The Exorcist — Exploring the Disturbing
Does one of the most disturbing horror movies of all time deserve that title?
A Few Disclaimers…
- This is a discussion of the movie. While I have read the novel written by William Peter Blatty, the movie is often the most talked about. And while the book and the movie contain much of the same content, the movie pushed more boundaries by taking the words off the page and giving audiences something to look at (or hide their eyes from). I love the book, and I will briefly mention it every once in a while, but the movie will be my focus today.
- Disturbing is a very subjective descriptor. What I find disturbing may not disturb others, and vice versa. This is not an objective exploration; this is merely my own opinion on the matter.
- I will not be talking about the sequels.
- I first watched The Exorcist long after it was released, and already knew most of what was going to happen. But, if you have yet to hear about or see The Exorcist and are hoping to watch it without spoilers: 1). Good on you (how did you do it?), and 2). don’t read this article. It will contain spoilers.
A Journey to 1973
December 1973. Two years prior, author William Peter Blatty released The Exorcist, a perverse novel that told the story of a young girl, Regan, who becomes possessed by a demon. As the story progresses, characters are challenged: Regan’s mother, Chris, an atheist, must learn to put her trust in a god she doesn’t believe in to help her daughter overcome the possession; Father Karras, a priest, must regain his faith in order to give Regan the help she needs; and Father Merrin, an elderly priest, fights a literal demon from his past.
Upon release, the book sold over 13 million copies, becoming the first horror novel to reach number 1 on the New York Times bestseller list. Two years later, director William Friedkin, best known for The French Connection at the time, was releasing a book-to-film adaptation of Blatty’s novel, and theaters were filling. Making 441.3 million USD, it was a commercial success, and, for the most part, general audiences and critics seemed to enjoy it.
You heard of this movie and its successes and decided to go see it for yourself. You got your ticket, you found your seat, you ate your popcorn… and the movie began. But as the story progressed, you found yourself getting a little queasy. You saw blood, you saw vomit, you saw a young girl jamming a crucifix into her private area. As you looked around, you noticed other watchers covering their eyes or looking away in disgust. Some people were walking out, others were ruining their bucket of popcorn with what they had already eaten. It was a sight to behold… but you made it through.
Days after you watched the movie, you began to hear the criticisms. Hardcore Christians were offended by the film’s themes and imagery. Casual moviegoers were thrown off by the unabashed inclusions of blood, vomit, and child violence. Others were simply unable to sleep after watching it. You reflected on what you watched and thought to yourself: are these criticisms valid? You pondered for a while, but ultimately moved on with your life, unaware of the lasting impact the film would have on both the horror genre and the film industry.
Back to 2024
Watching The Exorcist today with an understanding of when it initially released makes it very clear to me why the film has survived the test of time. Horror has always been a perverse genre, but, before The Exorcist, there was an unspoken, general rule that horror films followed: leave the suffering to the adults. Kids could witness something, sure, and run off screaming, but they could not be shown as a victim of whatever threat the main characters were facing. It was just too taboo. Hell, Frankenstein (1931) was going to do it, but the scene of Frankenstein’s monster chucking a little girl into a river to drown was cut, as it was deemed too taboo. That scene, along with other cut content, was brought back into the film in the 1986 restoration. But, of course, that was after The Exorcist had already changed the horror landscape.
The funny thing is that Blatty’s novel was not the first book to feature violence on children — one of the most popular books featuring child death is William Golding’s Lord of the Flies, and that released a little less than 20 years prior to the other William’s child-harming story. The problem is that while stories like Lord of the Flies do feature children dying, they don’t feature demonic possession. And that, my friends, was also an immensely taboo subject in the 70s, with around 90% of America’s population considering themselves Christians (more on that later).
While books featured that kind of violence, no film had ever tried. It’s one thing to write words on a page to conjure images into people’s heads; it’s another thing to take those words, craft a scene, film it, and force audiences to see it with their eyes. It’s subjectivity vs. objectivity: the words on a page lead us to create our own subjective images in our brain, while films objectively shows us the violence so that everyone is seeing the same thing. That’s why the film stands out from the book: Friedkin forced us all to see the exact same, violent thing. That, and plenty of people saw the movie without having read the book. Those people were in for a real treat.
A Religious Affair
As I mentioned before, one of The Exorcist’s biggest themes is religion and faith. According to an article posted by the Pew Research Center (link included at the end of the article), around 90% of the States’ population in the 70s considered themselves Christian, so a movie with demonic subject matter was bound to turn heads… especially a film about a child getting possessed. To craft a movie designed to entertain audiences with a demon-possessed child was obviously a risky move, but Friedkin didn’t really seem to care. The film, after all, is about the regaining of faith and the putting of trust into God to save a little girl from demonic entities. Friedkin, and presumably Blatty, did extensive research to accurately depict the practices of Catholic priests during exorcisms. To me, the care is obvious. Even so, the December 26th release date of the film didn’t help dissuade Christians from hating on the film, regardless of the accuracy of the film’s content.
That content and the themes of the film, however, are what helped make the film so disturbing at its release. Yes, the violence disgusted people, and the harm done to a child disturbed people, but its Christian themes really helped freak people out, especially during a time where demons and the devil really freaked people out. And perhaps that was the goal of both Blatty and Friedkin. Friedkin, after all, admitted to being a believer rather than a skeptic, so perhaps his hopes were that Christians would watch it and more strongly understand the importance of faith.
Is It Still Disturbing Today?
While I’m sure viewers who have a hard time watching horror will find themselves covering their eyes during a 2024 viewing — if they don’t refuse to watch it altogether — I can’t say that the movie would hit the same mark if it was released today. For starters, less Americans consider themselves Christians, so the themes wouldn’t hit as hard, nor would the demon Pazuzu be seen as an as likely threat. Then there’s the fact that the boundaries The Exorcist initially pushed are much, much wider today, due in part to the many horror creators inspired by Friedkin and Blatty to create something perverse (what perverse looks like today is much different from what it looked like in the 70s).
Do I personally find The Exorcist disturbing? No. But that should not detract from the fact that this movie hit hard when it released. It’s considered disturbing by so many people for a reason — I just wasn’t around in that era to feel the same impact.
The reason I chose to talk about this movie is because I am a huge fan of disturbing content, and I love when creators push the boundaries of the conventional to create something shocking and unique. So, while I don’t get uncomfortable when watching The Exorcist — nor did I when I first watched it — I heavily respect Friedkin for what he did. The practical effects are still amazing, and look way better than the shitload of CGI we get thrown in our faces today. Moreover, as mentioned before, The Exorcist did push boundaries. I personally believe that the horror genre would be completely different if this movie was never made.
I also wanted to talk about The Exorcist because it is a perfect sign of the times. Was it disturbing when it came out? Hell yes. Is it as disturbing now? No. And why? Because we live in a different time now. Different themes will hit hard at different times. Different things disturb us today than they did back in the 70s. That’s just how time works.
In Conclusion…
I am hoping to cover more disturbing movies in the future. I love talking about them — after all, they are movies made specifically to be talked about. If you can think of any disturbing movies you would like me to cover, feel free to leave a comment and I will see what I can get to. There’s probably a lot I could have said in this essay but didn’t, so if you have any input on the disturbing qualities of The Exorcist, feel free to comment those, as well.
P.S. I have seen The Exorcist: Believer, and if you want to know my thoughts on that… you should check out my Letterboxd :) (@BennyHur).
P.P.S. You can find a few sources below. The links will take you to websites I got some information from, in case you are curious.
Thanks again for reading.
Sources:
