The Exorcist: The True Story


#1

Just watched the hour long documentary of this. Freaked me out totally. I believe that demonic possession does happen. I don’t believe that it happens as frequently as some may think, but it does happen. This innocent boy opened the door to evil when his aunt, a spiritualist, taught him how to play with a ouija board…

The Exorcist: True Story of a Possessed Boy - Updated 1/3 - YouTube

“And he asked him: What is thy name? And he saith to him: My name is Legion, for we are many.” (Mark 5:9)


#2

Nice video CT, I was always curious about the original movie to see if it had any elements of truth to it so I researched it a few years back, and as this video says the original person that was possessed was a teen male and not a girl . He was originally taken to a Lutheran pastor that couldn’t help him. From what I read about what we t on when he was at the Lutheran pastors house was that the bed was levitating and objects were flying across the room.
They finally took him to a catholic exorcist expert who did help exorcise the demon out of him but it was a tough battle that last for a while.
The kid is most likely an old man by now and his identity was kept a secret to allow him to live a normal life.


#3

The Exorcist is in my top ten list of favorite movies. To this day it’s still a shocker. However I don’t accept that there is any basis to reality in any of it.


#4

I DO agree with CT that it (whatever “it” IS) happens less often than people think.

But I haven’t decided yet what the explanation for “it” is. It may very well be demonic possession, but there are so many charlatan “faith healers” out there (the classic of a person in a wheelchair “rising”), that I have a hard time deciding what’s authentic and what’s not.

I guess, like a lot of others, if I witnessed an event, I’d have a better handle on “it”. But I haven’t.

I saw a documentary one time that exposed “faith healers”. That remains in my mind whenever I see depictions of someone “possessed”.

Now I’m not about to say all faith healers are frauds, and, as I said, I don’t rule out the possibility of demonic possession, but these frauds can do some pretty incredulous stuff . . . they can give the illusion of beds rising, objects sailing around the room, foreign language speaking and understanding, and pretty much all of the elements you might expect a possessed person to do. Pretty slick, they are.

Some people that I trust have said THEY have witnessed an actual possession, but that still isn’t an explanation. Sure they saw something extraordinary, and I certainly don’t think they’re lying to me or anything like that, but I have yet to get my arms around the explanation.

While I am a person of faith, that faith does not include the necessary appearance of spirits on this earth.


#5

There’s a movie that came out a couple of years ago called the “Last Exorcism” It’s on Netflix streaming. It’s about a phony baptist faith healer who gets a letter from a Father asking to perform an Exorcism on his daughter who lives in the middle of nowhere Louisiana. He ends up getting more than he bargained for. It’s a really scary movie even with the semi-lame ending. Check it out.


#6

[quote=“OldStyleBlues, post:5, topic:38634”]
There’s a movie that came out a couple of years ago called the “Last Exorcism” It’s on Netflix streaming. It’s about a phony baptist faith healer who gets a letter from a Father asking to perform an Exorcism on his daughter who lives in the middle of nowhere Louisiana. He ends up gets more than he bargained for. It’s a really scary movie even with the semi-lame ending. Check it out.
[/quote]While the entertainment value may be worthwhile (I like “scary”), and I appreciate the recommendation if that’s what it’s for, I don’t need any more “fraudulent faith healer” films to convince me that there are some out there.

Nevertheless, the fact that there are indeed some frauds out there, STILL does not preclude there being legitimate faith healers. It just says that maybe the legitimate ones are in the minority.


#7

[quote=“BobJam, post:6, topic:38634”]
While the entertainment value may be worthwhile (I like “scary”), and I appreciate the recommendation if that’s what it’s for, I don’t need any more “fraudulent faith healer” films to convince me that there are some out there.

Nevertheless, the fact that there are indeed some frauds out there, STILL does not preclude there being legitimate faith healers. It just says that maybe the legitimate ones are in the minority.
[/quote] Check it out and let me know what you think, It’s got a clever plot twist.


