The Exorcist: The Version You've Never Seen (and probably shouldn't bother with)

It may sound weird that someone who enjoys demonic possession movies hasn’t really watched The Exorcist, but it’s true. I wasn’t born yet when the original version came out, but watched The Exorcist: The Version You’ve Never Seen ages ago, recently watched it again, and was surprised at how much I had forgotten. I did read the William Peter Blatty’s book, and even though I haven’t watched any of the sequels, I watched both seasons of the TV show, and also The Exorcist: The Beginning (2004), which I’ll be reviewing in a separate post.

The biggest difference between book and movie that I remember standing out to me after watching this version of The Exorcist the first time was how the police detective, Kinderman, seemed to have been dumbed down, when in the book it was more of an act as he quickly seemed to link Chris and Regan to the weird satanic goings-on in the neighbourhood. After the rewatch, I noticed that he does do a lot of investigating, even if not as much. There was, however, a glaring omission - the desecration of the church is never directly linked to Regan, though in the book there was mention of small, possibly child fingerprints, and Kinderman also sneakily collected a typewritten letter from the house to compare to the vandal’s note (at least that’s what I remember from the book, which was read a long time ago). Something else I noticed, was that, in the book, the horse rider Regan and Sharon encounter was identified as Sharon’s new boyfriend, but in the movie the whole thing is just random. It’s not important, but all it would’ve taken to add that bit of information was a line of dialogue. And that’s it for the book/movie compare/contrast because, as I said, I don’t remember much (which means that maybe it’s time for a reread). Oh, there’s one more thing. In the book, Pazuzu is named in the prologue and it’s made clear that whatever evil is coming it’s coming from him. However, his name isn’t mentioned a single time in the movie, though the movie does make the connection between his statue and the demon possessing Regan. Instead, the scary face we occasionally see looks like something out of an African tribal ritual, which doesn’t match Pazuzu’s Mesopotamian origins.

Before I go on, I’d like to clarify some things about Pazuzu with the help of Wikipedia. Here’s what it says about him:

In ancient Mesopotamian religion, Pazuzu is a personification of the southwestern wind, and held kingship over the Lilu wind demons.

(…) he is considered as both a destructive and dangerous wind, but also as a repellent to other demons, one who safeguards the home from their influence. In particular he protects pregnant women and mothers, whom he could defend from the machinations of the demoness Lamashtu, his rival.

Well, that’s ironic. Why did Blatty even pick Pazuzu as his book’s demonic villain? Sure, he looks evil, but that’s no reason to smear his reputation. Also, ‘Lamashtu’ probably sounds less ridiculous than ‘Pazuzu’.

Now, back to the movie. The most impressive and memorable part is the possession after all the ambiguity is gone. Some possession movies play it safe, sticking to twisted limbs, levitation, and a little swearing, but The Exorcist pulls no punches when it comes to the demon’s evilness. This is made more disturbing by Regan’s young age, even if they used doubles and voice acting for the worst parts. The physical decay is pretty extreme, too, even if the green puke looked a little ridiculous. Where is that even coming from? In fact, it’s all so bad that Regan’s full recovery is hard to believe, as is Chris’s assertion that she doesn’t remember anything. Fine, her neck didn’t break because of demon magic, but something like the crucifix should’ve done some lasting, non magical damage. I guess it’s a good thing demons in the world of The Exorcist don’t work like in Supernatural, where Meg died after being exorcised due to the injuries she suffered while possessed. The exorcism itself is intense and while I knew Merrin wasn’t going to last till the end, I didn’t remember the rest. How the hell did I forget that?

However, while Pazuzu does a lot, he could’ve done more when it came to messing with the humans around him. Regan tells the astronaut that he’s going to die in space, but that’s about it - Pazuzu saves his lies and reveals for the priests. Given Burke’s taunts about Karl’s German heritage, I expected possessed Regan to have something to say to him, or about Chris’s relationship with her ex husband. Also, while the movie shows the effects of the possession on those around Regan, we never get to see her react to it apart from the jumping bed. There’s something taking control of her, but she never interacts with it. Then again, that was probably for the best because Linda Blair’s acting when she’s not yelling in pain or freaking out just isn’t good. Father Merrin’s previous encounter with Pazuzu was never explained and while the movie is basically following the book, it’s a little weird to focus on Karras instead of him given his history with the main antagonist.

The movie takes its time presenting its characters and their issues to the audience before the demonic stuff gets more obvious. There are 2 main stories - Chris + Regan and Father Karras - running parallel to each other until they all come together when Chris asks Karras for an exorcism. In theory, this is fine, but in practice, the pacing was uneven and Karras’s crisis of faith thinly sketched and unoriginal (yes, The Exorcist came first, but still). I didn’t hate him or anything - I just didn’t care for the character. The possession hints, which start with the very loud rats in the attic (seriously, how big would they have to be to make that much noise?), are actually very few until Regan goes full demon. The movie doesn’t do anything with her ‘imaginary friend’ Captain Howdy, even though she seems a little too old for that and of course, imaginary friends tend to be bad news in horror movies. So it made no sense for Chris to be already worried about her daughter during the first batch of medical tests. Why did she even think Regan needed a doctor? Her weird behaviour starts there, with her swearing at the doctor and nurse. And this is a problem - even though the movie spends some time with them pre-exorcism, there isn’t enough buildup. Knowing what’s going on does take away some of the suspense, but that’s not the only issue here. Maybe it’s because we keep leaving the house to check on Father Karras? In a book, Chris’s inner monologue would allow the audience to catch up with what’s been happening in a more detailed way and with a more personal POV. I’m not sure how to explain this, but it definitely felt like a book adaptation. All the main elements made it onto the script, but you can tell that there are more details elsewhere.

The ending, with Father Dyer and Kinderman, seemed out of place after what came before. Yes, it follows the book’s, but there the passage of time between the exorcism and Chris and Regan leaving was clearer. In the movie, though you can tell that some time has passed, everything seems closer together, so it’s weird to end on a lighter note when you’ve just seen all that demonic craziness. Regan having recovered was positive enough. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I wonder if Kinderman shouldn’t have been cut altogether. It’s funny because I usually hate this kind of changes. For instance, seeing Tess Gerritsen’s dark books turned into the cutesy Rizzoli and Isles TV series was just jarring. Why would anyone even think of doing that? And why is Maura blond? However, given how much of Kinderman’s investigation was left out and that the screentime could’ve been used for other, more important things, like showing more supernatural happenings at Chris’s home, a little less faithfulness to the source material might’ve been better.

VERDICT

It’s always difficult to watch these super hyped genre classics because there’s no way they’ll be able to meet your expectations. Also, everything that was original here has already turned up countless times in other places, including comedies, which is never good for a horror movie. Many fans and movie buffs get obsessed with what didn’t make it onto a movie’s initial released version, and The Exorcist: The Version You’ve Never Seen gives them that by adding several cut scenes that stretch the running time to a little over 2 hours. However, quantity doesn’t often translate into quality. I can see why The Exorcist made an impression, I can appreciate its qualities, and I really wanted to like this more than I did, but it, or at least this version of it, is not a horror masterpiece.

By Danforth