Paranormal Activity

[Walty]

I've never understood why the Excorcist is thought of as so scary either.  I think it's pretty mild as far as genuinely feaking you out.  The idea of the movie is creepy, but I think, for my generation, it doesn't do it.  It's too upfront.  There isn't much left to the imagination.  It's a good movie and the subejct matter has the potentiality to the best scariest type of film, but I don't have a problem watching it.

[StrictCatholicGirl]

I've never understood why the Excorcist is thought of as so scary either.  I think it's pretty mild as far as genuinely feaking you out.  The idea of the movie is creepy, but I think, for my generation, it doesn't do it.  It's too upfront.  There isn't much left to the imagination.  It's a good movie and the subejct matter has the potentiality to the best scariest type of film, but I don't have a problem watching it.

The Exorcist in the 70s was the equivalent of Psycho in the 60s. The subject matter of these films had never been dealt with before. It was original and shocking to the audiences of those eras, and so these films have earned a legendary status. My teenage grandchildren feel the same way about the Exorcist that you do. They are not too impressed. Kids are sophisticated (or desensitized) these days. 

[PeterII]

I've never understood why the Excorcist is thought of as so scary either.  I think it's pretty mild as far as genuinely feaking you out.  The idea of the movie is creepy, but I think, for my generation, it doesn't do it.  It's too upfront.  There isn't much left to the imagination.  It's a good movie and the subejct matter has the potentiality to the best scariest type of film, but I don't have a problem watching it.

The Exorcist in the 70s was the equivalent of Psycho in the 60s. The subject matter of these films had never been dealt with before. It was original and shocking to the audiences of those eras, and so these films have earned a legendary status. My teenage grandchildren feel the same way about the Exorcist that you do. They are not too impressed. Kids are sophisticated (or desensitized) these days. 

I had a Jewish professor who told us his cousin was institutionalized for 2 years in the seventies after having watched The Exorcist.  I watched the rerelease in the theatre, and although it had scary moments, I did not find it overwhelmingly frightening.  I can see how as a Catholic, the subject matter is not really despairing because we have the means to fight the evil.  But for a non-Catholic who takes the subject matter seriously, I can see how it could drive some over the edge.   

[StrictCatholicGirl]

I had a Jewish professor who told us his cousin was institutionalized for 2 years in the seventies after having watched The Exorcist.  I watched the rerelease in the theatre, and although it had scary moments, I did not find it overwhelmingly frightening.  I can see how as a Catholic, the subject matter is not really despairing because we have the means to fight the evil.  But for a non-Catholic who takes the subject matter seriously, I can see how it could drive some over the edge. 

I was 18 when the Exorcist was released (1973) and I can tell you that immediately and for a few years afterwards there were numerous cases of people thinking they were possessed by the devil. People assumed every Catholic priest was an "exorcist" and priests were suddenly celebrities. Besides being called upon to perform random exorcisms, they were invited on talk shows and news and radio programs and it was all the rage. Parish priests were swarmed with phone calls from nervous parishioners (even non-Catholics) begging them to come over and "bless the house" they believed was inhabited by evil spirits.

There were also cries for serious censorship of the movie. This was due to a rash of murder cases where criminals were claiming that "the devil made me do it." Here is one gruesome account from 1975.

Youth tells of 'possession' after seeing film
From our Correspondent -- York.

Nicholas Bell, aged 17, told the police that he had been possessed by evil after seeing The Exorcist film and had killed a girl aged nine, York Crown Court was told yesterday.

Bell, of Eastfield, Scarborough, said that after seeing the film he began dabbling in black magic and experimented with a ouija board, Mr Clifford Lauriston, QC, told the jury. Bell pleaded not guilty to murdering the girl.

Mr Lauriston said the girl's savagely beaten body was found by her stepfather after she had failed to return home in Scarborough for tea.