#8

BobJam: I agree that with our knowledge of psychosis and psychological disorders which can explain some very bizarre behaviors in people that once were thought to be possession, there are those few that defy explanation of any kind. When I first saw “The Exorcist” I sort of yawned at it. It didn’t scare me in the least–as a matter of fact, I thought the movie was quite hokey. Some years later, when “Exorcist III” came out, that was an entirely different animal. William Peter Blatty not only wrote the script, but directed it himself. He was so annoyed at the final product of “Exorcist II” that he decided that if there was going to be a III, he was going to direct it. It is extremely scarey. There is a scene in a hospital hallway that will literally scare the pants off of you. There is another scene, again in a hospital, where they find a Catholic priest dead in his hospital bed. It is so freaky that I shudder even now remembering it. (I won’t ruin it for anyone who hasn’t seen the movie.) It is much more of a psychological-intellectually-driven movie than blood and gore. As a matter of fact, I don’t believe there is a single gorey scene in it. One interesting note, George C. Scott plays the part of a cop who is investigating a murder–and his friend in the movie is the priest who dies in the hospital. In addition, Colleen Dewhurst (one of my favorite actresses) who was married to Scott years ago, plays the voice of the demon. Brad Doriff is also in this movie as is the guy who played Fr. Karras in the original “Exorcist” movie.

As far as demonic possession goes, I believe in the Ultimate Good–which is God. And, I believe in the ultimate evil–call it whatever name you choose–it exists. I read a book sometime ago on demonic possession, exorcisms, and other things pertaining to demons. There were several priests, ministers, psychologists, etc., who were interviewed and their stories told. Near the end, there was a Byzantine priest who had some very chilling words to share. He said something like, “People think that they can open the door to evil, look at it, tickle its tummy, put it back and close the door. Once the door is open, the door will never close.” I believe he was referring to the curiosity (and skepticism) of many people in our modern society who pooh-pooh the existence of evil and wind up stupidly opening that door. It’s not a joke. Evil exists. We have no idea what we’re playing with when we allow evil into our lives.


#9

I certainly agree that there is real possession, and there is real miraculous healing. But it rarely happens when someone sets out to make a name for themselves. They are usually quiet and unheralded, and the glory goes to God, not to the charlatan who is in it for his own glory.


#10

OSB: “The Exorcist III” is much better than the previous two. Trust me on this one! If you haven’t seen it, rent it. You will be quite freaked out. Enjoy! :yes:


#11

[quote=“ClassicalTeacher, post:10, topic:38634”]
OSB: “The Exorcist III” is much better than the previous two. Trust me on this one! If you haven’t seen it, rent it. You will be quite freaked out. Enjoy! :yes:
[/quote] III is really good. But better than the first one? No way. The first one built tension and scared slowly, while III was all about in your face shock and gore. George C Scott nailed that role though.


#12

Really? I’m surprised. I don’t like movies with blood and gore and that is one of the reasons why I wasn’t impressed with the original Exorcist and why I thought III was much better. Oh well… Glad to hear you saw it, though!


#13

Ok…here is one of the freakiest scenes in the movie…

Best Horror Scenes: Exorcist III (1990) - YouTube


#14

[quote=“ClassicalTeacher, post:13, topic:38634”]
Ok…here is one of the freakiest scenes in the movie…

Best Horror Scenes: Exorcist III (1990) - YouTube
[/quote] Love it. I own III. The prequel “Exorcist the begining” was really good. Better than the other prequel “Dominion” that came out at the same time.


#15

Here’s a review of “Exorcist III” by an unknown movie critic (his views reflect my own):

