The Exorcist: Director's Cut (Extended Edition)

The Exorcist (1973) was never expected to become the classic that it is today. With an estimated budget of $10,497,444, Director William Friedkin mortified and disturbed teens and adults so severely that The Exorcist is known as the “scariest movie ever made”. The version of this movie that I viewed is the Director’s cut; this version does not omit anything, it is actually longer than the originally released one. The Director’s Cut is William Friedkin’s original finished work, but because of the graphic nature of the Director’s Cut, some scenes were cut to be more suitable for movie theater viewing. The original and current Motion Picture Rating (MPAA) in the United States is R for its strong language and disturbing images. The Exorcist takes place in Georgetown in the current day of the movie’s release (1973). The movie follows the life of a twelve-year-old girl, Regan MacNeil (Linda Blair), during the duration of her possession by an evil demon that claims to be the Devil. The opening scene of the movie takes place in Iraq at an archaeological site where Father Merrin (Max Von Sydow) is working; during this scene a figurine is found that you see throughout the whole movie and seems to have ties to Regan’s possession. You are then introduced to Regan and her Mother, Chris MacNeil (Ellen Burstyn). Regan’s Mother is an actress; she and Regan had just moved to Georgetown in Washington D.C. for the movie Chris was starring in. During this introduction Regan is a completely normal twelve-year-old girl who is excited about a horse she had seen that day and loves crafts; but Chris finds an Ouija board in the basement that Regan claims to use to talk to a ghost named “Captain Howdy”. As the movie progresses strange things begin happening in the house, like banging sounds in the attic and the window in Regan’s room being open, making the room freezing cold. After an incident where Regan’s bed begins shaking her personality begins to completely change. Chris takes her to the doctor where they believe that she just needs to take a medication, Adderall, and she will soon be better. After a scan of her brain they find that there aren’t any abnormalities which make her behavior much less explainable. The possession really takes hold of Regan after the scans. The possession of Regan results in the death of three characters and multiple scenes that contain an overwhelming amount of profanity, sexual references and innuendoes, and violence that all come from 12-year-old Regan. Although The Exorcist was released in 1973, it displays excellent use of special effects. The face of a demon that appears in some places is used frequently; the demons face is always just an overlay on the film rather than an actor that is actually being filmed with the scene. They also sometimes overlay photos of the figurine found in the archeological site. Some other advanced and convincing effects used were making Regan’s bed shake, making her head spin around, violent thrashing, cuts that are caused by holy water being thrown as if it was a whip, and projectile vomiting. Sound is something used very often to achieve different effects. Music played always matches the type of scene. For example, suspenseful music is played during suspenseful scenes. The iconic Exorcist theme song, Tubular Bells, is played right before some of the strange things with Regan happen while Chris is walking home. They also make sounds louder to put emphasis on things. During a scene where Father Merrin is going to leave Iraq, the sounds of traffic and working people is amplified as well as the sounds of dogs fighting when he looks at a larger version of the evil figurine that was found. You also see this in a scene where Father Damian Karras (Jason Miller) is going to visit his Mother, in a city neighborhood that isn’t as well off as the other neighborhoods you see in the movie, any sounds that are negative like a woman yelling or children jumping on a car are very loud in comparison to other sounds in the scene. Another interesting use of sound is the many voices that Regan has when she is possessed. She takes on the voice of the demon (Mercedes McCambridge) as well as some other voices, one of which is the voice of Father Damian’s Mother (Vasiliki Maliaros); these voices are added seamlessly and match up with Regan’s mouth movements very well. Lighting is something else that was used a lot (and well) to create different atmospheric effects. In Iraq most of the lighting that was prominent was from the sunrise and sunset. The sun would always be very bright yellow on a very red sky. Most lighting in the movie is created just by the regular light of the room, like a lamp or harsh fluorescent lighting. The makeup used is very convincing. The longer Regan is possessed, the less human she begins to look; this effect is accomplished by first making her become pale with very dry and cracking lips, and then by progressively creating the look of sores, cuts, and bruises all over her. They also successfully created a false stomach over Regan’s real stomach that had very pronounced ribs and the words “Help me” that appeared to have been written from inside her stomach. There wasn’t any makeup that wasn’t perfectly executed. The actors in The Exorcist performed very well. Everyone does an excellent job expressing the emotions that you imagine someone would feel in the situation that they are in. I am especially impressed with Linda Blair’s performance, she was very young when she portrayed the possessed main character of this movie, she had to take on multiple personalities for her character and she did so flawlessly. There wasn’t any acting in the movie that I can think of a complaint for. Some people may argue that The Exorcist isn’t really the “scariest movie ever made” or that it really isn’t as good as I think it is; most of this is due to the age of the movie. Many people see the special effects in The Exorcist as cheesy and therefore the movie as not scary. When I see The Exorcist I see amazing effects for its time and an incredibly scary movie psychologically. Overall it is hard to argue that The Exorcist is not a great movie. Of all the horror movies that have been made, The Exorcist has to be one of the most classic and most compelling of them all.

