The Exorcist has aged far worse than Wicker Man largely due to the special effects
I kind of agree.
The Exorcist still seems to work for a lot of people though. It never worked for me.
If you're invested in the tale and caught up by the atmosphere, the SFX work perfectly well (or you overlook them). Bit like generations of viewers have been scared by
Jaws. Carefully crafted atmosphere and tension can compensate for a lot.
I've witnessed people being absolutely distraught when the head turns 180 degrees... whereas to
me, it's always been much more a case of 'Oh no, that horrible demon has turned that little girl into a dummy!'
The Exorcist does a good job of the slow and steady build-up but then throws it all away by being absurdly over the top. I mean, just the very idea that one of the demon's chief tactics to demonstrate its evil would be obscenities and a few rounds of 'Your momma' is entertaining in ways the filmmakers never really intended.
I wouldn't go as far as to say
The Exorcist is 'hilarious', but it isn't the least bit scary and invites more than a few chuckles.
The Wicker Man isn't wildly scary either. But conceptually, the idea of being burned alive is more troubling to think about than being possessed by an edge-lord demon.
reply
share
BenStrousers (776)
a year ago
You got a little hung up on the word hilarious. Hilarious by today's standards, not literally.
Apart from that, we mostly agree.
reply
share
capuchin (3182)
a year ago
Yeah, you're perhaps using hilarious in a slightly different way from the one I would automatically understand. To me, 'hilarious' implies thigh-slapping, eye-watering, mocking laughter. I don't think The Exorcist is ever that. But there are certainly some eye-rolls and derisive snorts.
So, yeah, we probably pretty much agree on this one.
reply
share
BenStrousers (776)
a year ago
Yes, we agree again. The automatic part is the surface level before we peel back the layers to see metaphors, analogies and whatnot.
reply
share
FootOfDavros (8142)
a year ago
The Exorcist has aged badly. But not as badly as the sequel, which I clearly remember being absolutely terrible - even although it's been over twenty years since I watched it!
From what I remember though, the third one was actually pretty good. Not sure if that's a generally held opinion but I do remember being impressed by it at the time (although again, over twenty years ago!).
reply
share
capuchin (3182)
a year ago
Oh god, yes. Exorcist II is a genuine, flat-out bad film. I thought it was always regarded that way, but I may be wrong.
I don't think The Exorcist is a bad film. I think that'd be a silly thing to think. It's terrified millions of people, it's mostly well-crafted and well-acted. But it's never worked for me.
This means that, for years now, I've got to irritate people who say it's the best horror film ever made with my sincere opinion that it isn't even the best horror film released in 1973.
Don't Look Now
But, yes, Exorcist II is a proper stinker.
reply
share
FootOfDavros (8142)
a year ago
Yeah, I wouldn't describe it as a "bad" film either. The atmospheric elements of it still stand up but some of the effects, e.g. the head spinning and projectile vomiting, have left it to a modern audience probably some way below where it once stood.
Having said that, it's funny because I can still watch Superman say, and still enjoy it without feeling the obviously inferior effects ruin it as such.
What about Exorcist III - Did you ever see that? Be interested to hear what you thought of that one...
reply
share
capuchin (3182)
a year ago
Yeah. I'm the same. I don't generally scrutinise the SFX of older films. In fact, I'd go as far as to say I usually don't care much about them unless they're so laughable they throw you out of the movie, whereas The Exorcist's are just of their time. Which is different somehow.
It's not just the dated special effects though. As I say, if you're fully invested in the film, if it's working its magic, if you're on edge when those things happen you probably don't notice in that very moment that it's (obviously) a doll, &c. I've witnessed these reactions first-hand. (Although I've never seen anyone being effected by the projectile vomiting beyond saying 'Gross!')
It's something about the rhythm of it that doesn't quite work for me. You get the steady build-up for which the film is (rightly) commended, but then shit goes too crazy too fast. It's like a cycling marathon when they go slow around the velodrome conserving energy and then -- boom! -- suddenly it's a sprint. I think it could stay ambiguous for longer.
And I think that problem is only made worse by the modern version with the 'spider-walk' scene, which is creepy in isolation but comes at the wrong moment in the film.
I did see Exorcist III. But a long time ago, so I don't remember much about it other than thinking it was solid enough and certainly no Exorcist II. That's one of those instances where a bad film stands out more in the memory than a perfectly acceptable one.
I saw Blatty's Ninth Configuration a couple of years ago, and really enjoyed that so Exorcist III is probably due a rewatch.
reply
share
FootOfDavros (8142)
a year ago
I think there may be a generational thing at play as well when it comes to special effects.
I know some younger people just can't handle films that pre date "reasonable" CGI and find something like Superman '78 as unwatchable.
Whereas for me I think the separation is that I can watch older films and appreciate there was an era when they were essentially plays on film.
Hence when I watch a classic film I can be in awe of the effects they used of their time, e.g. I fairly recently watched Black Narcissus and the matte painting backgrounds were incredible and with artistic merit, despite it being clear they aren't "real". Same thing with Ray Harryhausen's work.
But I think that understanding of a film being an extension of a play is gone for today's audiences, so if it doesn't look 100% real, then it becomes "bad".
reply
share
capuchin (3182)
a year ago
Yes. I think you're probably right. It is (at least in part) generational. Those of us who grew up in an era of practical effects probably have a greater appreciation of the craft even if it looks a bit shonky by contemporary standards. Harryhausen's stuff is a good example. Or some of the model work in kaiju films.
It's that old 'suspension of disbelief' thing, isn't it? And it was probably easier to suspend one's disbelief at a time when the limitations of the technology meant that, well, you often had to.
reply
share