My Best Friend’s Exorcism

Midway through watching My Best Friend’s Exorcism I had the epiphany that this film would have hit harder as a 3 or 4 episode mini-series. The film is based on the great novel of the same name by Grady Hendrix. I get the sense that many sub-elements from the novel were cut for the film. I’m sure that this decision was made due to time-constraints, but the film loses much of its context, likely losing those who have not read the novel.

The novel speaks on the moral Right of the 80s, classism, Satanic Panic, religion, politics, and the stigmatization of drugs; all elements that are either absent or only lightly alluded to in the film. The novel details each of these, which explains the characters around Abby, the culture of small towns in the Deep South, and the pushback that Abby receives from antagonists when trying to help Gretchen.

Also absent in the film but present in the novel, is that Margaret’s character is fleshed out much more. I think the film took the high road with her characterization out of fear of being inoffensive. The novel describes Margaret as a thick girl, possibly plus-sized, but not necessarily fat. Her weight is a bone of contention for Margaret; both internally and in her relationship with her mother. Margaret states in the novel that her mother treats her better after she has lost weight. This is a minor moment that represents a major overall sub-plot point that is central to her character in the novel but that is only lightly touched on in the film. Excluding this from the film results in the adaptation failing to explain Margaret.

I surmise that the filmmakers did not want to be accused of fatphobia, however, this could leave viewers who haven’t read the novel confused on Margaret’s motivation to take the diet shakes in the film. It’s made pretty clear in the novel but this isn’t the case in the film. It comes across as random, possibly even nonsensical in the adaptation to those unfamiliar with the book.

The film is set in 1988, well before the body-positivity movement and during a time in which forcing a skinny figure onto young girls was commonplace. Each of the four girls has specific motivations and this is Margaret’s - to be skinny and accepted. This is problematic through a 2022 lens, but to tell the novel as written - and for Margaret’s character to make sense, should have been depicted in the 1988 lens as it was in the novel.

Speaking of 1988; the film sometimes didn’t always feel like it was set in the late 80s. The novel never fails to reinforce that it is a period piece, not just in the music played and its pop culture references, but in the Moral Right talking points that were prominent of the time that it’s set. The minor characters in the novel thought and spoke like they were in a small town in South Carolina in 1988. There is some dialogue reminiscent of the time-period in the film but it doesn’t stick its landing because the film doesn’t fully invest in those characters by depicting their sociopolitical mindset and attitudes that reflect the time and place.

This might be controversial but I think it was a mistake to cast Margaret as black or bi-racial and Glee as an Asian-American. I’m almost certain that this was done for diversity and inclusion purposes but Gretchen, Margaret, and Glee being not only wealthy, but white, is critical to showing their privilege in the novel. The casting department was probably stuck in between a rock and a hard place, but the film loses the essence of the novel by not having all 4 girls be white.

The novel speaks about class and reflects the hyper-conservative politics and norms of the Deep South in the late 80s. A reoccurring motif in the novel is the idea of “us” and “them”. Three of the four - Gretchen, Margaret and Glee are on the “right” side of the tracks. Wealthy, white, conservative, and Christian. Abby comes from the “wrong” side of the tracks but going to the private school gives her proximity to the “right kind of people”. Those kind being wealthy and white. This is subtle but important to the novel.

Depicting racial diversity in the film cuts the legs out from under the point that Hendrix raises in the novel. The adults in the novel exclude those who are different from them and then stigmatizes them. Having a diverse cast of main characters in the novel contradicts this major aspect of the novel. I’m cool to a degree with the film differentiating from its source material but it needs to make sense. The novel is multi-layered and there are points being raised outside of the titular exorcism. Failing to add this context strips the film of what gives the novel soul.

These cuts reduce the film to solely being about the exorcism. The novel is unique from other more common exorcism stories because of the gender, class, and sociopolitical critiques that are present in it. Removing these layers in the film strip it of its idiosyncrasies that give it fulfilling substance.

The film does have a really nice pace. It kicks into gear almost immediately, sacrificing the backstory in favor of a quick pace. The novel is highly drawn out but not necessarily slow, but rather it’s detailed, so much so that I see why the filmmakers made significant theatrical cuts. I still think that it would be better suited as a mini-series, but since it is a film, these cuts are appropriate.

The film is much more comedic than the novel. The comedy in the novel is more satirical but in the film it’s much more conventional humor. This works really well in the film, especially with the young cast, making it a kid-friendly horror move. The film can be a nice introduction to kids getting into horror. Even in its most horror-esque moments, the film never got too dark, allowing it to remain light-hearted. This could be a plus or minus depending on what you want from your horror movies.

Ultimately, I think the film missed the mark. I don’t think it followed the novel as closely as it should have. This is a miss because the novel is not only very good but unique, and it raises relevant points not present in the film. Following the source material more closely would have both made it make more sense to those who haven’t read the novel and it would have conveyed the secondary points that Hendrix was making. The novel raises points on class, sexism, stigmatization of drug use, Satanic Panic, fatphobia, Far Right politics of the time, and rape culture. All elements absent from the film that could have given it more sustenance.

These underlying points fatten the story. Without them, the film is simply an exorcism story, which is a letdown because the source material gave it potential for much more. I still think the film is decent. Amiah Miller really fit the bill as Gretchen and truly brought the character to life from the novel to the film, both in her physical appearance and in her characterization. She nailed it as Gretchen. Elsie Fisher played the self-conscious and co-dependent (see: clingy) Abby Rivers nicely too.

Despite the film differentiating significantly from the novel, it’s still a decent watch and is light-hearted and fun. It is still technically a unique exorcism film, despite trimming out much of what made it different. This is a solid film for those who have not read the novel but are interested in a light dose of horror. Those who have read the novel will probably be disappointed but it’s not a bad film by any means.

----5.3/10