The Crown had only Bell's version of what happened. He had said the girl "had not died easily" and told how he had tried to choke her and then batter her. He had said "It was not really me that did it, you know. There was something inside me. I want to see a priest. It is ever since I saw that film The Exorcist. I felt something take possession of me. It has been in me ever since."

Turning to the attack on the girl he had said: "I don't know why I killed her. It was this spirit inside me." In a later alleged statement he continued: "One night I was alone at home playing with the board and while doing so felt something bad was happening. I kept having nightmares about Satan and Mendoss, the prince of darkness. I felt mean and nasty towards people and was taking delight in mutilating birds."

He was alleged to have told how he had seen the young girl "and just went wild and crazy". He ended his account by saying: "She stopped twitching and I knew she was dead. That is all I can say, except I am sorry. I think that inside it wasn't really me that was doing this terrible thing."

Mr Lauriston said the killing was a senseless and motiveless murder which occurred shortly after Bell had seen the film and since that time he had been seriously disturbed.

The case continues today.

[The Times -- October 30, 1975. Later the boy was found guilty and claimed 'he made up the story about being possessed by the devil in the hope that the police would let him go' -- The Times, 1/11/75.]

[CanadianCatholic]

I must be the odd one out, but even at 24, i think the exorcist was and alwasy will be the scariest movie I have ever seen. I have only watched it once, 6 years ago, and have never been able to again. I think it scared me more, as a Catholic, cause possession is real.

[Walty]

I've never understood why the Excorcist is thought of as so scary either.  I think it's pretty mild as far as genuinely feaking you out.  The idea of the movie is creepy, but I think, for my generation, it doesn't do it.  It's too upfront.  There isn't much left to the imagination.  It's a good movie and the subejct matter has the potentiality to the best scariest type of film, but I don't have a problem watching it.

The Exorcist in the 70s was the equivalent of Psycho in the 60s. The subject matter of these films had never been dealt with before. It was original and shocking to the audiences of those eras, and so these films have earned a legendary status. My teenage grandchildren feel the same way about the Exorcist that you do. They are not too impressed. Kids are sophisticated (or desensitized) these days. 

I had a Jewish professor who told us his cousin was institutionalized for 2 years in the seventies after having watched The Exorcist.  I watched the rerelease in the theatre, and although it had scary moments, I did not find it overwhelmingly frightening.  I can see how as a Catholic, the subject matter is not really despairing because we have the means to fight the evil.  But for a non-Catholic who takes the subject matter seriously, I can see how it could drive some over the edge.   

Yeah, you'd think it would drive people towards the Church.  I mean, in every one of these haunting or possession accounts what always happens?  These Protestant or unreligious folk call on a priest and he does his work.  Seems to say something to me...

[Arun]

every time you hear b;aspheme it is good to say the prayer known as the Golden Arrow:MAY THE MOST HOLY, MOST SACRED, MOST ADORABLE, MOST INCOMPREHENSIBLE AND UNUTTERABLE NAME OF GOD BE ALWAYS PRAISED, BLESSED, LOVED, ADORED AND GLORIFIED, IN HEAVEN, ON EARTH AND UNDER THE EARTH, BY ALL THE CREATURES OF GOD, AND BY THE SACRED HEART OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, IN THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF THE ALTAR. AMEN.

You have time to say all this every time someone uses God's Name in vein? 

its not that long when said. sometimes depending on environment i simply recite it mentally. but if watching a film i avert my eyes, concentrate and recite the prayer, then return to viewing.
after a while it becomes habit, and its overall worth missing a few seconds of movie to offer reaparation!

[INPEFESS]

I've never understood why the Excorcist is thought of as so scary either.  I think it's pretty mild as far as genuinely feaking you out.  The idea of the movie is creepy, but I think, for my generation, it doesn't do it.  It's too upfront.  There isn't much left to the imagination.  It's a good movie and the subejct matter has the potentiality to the best scariest type of film, but I don't have a problem watching it.

The Exorcist in the 70s was the equivalent of Psycho in the 60s. The subject matter of these films had never been dealt with before. It was original and shocking to the audiences of those eras, and so these films have earned a legendary status.