This may well be the most satisfying blu-ray purchase I have made to date and I wish all future blu-ray releases will be like this. Like many other film fans out there I face a struggle at times trying to justify the double-dip from the dvd or even the vhs but this release sure made it easy for me. Firstly, I'm a big fan of digibooks and indeed anything that is as far removed from the usual dvd release as possible. The content is usually very informative and useful and it is certainly the case here. Secondly, to have both the Director's Cut AND the Thearetical Release versions here is joyful for the fan (George Lucas try to contain your greed and take note!). Thirdly, this film has been restored admirably and looks excellent and hence way scarier in 1080p although for some reason the picture quality seemed a little better for the thearetical release as compared with the director's cut and I'm assuming that it's because the missing bits that were added for the latter were poorly preserved and so to fit in with the rest of the frames some extra work was needed that brought the quality down a little as compared with the former version but I'm merely guessing here. The sound quality for both versions though in wonderful DTS HD MA 5.1 surround is simply stunning and certainly beyond reproach. As to the various cuts argument I personally would have done a different "Reviewer's Cut" although I have to say that the original thearetical version was pretty well done already but I do have some sympathy with Blatty. For my "Reviewer's Cut" version, I would leave out the "spider on the staircase" scene and perhaps the extended ending with the policeman but I would keep some of the ending like when the priest tells the mother to keep Karas' medal and perhaps just end it a little after that just before the policeman shows up. I would also keep the staircase dialogue between the exorcists as I do agree with Blatty that it is a key scene and I disagree with Friedkin that it is "understood" or "stating the obvious"; sometimes with filmgoers you need to state the obvious for emphasis and I feel that to be the case here. I would leave out the additional scene of Karas playing the recording of Regan's normal voice as in that case I feel it was not necessary to show how normal Regan was because I think we get it already from the beginning of the film although I would keep the added footage of the mother talking with the doctors. There you have it! This reviewer's cut! But all in all if I had to choose between the two I'd say the Thearetical Version is good as is that is until my Reviewer's Cut is made :-) This film shocked me and when I first saw even the censored version of it years ago as a child I have to say it bothered me no end and led to many a sleepless night but as I grew older and hence better able to see the bigger picture I've come to realise that this is a great love story with many facets to show that Good always triumphs over Evil and that even if it may seem that Evil wreaks all kinds of calamity and havoc and has the upper hand but in the final analysis Good still wins. In the end, the priest who lost his faith gains redemption through imitating his model Jesus Christ; in taking onto himself all of the evil inhabiting the child and dying for her salvation he does on a smaller scale what Christ did in taking on all the evils of the entire world onto himself and dying for it so that it may be redeemed and live in spiritual freedom again. Also in the example of Karas and the entire experience I think we can safely say that Regan's mother is no longer an aetheist! I guess there are no aetheists in foxholes and in demonic possession! It was very touching watching this transformation of Karas' character from the start of the film to the very end. For me the most important and most memorable scene of the entire film was the one at the bottom of the stairs after the older priest sends Karas out of the room because he was not cutting it and when the mother asks if Regan was going to die and as if in a Garden of Gethsemane moment Karas steels himself and decides no way! I'm going to save that child no matter what and just like Jesus going from Gethsamane to his death on the cross Karas goes from the bottom of the stairs up to the room where he dies to save the child. Beautiful! Next to The Passion of the Christ (Definitive Edition) [Blu-ray ] this film is a great picture to encourage Christians everywhere. All the demon succeeded in doing was to give yet another opportunity for Self-Sacrificing Goodness to exhibit itself and bring Hope instead of the Despair that was intended as was so well put by von Sydow in the dialogue on the stairs scene that should have been kept in the original version. Yes, it is still the scariest film ever seen and made scarier with the 1080p and the DTS HD MA 5.1 surround treatment and yet it is among the more hopeful films that I have ever seen as well making this among the top 10 films that I've ever seen as well. Very disturbing if you are seeing it for the first time and I can only imagine how much more of the case that was in the 1970s but if you pay attention to the characters and all the storylines it is also among the most rewarding film experiences that you are likely to have. Very highly recommended!

