Retro Review: The Exorcist (1973)

The scariest film of all time. Or at least that's what it says on the DVD cover. But is it really? Or did it get that reputation because it was a horror film that was way ahead of its time? We'll definitely dive into that in this review, as well as the issue of it being the most evil film of all time. Granted, that claim isn't printed on the cover of the DVD, but it's certainly a stigma that the film has carried with it since its release in 1973, especially among religious crowds, making this a bit of a forbidden film. In contrast to that, my claim will be that this is a faith-promoting film with strong themes related to us being able to overcome the devil, which is certainly a discussion I've been eager to jump into. A claim that can not be disputed is that this is one of the most successful and most influential horror films to ever be made. It made $193 million at the box office in 1973 in a year where the average ticket price was $1.77. It added $39 million with the release of the director's cut in 2000, and added an additional $235,000 with the extended director's cut in 2010, bringing its final domestic tally, unadjusted for ticket price inflation, to $232 million. When we do adjust for ticket price inflation, "The Exorcist" is the 9th highest grossing movie ever with a 2018 equivalent of $1.01 billion domestically.

For a bit more context, that 9th place spot comes two spots ahead of the 2015 release of "Star Wars: The Force Awakens," which made $936 million in 2015, and now adjusts to $988 million with 2018 ticket prices. So think of the cultural phenomenon that was "The Force Awakens" three years ago and that's what it was like for "The Exorcist" in 1973. Surprisingly enough, I can't claim that it's the highest grossing horror film ever adjusted for ticket price inflation because two years later a movie called "Jaws" came out, making $260 million in 1975, which adjusts to $1.17 billion domestically in 2018 ticket prices, good enough for 7th place on that all time list. However, when it comes to R-rated horror, the unadjusted $232 million total of "The Exorcist" was not topped until "IT" made $327 million last year. That's how much of a phenomenon "The Exorcist" was. And anytime we have a demonic possession horror film, you can look right at "The Exorcist" as the pioneer of that specific sub-genre of horror. And that all makes this a bit of an intimidating review. What can I say about this movie that hasn't already been said a thousand times over the last 45 years? Well, what I can give out is my personal opinion, which is something that hasn't been given to the world.

In giving my personal opinion, it has to be noted that I did not grow up with this film. In fact, I didn't watch this for the first time until last October when I bought it at Walmart for $5 with the idea of possibly reviewing it as a part of my Halloween movie review series. After watching it for the first, not having any idea of what to expect going in, I knew I couldn't do my review right away. It had to wait. So I gave myself a year to ponder over it and let it sink in. Then I re-watched it yesterday in preparation for this review. And I almost feel that I'm still not ready to give my review, but I don't know how much another year will really benefit me, so I'm diving in now anyways. My immediate reaction, both last year and this year, was one of surprise in how much I wasn't scared while watching this movie. Given its label as "the scariest film of all time," I took that as a challenge and I feel I won. That's why I said at the beginning of this film that maybe people in 1973 simply weren't ready for this movie? In general, movies prior to 1970 were fairly tame, but the 70's was an era that really tested the limit of what could be included in a film as the horror genre especially was one that became increasingly more intense. "The Exorcist" most certainly was a movie that helped transform the genre.

In thinking about this, I'm trying to put myself into the shoes of someone in 1973. What would've it been like to walk into a theater and see "The Exorcist" for the first time given the context of the films that typically came out around that time period. People's minds weren't conditioned for that high level of intensity that the movie delivers, thus is why there was documented cases of people being hospitalized due to how psychologically traumatic the movie was. Because of that, I can totally see why people came out of that and called the movie horrific, evil and vile. For me, though, I was born in the late 80's when the genre had already been transformed. A graphic, violent horror film became the norm in the 80's, which continued into the 90's, 2000's and 2010's. So when I see a horror film whose prime focus is the shock value, it's not going to impact me in the same way as someone born in the 40's, grew up with films in the 50's and 60's, then was exposed to "The Exorcist" in 1973. I'm not going to walk out saying that this was the most evil, gross and vile movie I've ever seen. Because it's not. A lot of movies that this inspired are a whole lot worse. And if "The Exorcist" first came out in 2018, I don't think anyone would've been hospitalized.

I think that's why it was important for me to give this a year before getting my review out because an immediate reaction would've been unfair to the movie as a whole. The only thing I knew about this when I turned it on was that it was supposed to be the scariest film of all time and it had something to do with a little girl being possessed. When I finished the movie and I wasn't scared, I might've given a somewhat negative review because I didn't get what I expected. However, now that I've given myself time to realize what this movie really is, I can give a better analysis of it. I can press play on the film knowing that I'm not going to be scared, which can then allow me to focus on the story that's being told and the themes that are being presented rather than bracing for impact with scenes that are supposed to terrify. And that's where this movie blossoms into a beautiful masterpiece. I can see a movie that's about a mother who really loves her daughter. I can see the horror and sadness that takes place when her daughter slowly goes downhill with some sort of condition that no one can pin down. I can see the story of a Catholic priest struggling with his own faith, who eventually becomes strong enough to overpower the devil and help a struggling family.

