Take One (Mar-Apr 1973)

isn’t so obvious is that this self-revealing is a covert autocritique. Like Sternberg, Russell knows more about his own career than any critic. Just as the real exorcism in The Devils was Of Russell’s own reputation, gained via TV, as a master-creator of pretty pictures, so the real subject of Mahler isn’t either Gustav Mahler’s life or his music, but the role of both in Russell’s consciousness and. their place in his maturing as a film artist. Hence, his film abounds in references both to his own work and other people’s, and they THE EXORCIST It is only infrequently that a single motion picture presents one with so rich an array of new ideological and cultural revelations as does The Exorcist. | left it in the knowledge that within a two-hour period | had learned an_ extraordinary large number of new facts previously unknown to me or only dimly perceived. 1. The devil exists. | am not referring to a philosophical metaphor of Evil: | am talking about the Real, Scriptural Devil. 2. The Devil can appear anywhere, even in a clean, White, upper-class home in Georgetown. By stressing the realistic, documentary aspects of contemporary American decor, attire and vocabulary, by its use of actual. streets, interiors, and appliances, the film, in its utter specificity and concreteness, leaves no doubt of this. .3. The Devil can suddenly and without recourse invade a human being (in this case, a child) and ‘enable’ it (without moving) to propel furniture across a room, shut the lights off, speak Latin, turn its head 360°, utter blasphemous obscenities detailing sex acts unknown to it, and force enemies out of windows in a_ horrifying, destruction. 4. Neither medical science nor psychiatry can prevail against the Devil. It is not subject to rational investigation or surgical excision. 5. It can be exorcised only by priests, through intense scriptural readings, sprinkling of holy water and displays of the crucifix. Though extreme danger to the exorcist is involved, the Church, as the personification of God, wins in the end. 6. The fear of diabolic possession — far from being an atavistic relic of a ‘| superstitious past’ — is founded in fact. 7. Man is weak; and an eternal victim. As such, he bears no responsibility for his sins, crimes, murders, double-dealing or violence against others: 8. Man therefore needs a master, a controlling agent, a Leader. This may be The Evil One, in which case he must be driven out and replaced by the Master of Goodness. In either case, Man remains head-long rush to self constitute not merely-a random collection of homages and in-jokes, but a distinct attempt to assimilate, acknowledge and sometimes. reject the influences of the past, to place Mahler in a line of cinematic progression so. that it can be seen as a refining of Russell’s own, private and highly idiosyncratic art. And yet, of course, such a description of Mahler is to ignore a tremendous strength in the film, and that is Russell’s supremely craftsmanlike approach to the film’s overt subject, and to the human feelings embodied therein. Like The under the control of superior forces; passivity is therefore viewed as positive and appropriate. 9. Evil is inextricably bound to Sex. The most graphic aspect of the girl's corruption is her sudden ‘descent’ into sexuality and obscenity; both Mother and Christ are invoked as possible sex objects and hence simultaneously as objects of venomous imprecations and lecherous verbal assaults. 10. In the contemporary cinema, it is acceptable to show extreme violence and murder, to endorse medieval superstitions and attacks on science, to masturbate with a crucifix, to portray oceans of bright-green vomit and purple-red blood, to record indecent propositions to:priests by pre-adolescent girls (thighs spread). It is not acceptable to show the movements of human bodies in love and sex or the shape and nature of human sex organs. This is why The Exorcist: obtained an ‘R’ rating from the Motion Picture Association of America (admitting children if accompanied by adult), while nudity rates an ‘X’. Acts relating to death (murder and violence) are acceptable; those relating to life (sex and lust) are not. 11. The film specifically states that to undergo a diagnostic medical procedure (such asa spinal tap) or an operation is — in addition to often being useless — extremely frightening, painful, disgusting and shocking in the extreme. Rapid cutting, a relentless concentration on surgical procedures, unexpected camera movements, shocking close-ups and horrifying noises create a documentary atmosphere of realistic revulsion. Since, as the film proves, human science is fallible, it would be foolish to subject oneself to such diagnostic or surgical procedures. 12. The ‘veracity’ of the film is reinforced by its introductory sequence detailing a portentous archaeological dig in a ‘real’ geographic locale (Iraq) and by end titles crediting three bona-fide priests and one New York University radiologist. By further implication, whatever proceeds between these two nodal points is equally ‘true’. 13. The proficient utilization of cinematic techniques and devices — montage, camera movement and placement, rhythm of action, composition Music Lovers, Mahler is really about two people; Mahler's wife, Alma, is as important as her husband, if not more so. On the level of narrative, the most important element is easily the depiction of Mahler’s marriage, and it is both the most touching relationship in Russell's own work — surpassing Savage Messiah — and one of the most profound examinations of marriage in a British film. Just as Russell’s heart went out to the helpless Antonina in The Music Lovers, so his portrait of Alma is as admiring as it is detailed. But unlike the within frame, selective lighting, sudden shocks created by abrupt visual and verbal intrusions or breaks — further enhances the power of the film over its audience, making it the more effective. The validity of the central thesis of the work is irrelevant, except insofar as it feeds into real (however suppressed) fears of its audiences; this represents a fascinating analogy to Leni Riefenstahl’s pro-Nazi masterpiece, Triumph of the Will. 14. The fact that the thesis of a given work may be scientifically untenable, morally indefensible and perhaps even disbelieved by its makers, need not prevent them from creating it, providing the banks agree on_ its boxoffice potential. 15. The prevailing transformation. of human experiences and creations into commodities subsumes even those opposed to a given work, transmuting their very criticism into additional commercial promotion and their authors’ into ticketsellers. 16. The Exorcist is the first genuine post-Vietnam film of the American cinema; it is an attempt to exorcise the nation’s bad conscience. While showing us to be evil, it simultaneously absolves us of personal responsibility, endorses moral passivity and proclaims the necessity of invocation of a benevolent higher power to save us from ourselves. Even more clearly than the recent slew of films extolling fascist policemen and heroic (or charming) gangsters — with all their escalating gore and brutality — The Exorcist accurately reflects the reality of a civilization of violence preparing itself for a New Dark Age. When everything else ‘has failed’ in a world of monstrous, unsolved problems and unbearable pressures on the individual, a new _ obscurantism, A New Leader, is needed to steer the eternal victims — powerless and irresponsible — away from guilt, temptation, and diabolic possession. One need merely surrender to His Benevolence and submit to His Exorcism of what oppresses us so deeply. Amos Vogel Amos Vogel is a lecturer at the University of Pennsylvania and Director of Film at its Annenberg Center. Founder, in 1950, of Cinema 16, America’s first distribution set-up devoted primarily to contemporary experimental films, Mr. Vogel is a former director of the New York Film Festival. He has lectured on film history and aesthetics at Columbia University, Hunter College, New York University, and the Museum of Modern Art.