Mark Kermode is perhaps my favourite film critic of all time. The co-presenter of Radio 5 Live’s ‘Kermode and Mayo’s Film Review’ and writer for the Observer, his knowledge and enthusiasm for films is encyclopaedic. Given just how much cinema he has been lucky enough to watch for a career, I’ve always been desperate to see what he regards as cinema’s greatest ever achievement.
That film? William Friedkin’s The Exorcist, with a screenplay by William Peter Blatty based on his previous novel. I knew very little about the film going into the Warwick Student Cinema, aside from its film classification (18) and genre (horror of course). I was desperate to be scared and terrified. If a comedy doesn’t make me laugh from start to finish, it’s not a comedy. Similarly, if a horror film doesn’t terrify me, it has failed. My expectations were extremely high. What I loved about The Exorcist was its pursuit of intelligence. Set initially in Iraq followed by Georgetown, a neighbourhood of Washington, D.C, the film explores the role and significance of religion within society. What is real? What is imagined? Throughout the two hours, the audience are guided through those philosophical questions while not explicitly being given the answers. For an audience watching in 1973, when religion was even more powerful, the themes of the film would have been even more prescient. The film follows Chris MacNeil (Ellen Burstyn), an actress renting a house in the capital while she takes part in filming. Living with her 12 year old daughter Regan MacNeil (Linda Blair), life is seen as fairly easy going. While her responsibilities as an actress are many, her wealth is apparent. What is most obvious is the love between mother and daughter. Chris looks forward to her day off from work when they can spend time together. If the audience didn’t believe in that bond, the entire film would fall apart. Chris is an atheist who clearly believes in scientific knowledge and rationality. This makes the reaction to her daughter behaving unusually unsurprising. Regan believes her bed is moving and that she can’t properly sleep. She moves around not of her own free will. Her entire demeanour has altered. Chris obviously believes in the need to consult a doctor. The economic divisions of affording such healthcare aren’t obviously stated. What is made clear is her love and desperation for her daughter to return to normality. The innocence of Regan throughout is apparent. It seems her worst attribute is stealing food she shouldn’t eat. Even then, her mother can’t help but still love her unconditionally. I found the scale and size of the machines - devoid of personality and love, only there to fulfil their role - contrasted brilliantly to her childhood innocence. Photographing her brain to investigate a mental condition and injecting drugs into her suddenly seem such harsh cures. The film works excellently at portraying not as some benevolent cure but something harsh and devoid of humanity. The Exorcist is often rated as one of the scariest horror films of all time. While Regan’s physical convulsions and behaviour are scary, much of the fear stems from her language. A 12 year old child is swearing, using all kinds of bad language without any fear of the consequences. In this aspect, the film is very much of its time. In 1973, a child using such language would be horrific. In 2020, Linda Blair’s ghastly vocabulary couldn’t help but make me laugh. Friedkin and Blatty’s intelligence stems from working out the conflict between science and religion. Chris has taken Regan to every psychiatrist possible and is desperate for any solution. On scientific grounds, none are in the affirmative. Instead, she turns to Father Karras (Jason Miller), a local priest at Georgetown University struggling with his own faith. Both are bemused by the proposition. Chris believes in the scientific method. Father Karras thinks exorcisms are for another age. Chris’ willingness then, to do whatever it takes, regardless of her own personal scepticism, makes the film so watchable. The ‘Groundhog Day’ aspect of Regan’s condition continually deteriorating never gets boring. It becomes obvious that Regan has been possessed by a demon which needs to be removed. I was gripped by whether she would ever get better and that, given science had completely failed her, whether a religious outcome could do anything. The film’s climax therefore lies in the exorcism. Karras, who has become sceptical about religion after his mother’s death, unites with Father Merrin (Max von Sydow) to combat the demon through religious scripture. Any previous semblance of Regan has vanished in its entirety. The demon is simply using her body to exploit other humans. In a way, the film is immensely biblical by making Regan pay for the sins of humanity. Ultimately, the film is a moving tale that combines the greatest love with the most terrifying hatred. While Chris’ exterior may be as a successful actress, the internal reality is dealing with her troubled daughter. The film achieves its literal and metaphorical height right at the conclusion where the ultimate sacrifice is performed for the greater good. I was gripped, moved and captured from start to end. Is it my favourite film of all time? No. Can I understand why Mark Kermode holds The Exorcist in the highest of regards? Absolutely.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Author:Noah enjoys writing a blog and drinking tea Archives
September 2022
Categories
All
|