This is the 2010 _Region_Free_ U.K. 2-disc Blu-ray release. It's the same as the U.S. 2-disc digi-book without the book, just the two discs in a standard Blu-ray two disc case. Case cover and disc have European markings. The blue and read seals with numbers (18; minimum purchase and viewing age) are the Irish (Rep. of) and U.K. These are their government equivalents of the U.S. film industry's MPAA ratings; film is rated "R" by MPAA which equates to the Irish and U.K. ratings. The discs have these two seals plus a third, German one (minimum age in Germany: 16). Unlike European DVDs which usually cannot play properly in U.S. DVD players (PAL vs. NTSC encoding; an issue completely unrelated to region protection code "flags"), region free Blu-ray discs should play without any problem in U.S. Blu-ray players. Indeed they should play in *any* Blu-Ray player in *any* region (that's had its firmware updated/maintained properly). The 2000 "Extended" version is on Disc 1 with some of the extras; 1973 "Theatrical" version is on Disc 2 with more extras. Both discs are 50 GB dual-layer. The 2010 transfer of both versions is excellent without jitter and containing superb detail with equally excellent restoration to eliminate any significant print damage. Color rendition looks good (to me). I did not see any DNR issues. It's not 100% perfect, but quite likely about as good as can be done transferring and re-mastering 37 year old print(s). Some difference in film stocks and shooting units (cameras ??) can be seen in the beginning that was shot in Iraq if one looks carefully at these scenes. In addition, film grain can be seen in places. This isn't the transfer, it's the original film stock used, and the cinematography units and their cameras. In short, on a 1080p HDTV, it's about as good as you'd get as an optical projection of a film print in a theater. Original audio was monaural (surprised me some for a 1973 film). It's been remixed to DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1 ES on the "Extended" and DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1 surround on the "Theatrical." Sounds very good with things still well centered on the "center" channel; remixing was not over-done. Fidelity is quite good considering its source is a 1973 era analog monaural recording (the kind of fidelity and bass thumping found in current films isn't there and never was). Mid-level and higher home 5.1 systems will deliver better audio with finer details to be heard than anyone ever experienced in any theater in 1973. Purists might complain that the transfer was reformatted to 1.78:1 (16:9 HDTV ratio) compared to the 1.85:1 aspect ratio as it was originally projected theatrically using a projection mask on the theater projector's film gate. This was NOT done by cropping anything from what was originally projected in theaters, it was performed by opening up the frame slightly top and bottom during the transfer. The full-frame original negative and work prints are 1.37:1 aspect ratio (~4:3). Cinematography was composed in-camera for 1.85:1 projection during shooting using viewfinder masks. (This was and continues to be an industry standard alternative to shooting and projecting for wide screen using anamorphic lenses.) What's to say about the film itself? It's a well-known classic - even those (adults) who have never seen it generally understand its content. Completely deserving of its R rating by the MPAA due to extremely strong language, a very disturbing scene with sexual content involving the girl (while possessed), and graphically violent death scenes. It is only one or two steps shy of NC-17 although the MPAA has gradually become much more tolerant with film content over the years. Like most thrillers, suspense and horror genre of its era, its pacing is slower than many current films in these same genre that launch immediately into non-stop action. Instead, it lays the character and story groundwork while gradually building the frequency and intensity of disturbing and horrific incidents until the climax at the very end. As I understand it, the "Extended" version is the 2000 Director's Cut which restored nearly all (if not all) the scenes that were cut by Friedkin after the studio execs reviewed the film. Blatty, the novel and screenplay author, was extremely upset with Friedkin for many years over this, in spite of the film's immense success and continued popularity. The "Extended" represents what would have been originally released had a studio exec not suggested these cuts, or if Friedkin had ignored that exec's suggestions. It's become a horror classic that has withstood nearly four decades of other horror film writers and directors chasing after its macabre presentation of pure evil . . . and this done in an era without any CGI and other modern special effects. It doesn't need the modern audio-visual shock methods as its terror preys upon the mind as much or more as it does the visual and aural senses. Few since are its peer. The ten Academy nominations including Best Picture, and seven Golden Globe nominations it received . . . unheard of for a horror film including being the first one nominated for an Academy Best Picture . . . should be telling. In my opinion it's a "must see" . . . either version . . . for those that like or study the horror and thriller film genre (although I recommend the Extended). Note that even now, the writer and director do NOT consider this a "horror" film and never have. They have always characterized it as a (theological) "thriller." Put it into whatever genre bin you wish. It still ranks as one of the "scariest" films ever made. Various scenes have remained shocking even with repeated viewing and knowing what will happen next.

