The Exorcist (1973) vs. Poltergeist (1982)

I read the actual case file online for the events inspiring The Conjuring. It wasn't exact, and I don't remember anything about Bathsheba in it, but as far as the fear factor goes it was very accurate.

George Burns sums it up at 1:05

This shocks me.
I would have assumed you loved this film.

Funny, when I saw the thread title I thought how fun it was gonna be to rag on Poltergeist with you and Crumb. So imagine the crestfallen look on my face as I scrolled through. And Crestfallen is not a word I use often, so you should both be ashamed.

I just think it's a fun movie.
I don't know what I expected when I went back to re-watch it 15-20 years after the previous time I had seen it, but I enjoyed it a good bit and then I re-watched it again just a few years ago and enjoyed it again.
I agree that it has more Spielberg frosting on Hooper's work than I would like, but I enjoyed it for what it is.

Want to feel really disappointed? Watch the Poltergeist remake!
The entire movie redone just to introduce cell phones into the story!
(With most of the fun & one of the best characters removed. Not even Sam Rockwell in a lead role made the remake worth the while.)

It's really not good.

My thesis is that the Exorcist is arguably the last gasp of sincere theological terror. A key word here is "sincere." I have unpacked what I mean by this in a series of replies upthread--it is the terror produced by the syllogistic implications of the premises you brought into the theater with you. It is sincere, because it is your baggage. It is an untrue story that proves its "true claim" syllogistically. It's not a prank that offers false empirical proof of "what really happened!" Rather, it is a fantasy that connects the dots of our own premises--the terror is in the realization that maybe you do believe it.

I'm still waiting on the time stamps on Starship Troopers and I am now waiting for proof of your claim that "a large proportion of American's buy into the 'based on a true story' element." Now I find that you're reasserting the claim without the proof. Where are the receipts?

What proportion of the audience is being terrified by the beliefs they brought in with them? How large is large? How does the film work for the rest of the audience? What is the style of their belief of these believers (e.g., light spiritualism, belief in "The Force," vague belief in a God-as-Mr. Rogers, vague belief in Christianity, cafeteria Catholicism, contemporary Lutheranism, hard core fundamentalism)? You're not saying, so it's hard to assess what you're even saying here.

My argument is that the center mass of a wide cultural audience was terrified by The Exorcist--that it marks a sort of cultural turning point. This was when we were terrified by straight-ahead theological horror without the Viagra of "true story!" or Blair Witch marketing ("found footage, dude!"), when we were really troubled by it.

You are insistent that there are still theological horror movies that sell tickets. Well, sure. There are. That's not my point. My point is that The Exorcist came at a high water mark when the levee of our imaginarium was primed to break with demomic possession flooding theaters. Fewer people bring that baggage into the theater with them today. Fewer people even want to hear about God (Buffy the Vampire Slayer showed us demons and devils, but gingerly danced around divinity; crosses work, but Buffy doesn't pray or go to church, mmmkay?). Sure, there's an audience for God's Not Dead 3: The Goddening, but that's not the mainstream audience.

Are some people are credulous or semi-credulous of alleged adventures of the Warrens? Sure. However, the Conjuring/Annabelle series are not close to being the same cultural phenomenon as The Exorcist--a point you have agreed to upthread. I am offering my diagnosis as to why.

Also, you're missing counter-analysis here. There is a difference between believing what you see and seeing what you believe, especially when the power in the former case derives from the conceit that it is a true story. Well, if it is true, then it is not fiction, is it? That's not theological horror for the audience, but a documentary or docudrama or re-presentation.

Also, you said this:

The Exorcist is a spasmotic reflex of fear in letting go of the idea of God for Western culture. What if there is something under the bed?

This is clearly about the culture as a whole, so yeah, popularity would be a reasonable metric. And The Conjuring was/is not especially popular.

