Taking Sides: William Friedkin's "The Exorcist" vs. Stanley Kubrick's "The Shining"

Don't mean to be splitting hairs, but just for calrification Cthulu is a demon from H.P. Lovecraft's fiction.

When the Exorcist was re-released the scene in the Iraqi desert was incredible on the big screen.

excuse me, "Elder God", not "demon". now i am splitting hairs.

Yeah, I wonder why Kubrick added that (it wasn't in the book). I'm also a little curious why a couple years later Stephen King used that as the plot device for Pet Sematary. Hmmm....

and yeah, the Indian burial ground - some scholarly Kubrick-fanboy types have actually used this one line to argue that the whole movie is a parable about the extermination of Native Americans.

(that's in regards to the bunny clips)

some scholarly Kubrick-fanboy types have actually used this one line to argue that the whole movie is a parable about the extermination of Native Americans.

I've heard that too....often referencing the color of several red rooms as evidence.

and, if so, we're arguing a point against itself. Both films seem to be about a kind of possession, no? To me though, the type of possession(if you want to call it that) that makes a man want to kill his family for no reason
(and this is something that has actually happened in my family IRL, not to be a downer here, but my great-aunt and cousin were murdered four years ago by another relative who was talking to thin air (ghosts? imaginary friends? Who knows?) and suddenly snapped and stabbed them both and then according to witnesses proceeded to tell the thin air "There! I've finally done it!", no joke, he's currently in a mental institution.)
is much more common than this literal "she's possessed by the devil, better call a priest" type thing. It's closer to home for most people, I'd say. That's kind of what I'm driving at.

Then again.. that exorcism was supposedly based on a real event...

but now you've made me feel bad for arguing.

The Exorcist is just silly. As I mentioned, unless you really, honestly believe the devil can lie strapped to a bed with holy water keeping it down then the film is farce.

But it's not the devil, C-man, it's a litle girl possessed by the devil.

Also, Kim Cattrall from Sex in the City. She was in PA.

The Mt. Rainier possession case sounds more like a classic "poltergeist" (supernatural manisfestations usually surrounding an adolescent) case than a "posession".

But these things don't exist....or do they? MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

-- Alex in NYC (vassife...), July 17th, 2004.

Is it ever proven to be the devil though? For all we know it could be just a random evil spirit. Maybe throwing up and making Linda balir curse is his way of saying "Howdy".

The Omen and Rosemary's Baby. The former just seemed like a cheap cash-in after the success of the Exorcist, whereas Rosemary's Baby (which predated the Exorcist) never seemed to deliver the goods. It was creepy, but more about a wacky conspiracy than anything else. Also, you never get to see the child.

I always thought the Omen was overrated. I remember my dad said that movie actually scared him, probably because he's a pretty devout Catholic. An antichrist taking over the world is something that is conceivable in his worldview I guess.

Especially at the end: all those people yelling "Hail Satan!" is classic.

"He has his father's eyes".

I'm not knocking Rosemary's Baby, but I just didn't find it as compelling (although it's a stressful ride). I don't mind certain films not "paying up" with the visuals (I think Blair Witch Project scores highest there), but it in Rosemary's Baby, just a glimpse might've been nice.

TS: Blatty's "The Exorcist" VS King's "The Shining"

"The Exorcist," however, I'd love to read. I haven't, of course, but some day.....

Rosemary's Baby is also bollocks. The Omen is the better of the three. It has nice cinematography and a couple of pretty strong shocks.

I don't HATE The Excorcist by the way - even in spite of itself it has some genuinelly good scares in there. The Shining on the other hand is a bore. So in answer to the question, Friedkin's film wins.

The Exorcist is still scarier. Some would argue that it's not so much the holy water that burns the devil as much as it is the faith behind the holy water.

Anyhow. I'm still voting for the Democratic ticket this year despite the alarming similarities behind this:

http://www.ibiblio.org/samneill/pictures/omen3/s-office.jpg http://www.insideedition.com/images/investigative_images/j-edwards.jpg

By which you mean the elevator scene.

Anyway, I find The Shining to be the more terrifying of the two. Because if the events in The Shining really happened it would mean that ghosts exist and they might kill you, and there's really nothing you can do about it. And you might become a ghost too, which doesn't seem fun. Whereas with The Exorcist witnessing the devil possess somebody means God certainly exists, in which case why fear ghosts and/or death?

In other words, while both would involve a catastrophic shift in worldview, The Shining just adds to the horror of death while The Exorcist confirms good and evil as forces external to humanity which gives you a plan of action... be good and God will look after you.

Shouldn't you be composing a thread about Wendy James' undercarriage by this point instead of showcasing your low standards?

This makes the movie for me. Especially the two dogs fighting under the Pazuzu statue. Isn't the new Exorcist film that Renny Harlin directed supposed to about young Father Merrin?

that cuz they’re stoned all the time, remember coach rolling that j

Just rewatched Poltergeist and, yes, the scene of Steven and Diane rolling joints in bed and doing Donald Duck voices as foreplay is a small miracle of a scene