And I hear posters describing this film as being awful, with no meaning. Yet, in the 1960's, even film critics gave it only 21/2 -3 stars. This was a masterfully directed challenging effort that made the un-scary, scary. The Academy did not see the brilliance, or underrated it--or generally had a rap against Hitchcock. A horror film though it may be, and why it was underappreciated at the time-- it's more than that.
shareI wouldn't say it was underappreciated, since it was still a hit, though not in the same vein as Psycho-60'. When it comes to critics and award societies, horror rarely gets a look in, as it is not considered prestigious. They have an image to maintain after all. Hitchcock was awarded with a best director nom 3 years earlier and this would have been pushing the envelope for the Academy at the time; but it was something they just couldn't ignore due to Psycho's controversy and it's popularity. I agree though, that it did deserve a director nom and the build up, performances and execution are all top notch.
Exorcist: Christ's power compels you. Cast out, unclean spirit.
Destinata:💩