The Exorcist

[Griff]

Got a programme of films coming up from my local cinema yesterday, and in October they're showing The Exorcist - the Director's Cut. Which got me and Mrs.Griff talking about the original.

Both of us thought the original, she saw it in '74 and I saw it in '81 was the scariest film we'd ever seen and never wanted to see it again.

We got out the re-released version a few years back, and it just wasn't the same film, not scary at all.

How could this film be voted the scariest film ever, which the version we both saw, most definately was, when the version you can buy - the Director's Cut, is just rubbish?

This film wasn't allowed on VHS for years, so what's the deal with this film?

Can the added footage, and the way it's cut totally change the nature of a film, from something that really, really was scary to something like a 'Friday 13th' flick.

 

[May Kasahara]

I don't think the Director's Cut is fundamentally different from the original release version. Have seen both in the cinema and they are the same film, with one having some added scenes that IMO provide extra shocks and scares. Not really sure what you mean tbh.

 

[Santino]

I can't remember which version I've seen, but I do know that the Director's Cut changes the build up of suspense. Weird things start happening earlier, and so the shock of things that happen later is much diminished.

 

[becki1701]

I think it's also to do with the time element, at the time the exorcist was made, it must have been one of THE scariest films ever, some people said Jaws made them shite themselves when that was made too, but with the rest of the stuff that's come out in the years since makes it recede a bit.

 

[Santino]

I think it's also to do with the time element, at the time the exorcist was made, it must have been one of THE scariest films ever, some people said Jaws made them shite themselves when that was made too, but with the rest of the stuff that's come out in the years since makes it recede a bit.

A few years ago the BBC showed a series of the most influential and famous 'scary' films, such as The Invisible Man, The Mummy and so on, from the 1930s, but they showed them at about 10.30 in the morning. They showed the original Nosferatu one afternoon too.

 

[Griff]

I don't think the Director's Cut is fundamentally different from the original release version. Have seen both in the cinema and they are the same film, with one having some added scenes that IMO provide extra shocks and scares. Not really sure what you mean tbh.

Well I had a look on IMDB and found this:

I disagree with almost everything the OP stated. I think the 1973 version (not the mediocre "The Version You've Never Seen" released in 2000) is one of the greatest, most mature, thought provoking, and intelligent horror films ever made. It's also one of the very few emotional horror movies ever made. Since fear is subjective not everyone is going to be scared of the same thing (I never found "The Haunting" or "The Omen" particularly frightening). I did find "The Exorcist" scary, but other than that, I wasn't bored throughout the entire film. I was engrossed throughout the entire film. I also found the movie to be technically excellent. Owen Roizman's masterful, Oscar-nominated cinematography, Dick Smith's special-makeup effects (which were remarkable for their time), and the sound effects were all ace. I also found all the performances superb (Ellen Burstyn and Jason Miller should have won the Oscars for their great work). I think this was one of the great American movies from the 1970's, and it deserves it's status as a horror classic

I really don't think the version people see these days is the same as the original, but I can't put my finger on what's changed.

 

[Orang Utan]

I've watched it twice and had two very different reactions to it - the first time I shit myself, the second time I laughed like a drain at Regan's antics - I think a certain suspension of disbelief is required and once you're familiar with the material, it's difficult for this to happen.
I remember discussing this with friends, and the people who were most disturbed by the film were the ones with strict Catholic upbringing - I suppose this is because they find it easier to accept the absurd idea of the Devil possessing a child.

 

[May Kasahara]

Hmm. The cinematography, sound effects, performances etc. are unchanged by the addition of extra scenes, so I still can't see where the difference creeps in. I'm not saying it doesn't or can't, just that I can't see that the difference would be so huge as to completely change a person's opinion or make them think they were having a very different film experience.

The first time I saw it in the cinema (commercial rerelease of the original version, Tottenham Ct Rd shitheap cinema) I found it scary, engrossing and thought-provoking; the second time I saw it (director's cut, at the NFT, with remastered sound) I found it scary, engrossing and thought-provoking, with added punch from the cleaned-up sound effects.

 

[Orang Utan]

IIRC the only difference in the two version is more footage of Regan's headspinning and the spidercrawling on the ceiling - I guess this made it more absurd and therefore less scary.

 

[Griff]

Well the first time I saw it, it was a double bill with Friday 13th on first. There was a bunch of 4 of us when we were 15 who used to go and see all the 'X' films at our local cinema in East Ham.

We'd seen shed loads of horror flicks/video nasties at that time. We all sat laughing and eating our popcorn at Friday 13th.

But it all changed with The Exorcist, we all absolutely shat ourselves, and were scared stiff after leaving the cinema, and couldn't wait to get home.

Hence wondering about the original being so damn scary.

 

[Orang Utan]

From dvdmg:
Now seen are moments deepening the impact of the performances by Linda Blair, Ellen Burstyn, Jason Miller, Max von Sydow and Lee J. Cobb. They include a "nervous disorder" diagnosis, expansion of Father Merrin's arrival before the ritual, priestly doubts during the ritual, an epilogue with Lt. Kinderman and Father Dyer and most notably, a shattering staircase descent by Regan

 

[Orang Utan]

Well the first time I saw it, it was a double bill with Friday 13th on first. There was a bunch of 4 of us when we were 15 who used to go and see all the 'X' films at our local cinema in East Ham.

We'd seen shed loads of horror flicks/video nasties at that time. We all sat laughing and eating our popcorn at Friday 13th.

But it all changed with The Exorcist, we all absolutely shat ourselves, and were scared stiff after leaving the cinema, and couldn't wait to get home.

Hence wondering about the original being so damn scary.

Er, because you were 15 and easily scared?

 

[Griff]

Er, because you were 15 and easily scared?

Not that easily scared, no, seen thing like The Omen at that point as well as countless early '80s horror stuff.

Also, as I said Mrs.Griff saw it on its first release and was petrified too.


Maybe it's just a time thing then.

 

[May Kasahara]

It might to do with your expectations as well; in a double bill with Friday the 13th I can easily imagine the impact of the Exorcist being trebled, since Ft13th is a big steaming pile of shite and a very very different kind of film. I knew what I was going to be seeing the first time I saw the Exorcist, to a certain extent at least - I was expecting an intelligently-made horror of unusual type rather than a generic bit of product.

 

[Jambooboo]

Having recently watched it, the director's cut does feel more 'complete'. And the 'spiderwalk' bit is cool, even if it does only last for about three seconds. IIRC the director's cut had more Captain Howdy in it n'all.

 

[Annierak]

I don't find it scary at all, i seen it when i was 14 and was laughing at it

 

[kyser_soze]

Leaving scariness aside, The Exorcist is a good film IMV. Books better, altho I guess there would have been some issues with a 12 year old girl mastubating with a crucifix even in the 70s...