The Exorcist (1973) vs. Poltergeist (1982)

?
I guess "behavior" may be the key part of the sentence, I'm not putting enough weight on.


Original box office for The Exorcist was $193m, Poltergeist was $76m, and I don't think that's adjusted for inflation. The Exorcist gets lumped in with Jaws and Star Wars sometimes for creating the modern blockbuster.

I know it isn't structured in the way one doesn't think about modern blockbusters, but I guess it's worth introducing that cultural influence as a side note (since cultural osmosis was mentioned at one point).


https://www.boxofficemojo.com/releas...09953/weekend/

https://www.boxofficemojo.com/releas.../gr3225768453/

ETA: Jaws was $260m.
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/releas.../gr3237696005/

What I mean is that Poltergeist tried harder to be a blockbuster. Poltergeist is more family friendly and relies more on SFX, something that Hollywood wasn't that focused on back then because one of the contributors to New Hollywood was the readjusted MPAA rating system, which allowed the R-rating to be a big selling point for adult audiences. After other things proved popular as fads started and ended, special effects and Spielberg's name became higher selling points, especially since Spielberg practically reinvented PG-rated horror with Jaws, and continued with PG success. With families watching more mature movies with their preteens, a PG horror movie with lots of SFX was gonna sell.

The Exorcist is arguably the last gasp of sincere theological terror. God is real. The Devil is real. Priests are carrying the fight with the Word of God. It's not played for camp. Kids are fair game.

After this, things start getting metaphorical, self-referential, lightly comedic and darkly comedic. Links to any particular theology become more tenuous and veiled. Eventually, God plays the bad guy in films like and Legion.

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?

And I can't weigh in on the discussion in the sense I haven't seen Poltergeist since I was.... I don't know how young. Given I'm on record of not being Spielberg film lover and Tobe-Hooper, era-wise that's coming to mind is Invaders from Mars (which I'm... so-so on), I'd assume I'd probably say The Exorcist, but who knows. Maybe Poltergeist caught some lightning in a bottle I'd be impressed with.


The Exorcist, I didn't think very much as a teenager. It seemed to be a very by the numbers girl possession movie, which was a genre it pretty much defined. I've heard this phenomenon hurts a lot of people for The French Connection - a victim of its own success and thus the inevitable cultural bleed-out. (As I recall, Poltergeist's reveal borrowed from The Shining, which in turn borrowed heavily from The Haunting, but neither of those had a clear explanation, as opposed to Poltergeist which tried to give you one - again, as I recall).


Revisiting The Exorcist as an adult, I was blown away by it. Just watching the first half, and just trying to watch it with the lens that the characters in the movie don't know they're in a demonic possession movie, that build up plays amazingly strong, and that's the part that truly impressed me. Once it takes the clear supernatural turn, I haven't yet gotten over the hump of its originality feels bled out by all of its imitators, but it's still a more well executed version of it, but it's not enough to knock off the quality of the momentum or goodwill generated by the first half.

Where does something like The Witch fall into theological terror? Or was it the corpse spasming?

This mirrors my experience of it. As a child I dismissed it as "not scary" and was done with it. As a young adult, I was able to appreciate the craft and subtext more. It's since become an absolute favorite in the genre.

Poltergeist is a bunch of fun. A better group watch than The Exorcist by a large margin.

Compare: Cross & Head Swivel scene (Exorcist) to Face Peeling scene (Poltergiest)?

No offense to Eggers, but The Witch was not a cultural phenomenon. The world hardly took note of this film.

The Witch is more archeological in the generation of fear. The people are alien, their manner of dress is alien, their fundamentalism is alien, their manner of speech is alien, their methods of weighing evidence are alien. It's a bit like discovering Super 8 reels of the weird Freemason rituals grandad used to take part in. It's more like "Crazy s**t settlers use to believe" than OUR fear of our loss or our connection to the divine.

Were you intending to only discuss theological horror in terms of popularity? Even if it wasn't the cultural phenomenon that the Exorcist was (and what modern horror films are?), I do think it's influence and popularity should be noted, as it's helped usher in an entire new subgenre of "elevated horror" for that lack of a better term.

Would Wan's Conjuring franchise be a better touchstone? Box office smashes that are borderline evangelical propaganda should fit the criteria.

^ I kind of unironically agree concerning The Conjuring. Albeit, the first one was so good that the world had to know about Annabelle, and so a horror cinematic universe loosely based on two historical figures is perfect bait. It's about real life Christians, so it attracts more of those than most horror franchises do, and it's a long running series of supernatural horrors with professionals attached, and there are enough good movies to justify the varying quality. Complete with the 2000's Halloween tradition of seeing the next Saw, one can say Wan's best skill is marketing.