I have the VHS tape, the original DVD, the 25th anniversary DVD, The 25th anniversary box (with book, lobby cards and actual frame from the film),the extended version DVD, the anthology box set with all the films in the series, the paperback, 2 hard covers, and the audio book read by the author. I also have an excellent book on the making of the film. Needless to say I am an expert on the film as I have been revisiting it since I first saw it on tv in the 70's. I am psyched for the Blue-ray release. I am about to turn 41, and have yet to see a movie that scares me as much as The Exorcist. The Omen came close, Texas chainsaw was cool. Amityville was great, but let's face it. The Exorcist was so well written, expertly researched (based on a true story), and brilliantly directed. Linda Blair was 14 years old, playing a 12 year old. She never matured into a great actress, but what a job she did in this film, and she was only 14! The movie was so well cast. Even some of the priests were real priests! It doesn't scare me any more due to the hundreds of times I've seen it, but I still revisit it because it is an achievement beyond any other film. There were no computers back then, so you can't really compare the effects to a Star Wars, or a Titanic. The job these guys did with what they had is beyond words. The scares don't come from a Freddy, Jason or Michael Myers jumping out of a dark corner. The true fright comes from the fact that the movie makes you feel like you might actually be looking directly into the eyes of a demon, if not Satan himself. The mind games that the demon plays with Father Karras, while Karras is trying to prove genuine possession are riveting. If you've never owned it I demand that you purchase the Blue-ray edition. If you own it already, you may not want to shell out the extra cash for an upgrade unless you are a fanatic like me. I highly recommend the original novel. I also recommend the book on the actual TRUE case this story is based on. It's called Possessed: The True Story of an Exorcism by Thomas B. Allen. ***UPDATE*** The Blu-ray is phenominal! You'll see things in great detail for the first time. The colors in Regan's eys are unbelievable. The Blu-ray comes with both the original version and the updated 2000 version with added scenes, and a booklet. Even if you have the dvd I still recommend the upgrade to Blu-ray. Fans of the film are welcome to e-mail me at [email protected].

I never saw The Exorcist when it came out in 1973, or afterward, because I heard about some of the disgusting scenes in it and I figured I didn't want those images polluting my imagination and my memory. I had the impression then that the movie was chiefly a shallow, poor grade creation made for sensational appeal. Recently, though, in 2011, I saw an interview with the author of the book, Wm P Blatty, and I liked him and his comments about the newer version of his book and movie. I was also interested in his comments about how he, like so many writers, clearly experiences himself as a "channel" of the creative material that comes to him chiefly from outside himself. After reading some reviews of this revision of The Exorcist movie, which includes extra new scenes and a new, improved soundtrack, I decided I'd like to see it--particularly in light of the fact that the Catholic Church is making exorcism very available lately because of a greatly increasing need for it. This was not at all the case in 1973, which is clear from a priest's comments in the movie. After viewing the revised film, I'm surprised that I find it a pretty high quality bit of film-making. It's a well-told story based on the facts of an actual case of possession and exorcism, which to my way of thinking puts it out of the horror movie genre. I didn't find it scary, and I didn't find the disgusting sights (like green vomit) to be overwhelming to my imagination. I found it less troubling than the sights in some scenes I've glimpsed in recent horror movies (that I've then decided not to watch all the way through). I did find the language of Regan Possessed to be very ugly and I wish I didn't now have the memory of it. My main reaction to all the outrageous stuff in the movie was that I was curious to see how a possessed person acted, and thus I got insight into the horrible traits of the devil and demons. Because I found the mother's language objectionable, too (but much less so than Regan's, of course), and she was temperamental, I didn't quite "like" the mother, even though her part was very well-acted and plausible. I thought all the actors were excellent in their roles, but I did feel there was a certain lack of "priestliness" conveyed in the priests' characters, excepting Fr Merrin. Especially, Fr Karas never seemed to me like a Priest who was disaffected from his vocation; he seemed merely like an ordinary man who was disaffected with life. In other words, his character seemed to have no sense of a depth of "holiness" about it, not even faded holiness. His prayers seemed like the prayers of just a troubled man. I thought the finalizing scenes between the priest who survived (don't recall his name) and Regan, and then