William Friedkin
The Exorcist: The Version You've Never Seen (L'Esorcista: Versione Integrale)

"Everyone knows the story of Moby Dick. I even read the book." (Dylan Dog aka Tiziano Sclavi)

When they aired "The Exorcist" for the first time on television, I was ten years old. I was in Fifth Grade.

I particularly remember the controversies of those days (most were wondering whether it was appropriate to air it or not), all the "Parental Advisory" warnings, and even my teacher advising the class (and calling parents at home to reiterate the concept) not to watch it.

Of course, I also remember that thanks to an older brother of one of my classmates, the next day, we had the video cassette ready and waiting, which we "devoured" at his house the following Saturday, skipping, believe it or not, catechism... But I was talking about the controversies: they were so intense that Fininvest decided to postpone the broadcast by an hour (in what was then considered the second evening, at half-past nine!).

Many things have changed: prime time TV now doesn’t start before a quarter past nine, Italian audiences have become accustomed to such horrors—seen even in newscasts—that certain scenes from Friedkin's film might seem humorous, TV networks have now let go of all ethical constraints, etc.

In short, the world is so different that last night Mediaset aired it in prime time (and without too many Alerts beforehand) as a counterprogram to the Italian Song Festival of Sanremo...

I'm not sure if I'm the only one who finds it amusing: I'm sure that many (but not myself) could think that "counterprogramming" a Horror against the horror of Sanremo's songs could be an effective idea.

Surely, despite having seen it dozens of times, I couldn't resist the temptation to watch it again and (re)experience that subtle pleasure that comes from holding a personal "relic" that you have been fond of (and still are). Many people have a teddy bear, others a scooter, still others an old sticker album: I have "The Exorcist" (and this explains many of my problems).

You all know the plot and also all the controversies: you are even aware of how this film has divided and continues to divide audiences and critics, so I will limit myself to a couple of (very) personal considerations (among other things, there are already a couple of Reviews on the site).

The first is purely stylistic: it's true, everything related to the purely Horror moments shows the signs of time. Much water (and blood) has flowed under the celluloid bridges in these almost forty-two years, making certain things seem quite outdated (except for Regan/Captain Howdy's lines which are still "spot on"). Nevertheless, with the right context, regarding the era, they appear anything but trivial. However, it is known that humans dislike looking at the Past and live only for novelties. What hasn’t aged is the solid direction (I mean, we’re talking about Friedkin...) that even manages to hide certain screenplay holes (admirable in this respect is the first dialogue between Father Karras and Regan's mother or the brief scene of her walk with a hint of "Tubular Bells"). A "dry" way of shooting, even in the most gory scenes, that is emphasized in moments of pure suspense (both didactic, like the long opening, which I love very much, and tense): a method that unfortunately today seems a bit neglected (with few exceptions).

The second is purely "Societal": many years and many Horror/Thriller films with child protagonists have passed, but in the (ideal) ranking of children you never ever want to have, Regan Theresa MacNeil remains firmly in my view at first place.

For everything else, there's Captain Howdy.

Mo.

"It would be a vulgar display of power, Karras!" (Regan MacNeil aka William Peter Blatty)