Film, a medium that has long captured our collective imaginations, witnessed a seismic shift in 1973. A cinematic event, if you will, that forever altered the way we perceive fear, dread, and the art of storytelling on the silver screen. That event was William Friedkin’s magnum opus, “The Exorcist.”
“The Exorcist“‘s potency isn’t just gauged by the number of Oscars it was nominated for (an impressive ten, to be precise), but also by its sustained influence over both the horror genre and the cultural zeitgeist. While earlier works like Roman Polanski’s “Rosemary’s Baby” and Nicolas Roeg’s “Don’t Look Now” created a certain ambiance of unease, and later movies like Ridley Scott’s “Alien” injected nail-biting suspense into our veins, it is “The Exorcist” that stands tallest among its peers. Its tapestry of terror is unparalleled, leaving an indomitable mark not just on celluloid but also on our very souls.
Though Friedkin’s repertoire boasts other classics, particularly the 1971 police procedural “The French Connection,” it’s “The Exorcist” that possesses an evergreen aura. While the former set new benchmarks in the crime genre and is revered by filmmakers and critics alike, the latter remains etched in popular memory. Ask a cinephile about a movie scene that left them aghast, and more often than not, they’ll recount iconic moments from “The Exorcist”: Linda Blair’s Regan, possessed, with her head in a haunting rotation, or the disturbing levitation scenes.
“When you witness horror from a seat of faith, it terrifies differently,” recounted a viewer who first experienced this masterpiece under the stars at an Australian drive-in theater. That sentiment encapsulates the ethos of this film. The haunting strains of Mike Oldfield’s “Tubular Bells” became an anthem of disquiet, making our hearts race and eyes dart, anticipating the unseen.
The genius of Friedkin lay in his remarkable orchestration of audio-visual elements. In an era devoid of digital enhancements, he relied on practical effects. The eerie bedroom, where you could see the actor’s breath as they exhaled, was not achieved by post-production trickery but by chilling the room to a frigid temperature. The commitment to realism, to make the viewer believe the implausible, was Friedkin’s hallmark.
“The Exorcist” wasn’t just a film; it was an experience. A terrifyingly immersive journey that didn’t exploit its subject matter. At its core, it was a gripping drama about the age-old battle between good and evil, set against the backdrop of modernity. A tale that was amplified by the casting of stalwarts like Ellen Burstyn, Max von Sydow, and Lee J. Cobb.
Its monumental success, both critically and commercially, gave rise to numerous sequels, imitations, and parodies. Films like “The Omen” rode on its coattails, ushering in an era where religious horror became mainstream. But not all that followed could recreate the same magic. Subsequent attempts, including “Exorcist II: The Heretic” and “The Exorcist III,” failed to create an impact. Even a 2016 TV series named after the original couldn’t capture its essence.
As we approach the release of a reboot, “The Exorcist: Believer,” spearheaded by David Gordon Green, anticipation mingles with trepidation. Can lightning strike twice? Perhaps. But there’s one thing that remains certain. No matter how many reboots or sequels emerge, the haunting allure of the original “The Exorcist” will forever beckon us, compelling us to revisit the chilling masterpiece that William Friedkin masterfully crafted.
Click on this link to read this article in French version