between that priest and the policeman, were a very good addition which helped to give a proper closure to the story. The cleansed Regan looks at the priest's collar and makes a spontaneous move to kiss him on the cheek, a scene which serves to show that a part of her recognizes who was helping her during the possession and that she is now grateful to the priests, two of whom have died in the process of helping her. Then, in the scene between the priest and the policeman, this priest, unlike Fr Karas before him, does accept the policeman's bid for friendship, so the movie ends on a note of comradeship and normalcy in these survivors, who are good guys still at large in the world, working in roles that uphold the social and religious fabric of society. It's a relief to have the note of comedy they provide, too, as normal "life goes on." My main criticism is that there seemed to be some holes in the story. For instance, what caused Regan to become possessed in the first place? There is a scene where she is shown playing with a Ouija board, but the movie never "spells out" the idea that Regan's use of the Ouija board serves as an invitation for the devil's entrance into Regan's being. Also, what is the connection between Regan's possession and what appears to be a supernatural desecration of a statue in a Catholic Church? And, overall, what is the connection in all the demonic events in Georgetown with the devilish artifact discovered in Iraq by archeologist, Fr Merrin, and how does this artifact happen to turn up later in Georgetown at the site of a man murdered by Regan? Overall, a very compelling story about the little-known matter of demonic possession. A well-made film, well-acted. Worth seeing. Can be considered a historic first, I suppose, in the Possession genre.

In 2000, 'The Exorcist' was re-released in theatres with added footage. I was a junior in high school, and a few weeks previous, my super liberal literature teacher had screened footage of the film in our creative writing class. DVD players were fairly new, and so he used the opportunity to showcase this new-fangled technology, and to introduce many of the uninitiated to a horror classic. The week after, I saw the restored print in a packed theatre, and spent most of the time viewing the film from behind my fingers, while gradually sinking lower and lower in my seat. It is one of the most disturbing experiences that I ever endured at a movie theatre. Eleven years later, nothing has changed. For a film that was released in 1973, it has lost none of its power to shock. The story of Reagan, a 13 year old girl whose body is possessed by the Devil himself after playfully tampering with a Ouija board, is still a powerhouse of the horror genre. Ellen Burstyn plays the young girl's mother, an actress, as well as a devout atheist, who is forced to re-evaluate her faith. The film follows a middle-aged priest, who is undergoing a similar crisis of faith in the wake of his mother's death. Both Reagan's mother and the priest collaborate with an elder priest - played by Max Von Sydow - in a desperate attempt to perform an ancient exorcism ritual, which proves to be the one and only hope for the poor girl. The film caused quite a stir upon its initial release. Reports of people fainting during screenings, as well as being institutionalized have surrounded the film for decades. Granted, the film is very difficult to endure, as it was for me upon my first viewing. There are scenes of such explicit power that many may have to turn away. This is understandable. There are moments that are definitely repellant, and the obscenities which spew from young Reagan's mouth are undeniably shocking. However, as I have matured intellectually and have gained more perspective over the years, I am now able to view the film for what it really is. It is an exploration of faith, of the triumph of good over evil, and a film that embraces the existence, as well as the power, of God. Many of the films religious detractors have sadly missed the point, and while their reactions can be understood to some degree, to wholeheartedly disregard the film as nothing but pure evil is to misjudge the intentions of both the writer and director - William Friedkin and William Peter Blatty - who both claim to be devout believers, as they stand behind the film's timeless message. Technically and artistically, the film is a marvel. Linda Blair is fantastic as the young victim of possession. Her performance is extremely physical and emotional, and must have been difficult. Ellen Burstyn is perfect as usual, and is the emotional core of the film. Both Jason Miller and the great Max Von Sydow are compelling as the two priests. William Friedkin's direction is taut, and you can detect shades of Bergman here and there. The writing is top-notch, and the dialogue is sharp. An awesome production. If anything, the film causes the individuals who see it to confront their faith, and as a result, it should be praised. 'The Exorcist' is rated R, and is definitely for mature audiences. 120 minutes. Released by Warner Brothers Pictures. Starring Linda Blair, Ellen Burstyn, Jason Miller, and Max Von Sydow.

