![Part 1](part1.gif)
Feeling Devilish? Try The
Exorcist
To
this day The Exorcist stands as one of the most horrifying
movies ever made, a legendary cinematic venture that graphically
portrays an epic struggle between human lives and demonic forces.
Adapted from William Peter Blatty’s best-selling 1971 novel of the
same name, the film was released by Warner Brothers on December 26, 1973
and immediately played to packed movie theaters across the country. The
ensuing media blitz focused its attention on both the movie’s
hard-to-stomach scenes that depicted a child possessed by the devil and
the fact that author Blatty had based the story on a supposedly real
event that took place in the Washington, D.C. area back in 1949. The
film was nominated in 1974 for ten Academy Awards (including Best
Picture) and was the recipient of two: “Best Screenplay Based On
Material From Another Medium”—William Peter Blatty, and “Best
Sound”—Robert Knudson and Chris Newman. The Exorcist has
retained a faithful following since its debut and to date has grossed
over $165 million (making it the thirteenth top grossing film of all
time), with video sales and rentals still bringing home healthy sums.
Produced by William Peter Blatty himself and directed by William
Friedkin (who received a 1971 academy award for Best Director for the
movie The French Connection), the movie tells the harrowing
tale of diabolically possessed 12-year-old Regan MacNeil (portrayed by
Linda Blair) and the ensuing battle waged by her mother Chris MacNeil
(Ellen Burstyn), Father Karras (Jason Miller) and the exorcist Father
Merrin (Max von Sydow) to free her soul from the devil’s grasp. The
movie, set in the Georgetown neighborhood of Washington, D.C.,
deservedly achieved its widespread notoriety for its gut-wrenching
scenes of Regan’s colorful exhibitions. She vomits, curses, spins her
head around and commits various grotesque acts of blasphemy. Mixed in
with her ill-mannered behavior are healthy doses of sensational
levitation and additional special effects designed to send the
weak-at-heart heading for the exits. While critics acknowledged the
film’s box-office power, reviews seemed equally divided between those
who loved the movie and those who hated it. The Exorcist is a
disturbing 121-minute film that leaves its audience pained, drained, and
entertained.
Emphasis on Blatty’s inspiration for The Exorcist intensified
after the novel was released in May 1971, went to the top of the
best-seller lists, and began receiving movie offers from Hollywood. The
first of many major publications to consider Blatty’s literary sources
was The New York Times, which weighed in with an article by
Chris Chase on August 27, 1972 titled “Everyone’s Reading It,
Billy’s Filming It.” The article chronicles how director William
Friedkin became involved in the project and touches upon the fact that
Blatty based his novel on a local story of demonic possession that he
learned of while attending college. Soon after the movie achieved
worldwide success, Blatty released the book William Peter Blatty On
The Exorcist From Novel To Film (New York: Bantam Books, 1974) and
filled in the gaps on how he devised this literary project. He writes
that as a 20-year-old English Literature major at Georgetown University
he spied an article in the August 20, 1949 Washington Post (Bill
Brinkley, “Priest Frees Mt. Rainier Boy Reported Held In Devil’s
Grip”), that told of a 14-year-old Mount Rainier, Maryland boy who had
been freed by a Catholic priest of possession by the devil through the
ancient ritual of exorcism. For years the notion of demonic possession
stuck in his mind though he failed to incorporate the information into
his work product.
Blatty went on to become a screenwriter-author, responsible for
screenplays for several movies including A Shot In The Dark; John
Goldfarb, Please Come Home; and What Did You Do In The War,
Daddy? He began writing The Exorcist in 1969, drawing upon
the material he had discovered some twenty years earlier, and finished
his project during the summer of 1971. His creative process in
researching and finishing both the novel and movie is detailed in his
1974 book. The most interesting aspect of this work is that Blatty tells
of a letter he composed to the priest who conducted the actual 1949
exorcism. Blatty prints a censored version of the exorcist’s response,
revealing for the first time the existence of a diary kept by an
attending priest that recorded the daily events of the ongoing exorcism.
Blatty writes that he requested to see the diary but the exorcist
declined. Blatty decided to ease the exorcist’s anxiety and change the
lead character from a 14-year-old boy to that of a 12-year-old girl. In
this book Blatty goes on to mention that five copies of the diary were
known to exist at that time: two were in the possession of people who
watched over the boy; copies were in the archives of two separate
archdioceses; and one was in the files of an unnamed public city
hospital where the boy had stayed. (It has since been determined that
there are several other copies floating around out there among private
collectors.) Blatty maintains that he did indeed eventually read the
diary and based much of his book and movie on that material, though he
does not reveal how he came upon his copy.
