Quote:
Originally Posted by Demdike@Cult Labs  I'm interested to read what Nos thinks of the directors cut seeing as it's his favourite film. |
Well, both versions have their merits, but it's worth looking at what happened in 1972 and in the years leading up to the release of the alternate version of the film.
By all accounts, the editing process was a battle of wills between William Friedkin and William Peter Blatty with Friedkin, who wanted a more cut-down film, prevailing over Blatty who was in favour of a longer movie with more scenes and additional dialogue. The two men didn't speak for a long time after but, in the late 1990s, they buried the hatchet and Friedkin agreed to look again at the film. What followed was an attempt to placate Blatty by creating a 'writer's version' including all of the scenes that Friedkin removed in 1973. The version released in 2000 was marketed as 'The Version You've Never Seen' and that line was on every DVD version but, on most Blu-ray boxes, it is now called the 'Extended Director's Cut'.
By taking advantage of CGI, there are numerous shots of the demonic face that is seen briefly during Karras' nightmare in the theatrical version plus, near the end, a very brief glimpse of Karras' mother on Regan's bedroom window just before he plunges through it to his death on M Street. As well as these shots that are incorrectly termed 'subliminal' (they aren't as you can actually see them), there is an additional 10 minutes of extra material plus a different beginning and ending that is more in line with what Blatty expected from the film.
The release of the extended cut (just as every re-release of the theatrical version had been and continues to be) was a massive hit but the financial success of every subsequent screening of The Exorcist makes it hard to distinguish which version audiences prefer.
I can only speak for myself but I think that Friedkin was right the first time and Blatty was looking at the film with his writer's hat on, being very protective of the screenplay he wrote based on his bestselling novel. There are certain scenes that don't really need to be there, adding nothing to the sense of growing unease and horror and the conversation between Fathers Merrin and Karras in the middle of the exorcism only reinforces what the audience (well, most of them anyway) already knew. Given a choice, I will always go for the 1973 theatrical version even though Friedkin gave the 'Extended Director's Cut' his seal of approval.