That is a good point. Although, I didn't watch it when it was released so I don't know how it would have affected me, but I agree that as a new concept, it had a greater impact on the viewers of that era than it would on the viewers of the present era.

[Herr_Mannelig]

I don't think the Exorcist is supposed to be "scary". Good horror movies don't have to be. They just have to tell a compelling story of a horrific subject.

[Walty]

I would say some aspect of what is considered scary is objective, but a lot of it is also defined and engrained culturally.  The things that people found terrifying in the 1940s look goofy to us now.  I wonder, however, if our culture is simply moving from taking one thing scary and moving onto another kind of thing or if it is qualitatively moving further and further into the truly evil and demonic.  For example, would a person from the 1940s who views some of our scary films find them earth-shatteringly frightening (because they go way beyond what they were conditioned for) or would they simply not understand how they are frightening at all being outside of our time and culture?  It's obvious that we look back on old horror films and find them cheesy, mild, and just random, but would people do the same thing looking in reverse?  I suppose it is sort of a difficult question to ask because technology and special effects play an important variable in this question, but I do not think that is the only underlying factor.

[Herr_Mannelig]

The things that people found terrifying in the 1940s look goofy to us now. 

I don't think so. I think it is just the story telling device. Movies aren't meant to be realistic; they are meant to tell a story. They have a lot of tools at their disposal, but the things people found terrifying in the 40's are still terrifying. The story telling devices they used are unfamiliar to us and it divorces the medium and the subject, so we just focus on the medium.

[INPEFESS]

After browsing this thread, I went to go see the movie last night. The movie is genuinely creepy and frightening. Someone mentioned something earlier about a roller coaster and I think this movie was very much like that. It was scary to be on/watching it, but in the end it was fun.

Good point. I think that plays a major role in the fascination with horror movies. Like roller coasters, they can be terrifying to endure (try the Top Thrill Dragster - the tallest, fastest roller coaster in the world), but once they're over, you often find yourself back in line for round two. We look back and say, "That was fun!"

Horror movies can really bother some people to watch. A firefighter / paramedic I know really well (he's one of my brothers) hates watching them, but once they're over, he loves them. Ironic... The trick is to get him to watch them in the first place. So far, he has refused to see this movie. We'll start with Quarantine next and see if I can get him to move up from there. 

[INPEFESS]

The things that people found terrifying in the 1940s look goofy to us now. 

The story telling devices they used are unfamiliar to us and it divorces the medium and the subject, so we just focus on the medium.

That's a good point also.

[Walty]

The things that people found terrifying in the 1940s look goofy to us now.

The story telling devices they used are unfamiliar to us and it divorces the medium and the subject, so we just focus on the medium.

That's a good point also.

Yes, you are right.  I think I mean "imagery" and "delivery" much more than "story" or "concept."

[INPEFESS]

The things that people found terrifying in the 1940s look goofy to us now.

The story telling devices they used are unfamiliar to us and it divorces the medium and the subject, so we just focus on the medium.

That's a good point also.

Yes, you are right.  I think I mean "imagery" and "delivery" much more than "story" or "concept."

Yes. As Rosarium said, I think the stories and concepts are no less horrific than they are today; it is the medium through which the story is related that determines how effective it is on the audience.

Nevertheless, many contemporary horror films fail in their presentations because they try to "overachieve" their goal. Needless to say, they go "over the top" and become silly. Dead Silence is a good example of a horror movie that started out with a good, simple, scary concept and then destroyed it with excessiveness.

There were many effects of the '40s and '50s that, although rarely used now, I find as equally effective or more so than those used today. Something as simple as 'stop - insert - go' works well if executed correctly. Additionally, black and white films can add to the horror element due to the drastic contrast of color between absolute white and absolute black. I've seen some of the techniques mastered in contemporary horror films, but those same films seem to feel the need to outdue themselves by appealing to excessive CGI or other such foolishness.