The Exorcist is truly a modern-day cultural phenomenon. A
best-selling novel, one of the highest grossing movies of all time, and
today a household word that instantly generates dark images of
uncontrollable horror, The Exorcist has fostered an underground
cult following that continues to embrace—and attempts to trace—the
story’s macabre origins. There have been dozens of newspaper and
magazine articles that have tried to tell the “true” story. Books,
television specials, and video documentaries on the subject have
appeared, with the most recent offerings being the 1993 book Possessed:
The True Story Of An Exorcism by Thomas B. Allen and the 1997
Henninger Media video In The Grip Of Evil. Most of the
published works on this subject are poorly referenced and offer
contradictory and even erroneous material. So much has been embellished
and fabricated that it has become nearly impossible to differentiate
fact and fiction. There is only one constant that seems to unite the
biased writers who have tried to revise this story to suit their own
agendas—none have ever actually talked with the possessed boy and none
have ever interviewed anyone who grew up close to the family in
question. I always felt the real story could only come from them.
Who Was This Possessed Kid and Where Did He
Really Live?
Inquiring Minds Want to Know...
My interest in The Exorcist tale gradually escalated during the
1992 to 1996 time period. Most of my spare hours were spent during those
years conducting research for my book Capitol Rock (Riverdale:
Fort Center Books, 1997). Consequently, for a lengthy chapter on
blues-rock guitar great Roy Buchanan, I spent a great deal of time
canvassing the city of Mount Rainier, Maryland—a smallish
working-class community of approximately 8,000 residents quietly tucked
away in Victorian homes and bungalows on the D.C. line. The town was
known for two things: the home of the great Roy Buchanan—and the
alleged site of the story behind The Exorcist.
Indeed, ever since the early ’80s local high school teens had been
flocking to what was then a vacant lot at the corner of Bunker Hill Road
and 33rd Street right in the residential heart of Mount Rainier.
Believing it to be the former site of the house where the possessed boy
lived, these Prince George’s County teens delighted in roaming the lot
at all hours of the night, drinking beer on the premises, erecting
wooden crosses on the property, and yelling and screaming until local
police had to come and chase them away. Several local newspaper accounts
had set the tale in motion and an urban legend was born.
As I logged hundreds of hours in Mount Rainier chatting with the
town’s oldest residents, one unsettling aspect of the Exorcist tale
continuously reared its head. Without exception, the old-timers insisted
that although their beloved town was given credit for being the home of
the Exorcist story, the boy in question never actually lived in Mount
Rainier. I found this to be very strange, since all of the sensational
material printed on the subject placed him in Mount Rainier. Having
spoken with members of Mount Rainier’s largest, oldest, and most
prominent families, I found it very odd that not one person knew either
the boy’s name or the names of any of his family members. Several told
me that they had heard rumors that the boy in question was really from
Cottage City, a small semi-isolated community just a short distance
away. I felt I had hit paydirt when one lifelong Mount Rainier resident,
Dean Landolt (today 70 years old), candidly told me, “I was very good
friends with Father Hughes, the priest involved in that case, as was my
brother Herbert. Father Hughes told me two things—one was that the boy
lived in Cottage City, and the other is that he went on to graduate from
Gonzaga High and turned out fine.” If Mr. Landolt’s information was
accurate it would explain why nobody in Mount Rainier knew the boy’s
name. I felt that a serious, thorough investigation into this case was
required to patch up the growing holes that were now so evident.
I went back and examined my files on this local subject. The various
published writings on the 1949 possession case contained a great deal of
conflicting and confusing information. Still, I felt it would be a
tremendous personal challenge to conduct this investigation from an
entirely different viewpoint and in October 1997 I began my pursuit.
Unlike those who had tackled this case before me, I decided that I would
present a completely objective and unbiased factual report on the case.
In setting my investigative goals it was understood that proving whether
or not the boy in this case was actually possessed was not on the
agenda. I sought to explore new territories: I would examine the
critical elements of the case and create a factual framework from which
to work, determine who the boy was and where he actually grew up,
attempt to talk with him about his experiences, and interview friends
from his hometown who grew up with him or knew his family. None of this
had ever been done before.