*Nine years after its release, “Exorcist 3” remains one of the most unfairly maligned films ever made. After the disastrous “Exorcist 2: The Heretic” (which involved neither “Exorcist” director William Friedkin nor writer William Peter Blatty), Blatty created a true sequel to the original masterpiece. Brilliant, thoughtful, and character-driven, “Exorcist 3” will disappoint only those who do not have the patience to listen to beautifully-crafted dialogue and allow the film to steadily weave its web. Why did the film perform poorly at the box office? In our modern canon of horror films, we’ve grown accustomed to horror sequels avoiding all rational reason for existing (character development, unanswered questions, etc.) and instead being conceived from the beginning as tired re-treads designed only to make money. There’s even a camp value here, and many horror sequels are considered sussesses for this: more of the same; strong opening weekend; end of story. “Exorcist 3” avoids these traps, and was ultimately punished for it. First of all, the film’s original title – “Legion” – is the proper introduction to the film’s themes. Unfortunately, the choice was made that since the more intriguing and appropriate “Legion” didn’t have immediate title-recognition and probably wouldn’t effectively draw audiences, the more recognizable “Exorcist 3” was chosen…against Blatty’s wishes, and in spite of the fact that “Exorcist 3” wisely ignores the very existence of “The Heretic” and begins where the original ended. (One does have to wonder why the producers didn’t compromise with a title like “The Exorcist: Legion.”) Structurally, “Exorcist 3” also attacks our senses in a much subtler (but equally unnerving) way than seen in the furious conclusion to “The Exorcist.” Don’t get me wrong – “The Exorcist” is one of my favorite films, and embodies flawless film-making from beginning to end. The fact that “Exorcist 3” is much quieter and more character-driven, however, meant that many members of the original’s core audience didn’t know what to make of it; in addition, the plot of “Exorcist 3” requires a working knowledge of the events surrounding the original, meaning that younger viewers who hadn’t even seen the original were doomed to be lost in the film’s complex plot. Again, all of this is a shame. “Exorcist 3” is not only one of the smartest horror films ever made, its considerations of the nature of faith (and the imagery which surrounds these questions) make it one of the most thoughtful. Blatty has always dealt with issues of faith in his writing, and the meditations on the subject in “Exorcist 3” are among the most profound I’ve seen in film. Consider the question asked of Lt. Kinderman (George C. Scott) in the film’s conclusion: “Have I helped your unbelief?” In the power of the moment, we expect a certain response from Kinderman. We hear a quite different one, however, and we’re momentarily puzzled – until we consider the deeper issues of faith behind the monologue and the spiritual journey Kinderman has been on. The response then makes perfect sense, and the film would work no other way. This is great writing, given even more power by Scott’s performance. Because this is a thriller, the film’s thrills need to be addressed. As I said, the film is much more quietly intense than the original – but I challenge you not to leap from your chair during the payoff of the hospital hallway scene (one shot with no edits…just slowly, steadily building tension). The craftsmanship of this scene is a wonder to behold, and has deservedly received comparisons to the scene-structure of Hitchcock. Regardless of all that I’ve said, I can acknowledge that the film won’t be for everyone. Things don’t jump out at the audience every five minutes (with the requisite music stinger to make absolutely sure we jump), and I understand that many look for that and that alone. But “Exorcist 3” is so much more, and represents the work of people who cared about where their story was headed…and why. It is a genuine classic. *


#16

Very cool! I haven’t seen either prequel. Who directed “the beginning”? I used to have III on VHS and then it went the way of the “black hole”…that place that some things disappear into and are never found again. So, I’m gonna get the DVD again.


#17

The prequel is pretty good. The beginning is the official one. Dominion has the same actors and some of the same footage, the director got fired and it got reshot as the beginning


#18

[quote=“UNTRugby, post:17, topic:38634”]
The prequel is pretty good. The beginning is the official one. Dominion has the same actors and some of the same footage, the director got fired and it got reshot as the beginning
[/quote] What you said. It was interesting comparing the two.


#19

OldStyleBlues, this is why it is of the outmost importance that someone is trained for years to tell the difference between mental illness and possession as most of the cases are mental illness, but as CT points out there are those few that cant be described as mental illness. Exorcists are trained to specifically spot this. The Rite is another movie that comes close to describing exorcism, but as with anything you really need to research the truth behind the movie to take out the hollywood embellishments added to it. We all know that hollow-wood doesnt care about the truth as it does for selling tickets and making money.


#20

I agree BobJam that they happen much less often then people think.
It actually hurts the real occurences when a person reports a false case or hypes it up to make it seems like a real case, because you then have to dig through so much garbage to find that pearl to research .