TKS said it was an "extremely lucrative franchise," but "lucrative" is kind of a sneaky word there: it's true, but only because the films have such modest budgets, and not because they brought in scads of moviegoers. But being successful relative to budget doesn't matter if we're talking about cultural impact, and you need three Conjurings to equal one Transformers (and that's without inflation).

Well, then, glad we're on the same page. You were putting an awful lot of weight on the word "sincere."

I'm also waiting on you to rewatch Starship Troopers, so here we are.

I'll see your Transformers... and raise you two Jurassic Worlds.

You're comparing the success of an R rated horror films to a summer blockbuster. The Conjuring made $320 million on a $20 million budget. I don't see how "extremely lucrative" is particularly "sneaky" and not just accurate, especially as the franchise has more or less dominated the mainstream horror landscape, with 4 of it's films being in the top 10 highest grossing horror films since 2010.

They aren't Exorcist landmark moments (and I never said they were) but their popularity is pretty hard to deny and they aren't indicative of theological horror being dead (as a last gasp would imply).

Isn't The Conjuring one of the most popular horror franchises in recent memory? That's why they desperately keep cranking out these spin-offs and prequels tricking audiences into watching crap with the words "Conjuring universe" slapped on the posters.

__________________

If being the highest-grossing horror franchise of all-time (2.12 billion, nearly double the gross of any other horror franchise besides Alien) doesn't speak to The Conjuring's popularity and its ability to bring in scads of moviegoers, we clearly have different definitions of the words "popular" and "scads."

__________________

Well, the job of a qualifier is to qualify, right? If we cannot proceed with subtlety, then our proceedings here are reduced to a "roast" format or just the loud statement of an opinion (e.g., "effective for me!").

I will rewatch it at some point in the future when itch reappears or when I happen upon it, but if you could provide a time stamp for the curious claim that Carmen dies in the opening attack, that would do much to establish why I should commit to an entire rewatch of its 209 minutes sooner rather than later. I've seen the film plenty of times. I don't find the probability that I will arrive at a different interpretation/evaluation of the film to be very high. I like it for what I think it is, a big dumb action film with a ribbon of light satire.

Initial asking for clarification isn't a roast nor a loud statement of opinion, no matter how many walls of text it takes for me to get a simple answer as to whether or not these immensely popular modern horrors represented theological horror.

I already stated that I'd humor you if you rewatched the film. You haven't so I ain't. Just keep an idea when they launch the invasion and everything goes horribly wrong. Happy to help!

I didn't say it was. However, my qualifier is still in my thesis, so the "weight" I put on it is justified, unless we're denied subtlety, which would be a shame (because of the reduction which would follow).

It's fair for you to apply pressure to the claim. Anyone who claims that something is the first, last, best, worst, most, least, etc., should expect pressure. However, I think I have responded fairly. It appears that we're arguing two different claims--as I don't know that we disagree with each other in the particulars.
You'll give me the time stamps after I rewatch the entire movie for you? This is like saying that you'll give me the entry I want after I buy the whole volume, at which point I'd already have it.

I feel like I am playing Indie to your Satipo

Sure. The misunderstanding was how much weight and value you were placing on "sincere" and that you didn't consider my examples "sincere" rather than "theological horror." Not entirely sure I agree with their sincerity but I'm less interested in that debate than them being discounted as not theological horror, of which I think they undoubtedly are.

Be careful before our posts are banished for not being in the Starship Troopers thread!

The attached photo kind of symbolizes my issue with the film. I don't really respond to that scene in any meaningful way. It's loud and bombastic and belongs at the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark. In that context I'd probably think it's awesome but as the climax to a ghost story it doesn't do anything for me. It's not unsettling or disturbing or anything, just "RAWR".

But I take no pleasure in convincing others that they shouldn't like the things they like, so it's fine. As I said, I've come to accept that I'm on an island here. I'd hoped my comment would embolden others that agree with me to speak up but as you can see that didn't happen. It is what it is. Vive le difference, etc.

__________________
Captain's Log
My Collection

All I know is that when it happens to me in my home and that thing pops out of the closet... it gives me quite a start!