The Exorcist didn't just make a bigger box office, but it really terrified people. It got to people on a deep level. There are a handful of horror films that really do this. The Witch doesn't really work the same way or produce as much impact. As you note, modern horror films don't compare, which leaves us with the question of why it was so impactful.



I think the answer is that The Exorcist was the right movie at the right time. IMO, you couldn't make the film today and have the same result because the balance has shifted. It's not just belief vs. non-belief, but the style of belief. Fire and brimstone was already fading and was eventually replaced by the "health and wealth" Gospel in Protestantism (the secular version of this is The Secret) and the softer-side of Catholicism. The Exorcist had to call upon Catholic Priests in the early 1970s, because these were the last people who really seemed to believe "all of it," even a half-century ago. Today, people are more likely to think that the priest is a more menacing threat to their children than a demon or even an average person off the street.



If the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist, the greatest trick The Exorcist pulled was convincing the world that he does.

Is this why the Exorcist sequels were all so bad - because the first film was so "good" or because they already reached a zenith with it that they knew they could never come close to again? You couldn't out-shock people after the first film? They were already beyond the ability to be offended after the first film? Or was this the reason the sequels didn't even seem to attempt to shock or offend (or even really scare) audiences?

Exorcist 3 is excellent. What're you on about?

But if the Conjuring is an extremely lucrative franchise and a large proportion of American's buy into the "based on a true story" element, how is that demonstrably different or a deterioration of the same belief systems that propelled the Exorcist?

How many Americans think The Conjuring movies are docudramas based on true events? How many think the franchise is kinda/sorta based on true events? How many think maybe?, could be? And what proportion thinks the films are just... ...films? I have no idea how many viewers are watching these films because they think that God battled evil dolls through the instrument of his folksy Scooby-couple. Do you?

You claim a "large proportion." OK. How do you know? How large is large? And how much of it do they believe?

Whatever proportion that is, that proportion is having a much different experience than what I am talking about with the The Exorcist. Friedkin's film does not purport to be a true story. It is a work of fiction based on another work of fiction (a book). The audience that watched The Exorcist, the center mass of that audience, was NOT being hyped up by some purportedly "true story," but was being terrorized by an untrue story---the more rational/scientific part of the mind beaten back by the syllogistic implications of lingering religious premises (if there is a God, then there is a Devil, and if the Devil finds you, that's your ass).

The film fits that moment, I think, because many more people (the center mass of the culture and, therefore, the center mass of the viewing audience) was theistic in a style (a whiff of brimstone) that fit a moment where the divided mind could be put on the rack. The deterioration of the theistic belief is demonstrable. It can be seen in demographic changes revealed in national polls. A significantly smaller proportion of theists believe in the God of the Bible is legit or believe in Hell as a real place. Less than half of Americans attend a Church.

God may not have gone the way of K-Mart yet, but it's not 1973 anymore. Today, a story that announces itself as an untrue story about demons will not put the general audience's mind at war with itself as it did when they were just a little more credulous of that sort of thing. Horror today is more along the lines of entertainment. The Exorcist was closer to trauma.

There have also been ton of Purge and Saw movies. Whenever Halloween swings around, the franchise scare-flicks pop up to rake in cash. The Conjuring/Annabelle franchise is part of this pack. It's entertainment for most (I'd guess, but I await your empirics). And for that portion of the audience which is credulous, they're terrified in a different way for a different reason--they're terrified because it is presented as a true series of unfortunate events (Demony Snickets). The audience of The Exorcist was terrified not because the story was true, but because of of the syllogistic implications of the "God Baggage" they brought into the theater with them.

How are my examples specifically not theological horror?

If your analysis of The Conjuring is accurate, the source of the horror (for that portion of the audience which really believes the film documents actual events) is more like that of the clip below



That is, the source of the horror is not purely theological, but empirical. The audience is (or that portion of the audience credulous enough to believe it is true) being driven to theological terror by the empirical proof of the "truths" they are witnessing. They are being "made" theological (or having their theological beliefs reinforced) by the "true events" they're witnessing.

In the case of The Exorcist, rather, they are being tortured theologically (by the baggage they brought into the theater with them). If anything, your analysis is proof of the weakening grip of theology and superstition--the audience has to be pranked into thinking it's a true story to be scared by it. In the latter case you were seeing what you believed. In the former case, you believed what you saw (because you were told it was true). The latter case more closely shows that last gasp where the audience could be terrified by beliefs they brought in with them.

If they are driven to theological terror... It's STILL theological terror.

You're also ignoring that people are likely to believe the Conjuring for the same reason people believed in the Warrens in the first place: the beliefs they bring in with them.

The Conjuring is clearly The Amityville Horror of its generation