Breaking the Story of the Haunted Boy
The following
articles represent a large cross section of published material on this
case. A careful reading will reveal many glaring inconsistencies in the
basic story-telling, but I feel all are important for the raw data they
offer. In scanning this material from 1949 to the present day one can
discern the most common and widely believed scenario for this case of
possession. Reporters to date have claimed that the 13- or 14-year-old
boy was allegedly from Mount Rainier, Maryland. (It was later revealed
that his date of birth was June 1, 1935, meaning he was actually 13 when
the rite of exorcism was finally completed). Later accounts declared his
home address to have been 3210 Bunker Hill Road. It is said the boy
underwent a first exorcism at Georgetown University Hospital conducted
by local priest Father E. Albert Hughes (where the boy allegedly slashed
Hughes’s arm with a bedspring), and then underwent a final and
successful rite of exorcism by Father William Bowdern at Alexian
Brothers Hospital in St. Louis, Missouri in the spring of 1949. The road
linking this information together is a muddled trail indeed.
The media first became involved in this case when The Washington
Post ran an article on August 10, 1949 titled “Pastor Tells Eerie
Tale of ‘Haunted’ Boy.” Written in an almost tongue-in-cheek style
by reporter Bill Brinkley, the piece tells an “out-of-this-world”
story of a local 13-year-old boy. The story came to light when an
unnamed minister gave a speech before a local meeting of the Society of
Parapsychology at the Mount Pleasant Library in Washington, D.C.
According to the minister the family had experienced many strange events
in their suburban Maryland home beginning January 18th: scratching
noises emanated from the house’s walls; the bed in which the boy slept
would shake violently; and objects such as fruit and pictures would jump
to the floor in the boy’s presence. The minister, described as being
intensely skeptical, arranged for the boy to spend the night of February
17th in his home. With the boy sleeping nearby in a twin bed the
minister reported that in the dark he heard vibrating sounds from the
bed and scratching sounds on the wall. During the rest of the night he
allegedly witnessed some strange events—a heavy armchair in which the
boy sat seemingly tilted on its own and tipped over and a pallet of
blankets on which the sleeping boy lay inexplicably moved around the
room. Curiously, the article described the minister as laughing as he
related these incidents to his audience. He admonished the boy by
saying, “Now, look, this is enough of this....” The article ended by
saying that the minister called in the family doctor, who prescribed
phenobarbital for the whole family.
The Evening Star (Washington, D.C.) followed up the Post’s
scoop with an uncredited article later that evening on August 10, 1949
titled “Minister Tells Parapsychologists Noisy ‘Ghost’ Plagued
Family.” The Evening Star’s account differed from the Post’s
in that the family was referred to as “Mr. and Mrs. John Doe” and
their 13-year-old son “Roland.” It also describes their house as a
“one-and-one-half story home in a Washington suburb” and refers to
the events as “the strange story of Roland and his Poltergeist.” The
article tells of the talk given by the minister before the Society of
Parapsychology, and recounts his experiences with the boy. The minister
told the reporter that Roland had made two trips to a mental hygiene
clinic and that during an earlier trip to the Midwest the boy had been
subjected to three different rites of exorcism by three different
faiths—Episcopal, Lutheran, and Roman Catholic. The article quoted
Richard C. Darnell, president of the Society, as saying that Dr. J. B.
Rhine, director of the Parapsychology Laboratory at Duke University,
called the so-called haunting the “most impressive manifestation he
has heard of in the poltergeist field.” The article ended with the
minister saying that things had been calm in the household for about the
last two months.
The Times-Herald (Washington, D.C.) joined the fray with an
article by William Flythe, Jr. on August 11, 1949 titled
“‘Haunted’ Boy’s Parents Tell Of Ghost Messages.” A basic
rehash of the previous two accounts, this piece adds that the boy lived
in the “Brentwood section northeast” and also tells that the family
had found dermographic messages written in a rash on the boy’s body.
The article states that when the messages were brought to the attention
of the minister involved, “he could detect nothing more than an
ordinary rash.” The family reported that the boy was taken to St.
Louis, where he returned to normalcy after experiencing visions of St.
Michael chasing away the devil.
On August 19, 1949 The Evening Star (Washington, D.C.) featured
the article “Priest Freed Boy of Possession By Devil, Church Sources
Say.” As the first account to provide any exorcism details to the
public, the article opens by saying, “A Catholic priest has
successfully freed a 14-year-old Mount Rainier, Md., boy of reported
possession by the devil here early this year, it was disclosed today.”