"The Exorcist" is a classic horror movie about demonic possession based on the best-selling novel written by William Peter Blatty. The film by William Friedkin covers numerous angles about demonic possession from the existence of the demons; the science of psychiatry; and the role of the Catholic Church in exorcism. While the movie may have been glorified primarily for its cinematic achievement especially with its special effects and the great performances from the cast, it definitely remains relevant theologically as it presents that demons truly exists per 1 Peter 5:8-9 and the authority of the Catholic Church to drive demons away in the name of Jesus per Luke 10:17-20. "Be sober and watch: because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, goeth about seeking whom he may devour. Whom resist ye, strong in faith: knowing that the same affliction befalls your brethren who are in the world." -1 Peter 5:8-9 "And the seventy-two returned with joy, saying: Lord, the devils also are subject to us in thy name. And he said to them: I saw Satan like lightning falling from heaven. Behold, I have given you power to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and upon all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall hurt you. But yet rejoice not in this, that spirits are subject unto you; but rejoice in this, that your names are written in heaven." - Luke 10:17-20 Highly recommended film that has truly stood the test of time.

Good quality movie

良かったです

Des plus grands films d'horreur

we were bad little kids when young and Momma made us watch this at age 8 lol just say I was not bad again and this flick terrified me started praying have not stopped yet .Great get a chill up the spine movie

Mélangeant thriller, épouvante horreur, enquête policière, l'Exorciste est un chef d’œuvre de l'époque à l'ambiance unique en son genre. William Friedkin a compris que l’essence même de ce genre qu’est l’épouvante-horreur ne reposait pas sur l’hémoglobine mais bien sur le malaise de possession saisit à la gorge. La célèbre mélodie de Mike Oldfield est évidemment culte et angoissante. Photographié par Billy Williams est de toute beauté, apportant la touche d'exotisme qui d'emblée rappelle les origines séculaires de la peur du démon. Un plan magnifique opposant sur un fond de coucher de soleil, le père Merrin (Max Von Sydow) à une statue du démon inspirée des gargouilles de Notre-Dame de Paris nous informe du duel à mort qui va suivre. Je pense que la principale force de ce film est son scénario qui a été écrit avec une virtuosité exceptionnelle. Linda Blair a fait frémir toute une génération de cinéphiles avec son rôle de pré-adolescente possédée. Une œuvre d'une réalité quasi documentaire, et on peut s'identifier à travers cette mère de famille dépourvu qui est dans un désespoir total et impuissante face à la transformation de sa fille. Regan, une jeune fille de 13 ans, vit avec sa maman, Chris MacNeil, une actrice qui entre deux tournages tente de concilier vie professionnelle et familiale. Elle découvre que sa fille est victime de troubles du sommeil, d’agitations fréquentes et qu‘elle devient de plus en plus violente envers son entourage. Inquiète, elle consulte des cliniciens, neurologues et autres experts qui procèdent dans un premier temps à deux interventions très douloureuses, et à la fin desquelles une première explication est livrée sans que Chris ne soit rassurée ou convaincue. Dans le même temps l’état de sa fille empire. Désespérée, confrontée à des docteurs qui ne semblent plus la comprendre, elle décide en dernier recours de se tourner vers un exorciste, le père Damien Karras. Friedkin est un génie il arrive à nous transmettre cette angoisse qui monte crescendo jusqu'à son paroxysme et ce film est une pépite intemporelle car il nous montre que le mal est là depuis la nuit des temps qu'il frappe à travers toutes les religions de part de la scène en Irak jusqu'à cette maison paisible à Washington il veut nous montrer que le mal peut s'abattre aux quatres coins du monde. C'est par l'association d'un réalisme austère à un thème fantastique que le réalisateur est parvenu à transformer même les plans les plus neutres en briques du cauchemar, et ainsi à distiller tout au long du récit une terreur sourde et pernicieuse. L’histoire de possession à la base est l’occasion pour lui de mettre en évidence le thème-clé de son univers de cinéaste : la lutte éternelle entre le Bien et le Mal. Littéralement fasciné par cette problématique il développe ici cette idée obsessionnelle en recourant à un filmage lorgnant vers le documentaire pour plus de réalisme voire d’hyperréalisme. Il veut que le spectacle soit le plus crédible et effrayant possible, en prenant le spectateur par les tripes ni plus ni moins. Caméra à l’épaule, lumière naturelle ou éclairage minimaliste, rigueur de la mise en scène, grain de pellicule, etc.