedkin, Gary Hecker, Bill Kallay, Lukas Kendall, Lucas Digital Ltd., Leonard Maltin, Karen Penhale, Owen Roizman ASC, Ronnee Sass, Michael Scheinfeld, and Warner Home Video
All images copyright 1973 and 2000 Warner Bros. Pictures.
Click the below cover to read our review.
 |
then "Add to Home Screen"