Battle Of Wills: Director William Friedkin (left) and writer/producer William Peter Blatty on the set of the film, and (below) Father Merrin (Max Von Sydow) attempts to drive out the demon.
stition proves to be real in the face of modernity. The rigorous insistence on deny- ing the supernatural until it defeats logic is what makes the tale so terrifying. It strips away belief in a psychological explanation (e.g. when Regan, the possessed girl, is subjected to medical tests that prove useless), until only a terrifying spiritual ex- planation remains. Blatty believes that there’s actually a crossover point between the spiritual and the more purely psychological. “The Catholic Church’s caution in such matters is hardly anything new,” he offers.
“For example, it once put out an official warning to would-be exorcists that people who were either assessed as being possessed, or declared themselves possessed, were ‘far more in need of a doctor than of a priest.’ That warning was issued at the Council of Reims in the year 1582. Summing up, there may be something in the col- lective unconscious in which there lurks a knowledge, and fear, of demonic posses- sion as something from which no one is safe, though I believe that this is light years from the case. Theoretically, and based upon no facts whatever, I have a suspicion that an alien intelligence could never take control of a human organism unless that person’s personality had been shat- tered, allowing for the entry of, well, let’s say ‘something’ inas- much as there have been recorded cases of benign possession, as well as the Jewish tradition of dybukks, the souls of the rest- less and unanchored departed. But that ‘something’ – again, just my wild opinion – might find the opening it needs due to either a pre-existing serious mental illness, or due to the heavy use of drugs.” Here, however, it would seem that the writer is rather un-
characteristically selling himself short. Blatty’s theories on possession, and our willingness to accept them just enough to become engrossed in the novel and/or film, certainly do hinge upon finding an overlap between the physical and the metaphysical, but all would be for naught if his writing skills failed to rise to the task. Instead of demanding that we reassess our own beliefs (The Omen, anyone?), Blatty simply persuades us to step into his own belief system just long enough to become completely immersed in his tale, outlandish as it may be.
Of course, it was a very successful tactic; The Exorcist found a publisher almost
immediately and Warner bought the film rights – with the stipulation that Blatty would write the script and produce, even before the book was released. However, despite the novel’s almost-instant bestseller status, and as unimaginable
as it may seem today, the film project was initially turned down by a veritable who’s who of big-name directors including Arthur Penn (Bonnie and Clyde, Little Big Man), Peter Bogdanovich (The Last Picture Show, Targets), Mike Nichols (The Graduate, Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?) and John Boorman (Deliverance and – much later – the regrettable Exorcist II: The Heretic). No less a demigod than Stanley Kubrick ex- pressed serious interest, but Warner Bros, wary of his notoriety for going over time and budget, passed on him in favour of Mark Rydell (The Cowboys, On Golden Pond). Blatty, however, steadfastly held out for William Friedkin, a recently hot property after winning the 1972 Best Director Oscar for The French Connection. Historically, Blatty and Friedkin remain one of cinema’s most enduring creative odd couples; they became close friends as production pro- gressed, although their relationship was frequently stormy, largely due to Friedkin’s ferocious temper and egotism. Both men were fiercely devoted to their recently deceased mothers; both were skirt-chasers who sometimes competed for the attentions of the same women. It has long been widely speculated in critical and academic circles that The Exorcist owes much of its success to having been written by a devout if world-weary Catholic and directed by an ag- nostic Jew. Blatty himself puts
great stock in this the- ory. “It’s one of the two primary reasons I wanted Friedkin,” he maintains. “The
Cont’d on p.44
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128