…Les effets spéciaux, à l'exception d'un ou deux qui aujourd'hui sont un peu voyants (en particulier les retournements de tête à 360°), sont ainsi très réussis, ce qui est dû en grande partie au fait que, les trucages numériques n'existant pas encore, ils étaient tous réalisés en direct sur le plateau. Le metteur en scène s’en remet à la technique du documentaire qui répond à des exigences souvent économiques auxquelles il se plie. L’efficacité prime, l’efficacité du plan et du montage, avec un choix de narration n’épargnant pas les ellipses mais évitant à tout prix les baratins explicatifs. Il n’y a pas d’à peu près dans l’Exorciste, pas de séquences gratuites : chaque mot, chaque image sont destinés à renvoyer à un élément du récit. L’accent étant mis sur la Possession davantage que sur la Foi en elle-même, l’enquête policière ou encore les messes noires (pourtant toutes évoquées, ce qui densifie encore le propos des éléments nettement plus présents dans le roman, plus détaillé et méticuleux dans la partie précédent l'exorcisme proprement dit), on comprend dès lors que le personnage de Kinderman, qui apparaît très peu à l’écran, est essentiel au bon déroulement de l’histoire, permettant de mettre en relation le père Karras et la mère de Regan. Ces trois personnages constituent les trois pôles du script : ils personnifient un élément clef de l'intrigue et cristallisent chacun des angoisses différentes de la communauté. Ellen Burstyn est complètement à son aise dans la peau de cette actrice célèbre, vivant séparée de son mari et élevant sa fille unique dans un cocon chaleureux grâce à une évidente aisance financière. Mais Jason Miller crève l'écran : confesseur chez les Jésuites, le père Karras traverse une véritable crise de Foi liée à la maladie de sa mère qu'il se refuse à placer en institut. Son charme viril attirera l'attention de l'actrice dont il est grand fan qui le choisira (un peu contre toute attente) pour tenter de trouver une solution au mal qui ronge sa fille chérie, sur lequel les plus grands spécialistes de la médecine moderne se sont cassés les dents. Quant au moment le plus fort du film, celui qui nous glace le sang à chaque vision, il s'agit de l'image quasi subliminale du visage du démon lors de la séquence onirique du père Karras. Mise en scène de manière expérimentale pour l'époque, cette scène alterne des images symboliques de l'histoire (le médaillon du père Merrin, une pendule) au milieu d'une figuration d'un drame humain (la mère de Karras s'engouffre dans une bouche de métro sans entendre les cris de ce dernier, symbolisant la détresse de la vieille femme se sentant abandonnée dans sa chambre d'hôpital). Le plan subliminal intervient dans cette mosaïque, un faciès blanc perdu au milieu d'un cadre noir, apparaissant dans un silence presque total. Friedkin parvient de ce fait à provoquer la peur par une image que nous voyons à peine, mais que nous ressentons pleinement grâce à l'émotion mise à nue révélée par cette terrible figuration morbide entre un fils et sa mère. Plus de cinquante ans après sa sortie, Il conserve sa place tout en haut du panthéon des films d'horreur qu'il occupe avec "Shining" (Stanley Kubrick, 1980), "Aliens" (Ridley Scott,1979), "Carrie" (Brian de Palma, 1973), "Massacre à la tronçonneuse" (Tobe Hooper,1973), "Rosemary's baby" (Roman Polanski, 1968) ou encore "The thing" (John Carpenter, 1982). À sa sortie, peu le savent, mais L'Exorciste fera figure de sésame qui ouvrira définitivement les portes des grands studios américains au genre. L'horreur graphique va se démocratiser en salles et des films comme Damien, La malédiction, Carrie ou encore Amityville vont s'engager dans le sillon fraichement tracé par le succès de Friedkin... Pas étonnant dans ces conditions, que L'Exorciste soit régulièrement