While names are withheld, it is revealed that the ritual of exorcism was
given after the boy’s affliction was studied at both Georgetown
University Hospital and St. Louis University. The article went on to
describe the exorcism process, but offered no other significant details.
The next day the same paper ran a follow-up titled “New Details of
Boy’s Exorcism In Catholic Ritual Disclosed,” though in reality few
new details were revealed. It did cite church sources as saying that
during the rite the boy had recited a stream of blasphemous curses,
intermingled with Latin phrases. The article then recapped events that
had earlier been printed regarding the minister at a meeting of the
Society of Parapsychology.
The Washington Post chimed in on August 20, 1949 with another
Bill Brinkley-authored piece, this one titled “Priest Frees Mt.
Rainier Boy Reported Held in Devil’s Grip.” At greater length than
the previous published accounts, Brinkley recounts the family’s entire
haunting episode and reveals that only after 20 to 30 performances of
the ancient ritual of exorcism was the devil finally cast out of the
boy. He also tells that during the rite the youngster would break into
violent tantrums of screaming, cursing, and voicing of Latin phrases.
The exorcism, which according to Brinkley was conducted by a St. Louis
priest in his fifties who accompanied the boy for two months, was first
initiated in St. Louis, continued in D.C., and was ultimately completed
back in St. Louis. The article states that when the last performance of
the ritual was given, the boy became quiet and later reported witnessing
a vision of St. Michael casting the devil out. The exorcism ritual was
completed only after the boy had been taken into the Catholic church. It
was this article that inspired then-20-year-old Georgetown English major
William Peter Blatty to later write his novel of demonic possession.
The Parapsychology Bulletin (August 1949, Number 14), a
periodical of the New York-based Parapsychology Foundation, weighed in
with the uncredited “Report Of A Poltergeist,” an article that
finally published the name of the anonymous clergyman of the haunted
boy’s family. He turned out to be Reverend Luther Miles Schulze and in
this article his experiences with the boy were reported in detail. My
own research revealed that Luther Miles Schulze was born on July 30,
1906 and at the time of this case served as the pastor of St.
Stephen’s Evangelical Lutheran Church (1611 Brentwood Road NE,
Washington, D.C.).
After the Novel
When
The Exorcist was released in novel form in 1971 it went
straight to the top of the best-seller lists. It didn’t take long for
Hollywood to show interest, with Blatty quickly selling the film rights
to Warner Brothers for $641,000.00. When filming began in August 1972,
articles surfaced in newspapers and magazines around the country that
explored the author-producer’s various reference sources. Of these
writings, the most significant to appear was authored by Gwen Dobson in
the November 3, 1972 edition of The Evening Star and The
Washington Daily News (Washington, D.C.). Titled “Luncheon With
Father John J. Nicola,” the article explains that Nicola, then
43-year-old assistant director of the National Shrine of the Immaculate
Conception in D.C. and regarded as one of the country’s leading
authorities on exorcism, was called upon to serve as the movie’s
technical consultant. Details of the entire case are recapped along with
Nicola’s views on the subject as a whole. What makes the work
intriguing, however, is that one unusual piece of information surfaces
while Dobson is discussing aspects of the actual rite of exorcism that
was performed on the boy. The article states, “The first priest who
worked with him suffered a slashed arm when the boy wrenched a bed
spring coil loose and cut the priest.” While the name of the priest
who had his arm slashed is not divulged and no further information is
offered, this marks the first time that such an event had ever been
mentioned in print.
Go to
After
the Movie; The ’90s Resurgence.
![](redlinethinlft.gif)
Issue 20 is now on in selected bookstores and newsstands or at
www.strangemag.com or from Strange Magazine, PO Box 2246, Rockville, MD
20847 ($5.95 plus $2.00 shipping).
For further information contact Mark Chorvinsky at Strange Magazine, PO
Box 2246, Rockville, MD 20847, phone 301-570-7561, fax 301-570-7562, or
email [email protected]
This article is Copyright 2000,1999, Strange Magazine. All rights
reserved. No part of this article may be retransmitted in any form
without the express permission of Strange Magazine. Any use of this
original, copyrighted material in any media without the permission of
Strange Magazine will be vigorously prosecuted.
For television and motion picture rights information,
E-mail us at: [email protected]