(aside: now I have "beautiful Mount Horror Blog!" stuck in my head to this tune)
Now then, my telling you all this isn't solely to brag that I do, in fact, know how to read. Nor is it to dazzle you with erudite insights like "Hey, The Exorcist is pretty good," oh no no. I'm telling you all this because the book got my brain all a-buzzin' with The Exorcist (duh) which got me watchin' the movie which got me thinking "Hey, there are way too many Pazuzus in The Exorcist Extended Director's Cut Version You've Never Seen."
The wholly terrifying subliminal demon face is used quite sparingly–and to great effect–in the original cut of the film. It scared me so badly that I really couldn't handle it. I hated it! It was great. Then along came The Version You've Never Seen and the floodgates were opened. Excised footage was unexcised, Friedkin got all George Lucas about it and added a bunch of stuff, like that awful Regan computer face when she grab's the doctor's junk. You know what I mean. It's bad. Heck, I'd just forever opt for the original cut, but I admit: I am a sucker for the spider walk. It's over-the-top and silly but I love it. So sue me.
Perhaps the worst, though, is that the latest editions of the film include a baker's dozen or more new subliminal demon faces. Let's face it (omg "FACE" it lol lol) once this shot happened...
...it was obvious that this was no longer your mama's Pazuzu. It's everywhere! And so it's really no longer scary. Less is more, more is way less.
On my most recent watch, though, I realized just how many Pazuzus are lurking. It is some Where's Waldo shit for real. Look at these screencaps!
Some of those aren't even subliminal! Yes, William Friedkin is a great director and a master of the craft and all that, but to be honest I don't know what he was thinking with all of this.
Too much Pazuzu.
ReplyDeleteIt's been a while since I read Blatty's book but remember it not being as tightly plotted as the movie. Wasn't there a oddly placed subplot/red herring with the German butler's drug addicted daughter that went...nowhere?
Blatty's follow-up "Legion" is as underrated as the movie that was adapted from it.
Yeah they tried to make a red herring out of Karl, but I didn't mind. I wonder if I ever would have suspected him if I'd only read the book and had no idea what was going on...?
ReplyDeleteThe movie covered what it needed to cover, but I like that the book really explored Karras trying to figure out if Regan is actually possessed, as well as Kinderman trying to solve Burke Dennings's murder.
And thanks for reminding me that I *also* need to read Legion!
Not enough Pazuzu.
ReplyDeleteI'm still waiting for Friedkins second directors cut where the Pazuzu demon face is superimposed on every character throughout the film.
I was surprised at how much I liked the book despite having seen the movie eleventy billion times.
ReplyDeletecompletely off topic...but did you see this reunion of April Fool's Day?
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-AIsMZsrc8
I hadn't, but I'm gonna watch it now. Thanks!!
ReplyDeleteIn Australia, you can only get the terrible pazuzu cut, I had to send away to a foreign principality just to get the original theatrical version on blu... So I'm sorted but what about all the Catholic school girls who need to see a proper Exorcist? It's the kids I worry about.
ReplyDeleteCurrently on train to work listening to a 1940s inner sanctum horror radio serial starring Mercedes McCambridge as a deadly dame! Linda Blair is amazing as Regan in The Exorcist and her physical performance is perfectly complemented by the voice of McCambridge who is worth checking out playing opposite John Ireland in The Scarf and All the president's men. Again 1940s and very odd characters!
ReplyDeleteRPG Comic? =(
ReplyDeleteSay what you will, people, but once again Friedkin proves he was a director ahead of his time, already dumbing down the movie for OUR generation, God bless him . . . !
ReplyDeleteYou are SPOT ON. Too many Pazuzus. Stop remaking/revising s--t.
ReplyDeleteAgreed- it's like Friedkin learned how to Final Cut Pro effects and went a little overboard and no one dared suggest the un-scariness of the Where's Waldo constant face inserts - since it's 'the Director's Cut' and Friedkin is a "genius."
ReplyDeletePS - SORCERER rulezz
Sorry, but I'm too dumb not to ask: are those screenshots real? Have that many Pazuzu insertions been made into the film?
ReplyDeleteThe first one is actually real! It's the most ridiculous instance of him being added, but not the only one.
ReplyDelete