Joe Karlosi wrote:
pringly wrote:
You saw it differently then what the director intended, like mostly everyone. I love the tidbits of information you post here but sometimes things are subjective.  

Definitely. William Friedkin, for example, insisted that THE EXORCIST was not even a horror film, yet regardless of his point of view and best intentions while making it, people see it as a horror film and the ends over-rule the means, so to speak.  
    
This example has less to do with subjectivity than definitions. Friedkin thinks of "horror" as meaning or "Gothic horror": shadowy staircases, fog, castles, vampires lurking in the crypt. He tried to film THE EXORCIST like a straight drama or a documentary. So yeah, by his narrow definition, it's not horror; it's just most of us don't use that definition.

Eventually Friedkin caved on this issue, at least to the extent of telling me (paraphrasing from memory): "Some people call it a horror film. I don't really argue the point."