Barend Vlaardingerbroek: ‘The Exorcist’ – would a producer get away with it today?

Max von Sydow died last month at the age of 90. The BBC tribute to him showed him as he appeared in several major productions over the course of a long and distinguished acting career, including the 1973 film ‘The Exorcist’ in which he played the role of a Jesuit priest brought in to cast a demon out of a young possessed girl.

That clip of a few seconds brought back some memories. I was an avid movie-goer as a young guy but grew out of the habit by my mid-20s – the last time I went to the flics was in 1982 when I took a bunch of students to Jackson’s Drive-In Theatre in Port Moresby. However, there were films that stayed with me and that I caught up with when I discovered internet websites that run old movies a few years ago. I had truly outgrown the fantasy world of the silver screen and did not bother seeing most of them through. ‘The Exorcist’ was one of two exceptions (the other being ‘The Wicker Man’ of the same year), which I first saw – cut and dubbed – in Auckland in 1974.

 

Max turning up to do battle with Pazuzu, a Babylonian demon, who has taken possession of a 12-year-old girl

Next year will be the 50^th anniversary of William Peter Blatty’s book of the same title. The book caused waves; the film caused a tsunami. Neither Kubrick nor Spielberg would touch it and the job of producer went to William Friedkin with Blatty as co-producer. It is almost certainly the most written-about film of all time, eliciting as it did shock-horror reactions from various sections of the community ranging from religious groups (Billy Graham called it “evil”) to professional mental health associations – some theatres enlisted counsellors and even ambulance staff to be on standby during screenings.

This is no ‘horror movie’ of the genre in which Christopher Lee as Count Dracula bares his blood-dripping fangs to the camera. The film’s immense power lies in its credibility, largely attributable to the superb acting on everyone’s part. There is strong character development, leading the audience to build up empathy with the mother of the possessed girl. She is a thoroughly modern, secular, professional woman who doesn’t believe in all that mediaeval hocus-pocus – but there she is faced with it under her very nose and, after having the medics trying to do their magic and failing, is driven to enlisting the help of a Jesuit priest who performs exorcisms (and who just happens to be an archaeologist as well and is first shown facing the Pazuzu statue in Mosul).

Despite the film’s title, Max is not the star of the show. He – and the rest of the cast – are eclipsed by Linda Blair, centre-stage as Regan, the possessed girl. Linda was only 13 years old when she took on the role – Warner Bros threw a 15^th birthday party for her in January 1974, a month after the film’s release. What a role for anyone to be cast in, let alone a girl just into her teens! But she rises to the occasion stupendously well – had she not, the whole thing would have come across as a sick joke instead of “the scariest film of all time” (as in above poster).

As the story progresses, she is given such a ghoulish appearance that if it were me I would have studiously avoided passing any mirrors when made up. Some of the choice language that passes her lips would make a wharfie blush. What we hear are voice-overs, but she did give mouth to those words at the time of shooting to guide the voice actress (full marks to her, too!) who kicked in later (in some releases, voice-overs of a milder content were superimposed).

 

Linda Blair before and after the make-up artist had a go at her

What stuck in my crop upon seeing the film again 46 years on  - something that didn’t dawn on me as a 19-year-old –was the  recurring sexualisation of an ostensibly 12-year-old girl being portrayed by a 13/14-year-old girl. Some of it is subtle – why was the camera momentarily placed in such a way that we’re looking up between her legs? – and some of it is not. One of the defining scenes of the film is the frenzied masturbation scene (initially heavily cut in many jurisdictions) where she apparently splits her hymen with a crucifix. The camera homes in on her crotch area, covered by a bloody nightgown. Shock value is added by her repeated incantation of “Let Jesus f#@k you”.

It’s one way to lose your virginity. You can see why so many people got horrendously upset about this film.

The harrowing exorcism routine itself has strong sexual connotations – young girl lying on her back on a bed, tied down by the wrists, with two men hovering menacingly directly over her – a BDSM freak’s delight.

Max doing his stuff as ‘The Exorcist’. The demon has the last laugh as he dies of a heart attack in the course of the ritual.

Tell me honestly – would you approve of your barely pubescent daughter playing the star role in such a film? Of course, the obvious rejoinder is: did it do her any harm? The good news is that the answer to that question is probably ‘no’. Linda Blair went on to live a fulfilling life (she’s now in her 60s and a proponent of veganism) and repeatedly brushed off suggestions over the decades that the experience had unsettled her. I am inclined to believe her. In clips chronicling the making of the film, she is seen on a number of occasions interacting with the technical staff and is quite evidently completely at her ease – bright and chirpy, in fact. But all that is being wise after the event.

The notion of the sexual exploitation of minors has broadened somewhat over the past decades – nowadays it encompasses erotic depictions of kids aimed at promoting a product or service (in this case, a film). ‘The Exorcist’ sexually exploits its teenage star by this expanded definition. I have come across recent commentaries referring to the film as an instance of child porn. I wouldn’t go quite that far, but it does sail very close to the wind.

Would a film producer get away with it today? Since I’m not exactly up to date with the moving pictures industry, I can’t say. But I have a feeling that the would-be producer would be severely warned by legal advisers against the undertaking. Apart from the issue of the sexual exploitation of a minor throwing a spanner into the works, the girl would be able to sue the producers for zillions no matter how many years later should there be any lingering adverse effects on her.

‘The Exorcist’ has entered the annals of movie history as one of a kind. It was re-released as a DVD box set in 2001 with the addition of clips that had not been included in 1973. The set comes with a documentary-style narrative about the production of the original film. ‘The Exorcist’ still has a fan club – there’s an internet site devoted to it.

Like so many spectacularly innovative films, ‘The Exorcist’ had sequels; and, as is not unusual in such cases, those were a disaster. ‘Exorcist II’ (1977) included a by now very dishy Linda Blair but her acting was as unconvincing as her performance in ‘Exorcist I’ had been compelling. The film was so awful that hostile audience reactions saw it being returned to the studio for tweaking. ‘Exorcist III’ (1990) was a farce that involved the younger god-botherer who had died in ‘Exorcist I’ (by throwing himself out of a third-storey window) doing a Lazarus act, but no Linda Blair at all. Perhaps by the ripe old age of 30 she no longer fitted the bill?

Barend Vlaardingerbroek BA, BSc, BEdSt, PGDipLaws, MAppSc, PhD is an associate professor of education at the American University of Beirut and is a regular commentator on social and political issues. Feedback welcome at bv00@aub.edu.lb