cité comme l'un des plus grands films d'horreur de tous les temps. Mais c'est aussi parce que William Friedkin, cinéaste du réel, aussi intransigeant qu'indomptable, prend le temps nécessaire pour donner de l'épaisseur à son sujet. Il présente les personnages, leurs névroses, leur fragilité, leurs contradictions et enclenche les situations pour qu'au bout d'une quarantaine de minutes, une fois les enjeux posés et les hostilités lancées, le public ait suffisamment mordu à l'hameçon pour être plongé au cœur de l'horreur. Le film a engendré 402,5 millions de dollars à travers le monde, une véritable performance. Devant ce succès phénoménal, il a donné naissance à une saga qui s’est poursuivie d’abord en 1977 avec "L’exorciste 2 : l’hérétique". Il faudra attendre 1990 pour voir le 3ème volet nommé "L’exorciste, la suite" (ou "The exorcist III"). L’année 2004 voit la préquelle apparaitre ("L’exorciste : au commencement"), ce qui équivaut à dire que des années après, on cherche encore à surfer sur l’immense réussite cinématographique (et commerciale) qu’a été "L’exorciste". Car ça en est une, enrichie de quelques scènes supplémentaires depuis 2001 (que je considère comme inutiles pour la plupart). L'Exorciste reste en tout point un classique incontesté à la limite boulversant, autant que dérangeant et choquant.

'The Exorcist.' absolutely deserves its legendary status because it's more than just a Horror Film. For me 'The Exorcist.', as well as obviously being a story about demonic possession, is about the love of a Mother for her child and the importance of family bonds. It's also an exploration of the idea of the Devil as a real entity rather than an abstract concept, and about the power of Faith in a Higher Power through an Organized Religion. On reflection that last stated theme does strike me as a little odd or at least a little surprising since Regan and Chris MacNeil are clearly depicted as atheists! One might argue then, that 'The Exorcist.' could be seen as an advertisement for the Catholic Church - although if it is it's certainly not an overbearing one. What I can say with certainty is that if one wants to see 'The Exorcist.' as a Horror Film, then it's the thinking person's Horror Film. Of course given that it was made in 1973 'The Exorcist.' presents a much more flattering representation of the Catholic Church than would probably be the case if it was made now, in the much more Secular and Organized Religion-sceptical 2023. The performances by all of the main cast, especially Ellen Burstyn as Chris MacNeil, are absolutely top notch with a cast who all seem to be invested in their characters to a degree that is utterly naturalistic and in many cases, incredibly raw. For me the acting and the characterization are what makes 'The Exorcist.' the timeless classic that it is. Also; it's a rare Horror Film that has such admirable mature thematic depth. By today's standards 'The Exorcist.' isn't particularly scary but then again it's Director, the late William Friedkin, never intended it to be. He intended it mainly to be a powerfully emotional story about the triumph of Good over Evil. This is why I find 'The Exorcist.', in spite of its often horrifying imagery and its occasionally foul language, a courageous, challenging and yet strangely comforting and rewarding Film. How many Films that are given the label 'Horror' can be described as comforting?! This 4K release has an astonishingly good-looking image which often makes it look like a Film which was made recently and is set in 1973, rather than one that was made in 1973. The image is absolutely pristine with not a hint of damage that I could see. The HDR, which I personally find renders many FiIms too dark, is thankfully applied in an appropriately restrained manner on 'The Exorcist.'. All I can say is that after decades of dismissing 'The Exorcist.' as a prime example of empty Exploitation Horror that doesn't deserve the praise that's heaped on it, I'm so happy that I decided to buy this 4K release and had the opportunity to totally reappraise it and finally appreciate just how good it is. So I highly recommend 'The Exorcist.' on 4K blu ray - including to non-Horror fans and even to practicing Catholics who are capable of keeping an open mind and taking the shocking visuals and the occasional foul language with a pinch of salt.