That's why I would strongly disagree with someone who calls this movie evil. Again, I can see why people in the 1970's gave it that label. But in my view, just because you include realistic depictions of the devil, demonic possession, and/or witchcraft, it does not make your movie evil. An evil movie would be one where the devil is endorsed or witchcraft is encouraged. Believe it or not, I have not seen a horror movie that actually does that, especially not these demonic possession movies. In fact, the overall theme in every case is that the evil can be overcome. Even if I'm being too absolute in that claim, at the very least I will stand by my opinion that "The Exorcist" is not an evil movie. It just does a more realistic job of showing how evil the devil can be. Granted, in showcasing that, I fully understand that this is not a movie for everyone. If you have a high sensitivity to blood, gore, or graphic imagery, this is a movie to stay away from because it doesn't hold back. It does a great job of showing how vile and disturbing this demon is. I don't think it glorifies the violence in the way an Eli Roth film would. But the attempt here is to be realistic and it definitely accomplishes that. In fact, the term "realistic" is the best way of describing "The Exorcist" as a whole.

In terms of specifics, I am surprised at how long it takes to set up. At the same time, though, it allows for plenty of character arcs to be woven in together, making this much more of a character piece than I was expecting. For the most part I think this is a great thing. Good characters is what a lot of horror films forget to establish, so I really appreciate this movie for doing a solid job at making me care about the characters before setting up the horror. Specifically I think it was important to set up the relationship with the mother and the daughter. The daughter is played by then 14-year-old actress Linda Blair, a fairly new actress in only her third big screen role. She does a great job of being a sweet, innocent teenage girl and there's a strong bond between her and her mother, who is played by Ellen Burstyn. Their relationship is so good that when the daughter starts acting strangely, it becomes quite jarring. Thus you feel for the mother when she starts to panic, especially since none of the doctors can nail down exactly what's wrong with the daughter. And I kinda liked how they didn't immediately turn straight to demonic possession as the answer, because the realistic setting is that many people nowadays probably don't believe in that.

On that note, when we did go over to the Catholic priests in the movie, I liked how that angle of the movie was more of a slow burn. Instead of being like other demonic possession movies that followed where the Catholic church immediately sends out priests to perform an exorcism, the process here is a lot more methodical. The main priest in the movie, Father Karras, played by Jason Miller, is also a psychiatrist, his first reaction is that of hesitation because he feels that it's more appropriate to put her in the care of good medical professionals since modern medicine and medical diagnoses have made exorcisms a lot less common in the modern day. Plus, he himself is going through a bit of a crisis of faith, especially after the death of his mother. All of this builds to a more resonant climax when the moral becomes to turn to God for help. It doesn't shove religion in your face, but rather makes the final decisions in the movie feel like more of a natural progression of each character's story arc. I also believe that the mother of the possessed teenager is an atheist to begin with, or at least is someone who is not a faithful church-going individual, so her finally making the decision to turn to the Catholic priests for help with her daughter is also a great finish to her story arc.

I did say that the decision to take a long time to set up the plot is a great thing for the most part. The slight negative criticism I have is that it does feel like the movie drags its feet a bit in getting to the point. The movie has a lot more side characters than it probably needs and by the time the mother has gone to the 10,000th doctor to figure out what's wrong with her daughter, you would think she would've got the point that the doctors aren't going to do anything, but the movie makes sure to drive that point home so that no one in the audience will forget that the doctors can't do anything. This unfortunately made it so that my eyes got a bit heavy during both viewings of the movie when it came to the first half of the film. I don't want to call it boring, but the second half of the movie is certainly a lot more interesting than the first half. But the wait certainly does pay off. When Jason Miller as Father Karras and Max von Sydow (who looks just as old in this film as he does in "The Force Awakens") as Father Merrin are both in the home performing the long exorcism on the girl, this is an extremely rewarding sequence. I'd go as far as saying this is the absolute best exorcism sequence that I've ever seen as all the emotions build to this intensely fascinating climax.

As far as a grade for this movie goes, I've been struggling with what to give this ever since I watched this last year for the first time. If I'm being honest, had I rushed in and reviewed this movie last year, I may have only wound up giving this a 7 or an 8, which is one of the main reasons why I knew I needed to give this more time. I thought that if I did give it time and get around to it this year instead, perhaps I'll come to see exactly why this is such a beloved film. And I will say that I have come to appreciate this film more in the last year. In watching it again yesterday, I certainly had a higher appreciation for the film and was able to give a better analysis of its fascinating themes. And I know what I'm SUPPOSED to say. I'm supposed to call this a flawless masterpiece. I'm supposed to say that this is one of the best, if not the best, horror film ever made and the Godfather of all demonic possession horror films. And I wanted to make that claim, but if I'm being honest with myself, I don't think I'm there yet. Could that change in 5-10 years after I've given myself even more time to mull it over in my head and pick up on all the details and character arcs? It's quite possible. But at this very moment in time, I think I can only get "The Exorcist" to a 9/10. Take that for what it's worth.