Brooke Shields & Richard Chamberlain to Star in Premiere of THE EXORCIST- Page 3

[best12bars]

Posted: 5/20/12 at 8:31am

The photo of Shirley and her daughter Sachi used for the cover of LIFE Magazine.

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 5/20/12 at 9:47am

The other issue that the story itself now has is, like many other classic horror films, it has lost a lot of the power it had to shock and terrify due to the plethora of parodies and jokes about it in the mainstream pop culture. I think that is a big contributor when younger viewers now see it for the first time and claim to find it either boring or funny.

And not to mention Friedkin's rather heavy-handed tinkering with the film. Personally I feel the original cut was perfection, and the reintroduction of the "spider walk" scene, as well as the additional "subliminal" images just felt like an attempt to add something to shock and scare what he viewed as a jaded audience.

[best12bars]

Posted: 5/20/12 at 11:01am

I agree.

I also like the original ending to the movie much better, where you're not entirely sure if everything's okay.

That warm-and-fuzzy moment between Kinderman and Father Dyer is way too coy for its own good and kinda kills the whole moment, even if it is a stress reliever. The audience shouldn't leave this story feeling reassured, especially after working so hard to make them feel otherwise up until then. Isn't the whole point to have them doubt and question their own beliefs as they walk away from it?

[JohnPopa]

Posted: 5/20/12 at 11:12am

JohnPopa, I especially dislike it when you say "that's what the story requires to truly frighten and shock us." This is a gross generalization. I don't know when you know learned exactly what the story "requires", but I've seen multiple readings of the play, (the cast had their first read through this week) and from the technical designs of the show to the cast, this play is truly shocking. But, I guess you know better than an accomplished playwright, a Tony award winning director, and a very well know Los Angeles theater company.

-----

Because no theater run by professional, talented people has ever made a well-intended but ultimately unsuccessful decision before.

I can't imagine my suggestion is much different than your assertion that, after one stage reading with the cast, that your sure this piece is scarier than arguably the most frightening movie in history of film.

Still, I will admit my initial post reads a bit more all-knowing than it probably should have. The story works for different people for different reasons. For me, to take away the visceral assault of the book and then the movie takes away the power of the story.

-----

It would be illegal and impractical to cast an actual twelve year old in the role of Regan due to the physicality of the role and things other than the masturbation, but under a lot of your guidelines, I guess we must immediately recast Adam Chanler-Berat in Peter and the Starcatcher, because Peter is 12 in the book, and Chanler-Berat is what, 26? Or Jeremy Jordan, who is almost 30 yet playing a 16 year old? I guess everyone will just have to suspend belief for two and half hours! But isn't that what theatre is all about?

----

Suggesting that I suddenly think that literal age casting is the only call in all stage plays (or TV shows or movies) is, of course, preposterous. As for whether or not that's 'what theater is all about,' I remind you that suggesting one knows THAT is committing something of 'a gross generalization.'

Good luck with your production. I honestly hope it works out for everyone involved, even if I don't want to see it.

[MrMidwest]

Posted: 5/20/12 at 11:20am

Burstyn's performance in the movie is really kind of brave. She spends a good portion of the film screaming, yelling, being shrill, and going off on people. It works because she's playing a woman who's extremely frustrated because nobody can figure out what's wrong with her daughter, and she knows in her gut that there's something terribly wrong.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 5/20/12 at 12:39pm

At the time Burstyn was called "the American Glenda Jackson," which was a high compliment that's lost its power and gained irony, since Burstyn's career has lasted longer (though I'm ending the strained parallel, since Jackson quit to go into politics/Government and left behind an exquisite body of work). At the time, Burstyn had only one big mainstream hit, LAST PICTURE SHOW, and she was an ensemble player; this was the first film she carried, and as you point out, carry it emotionally she does. She is absolutely the audience's point of access. Without it, we have effects and screaming. Her terror is real, not actory. I think it's a terrific piece of work, and her reality based performance is one thing that holds the story together. If I have any reservation about Brooke Shields, it's that her natural gloss could be at odds with its needed grit. But it's not fair without seeing her.

I might've cast Ellen Barkin, if she were available and interested.

[My Oh My]

Posted: 5/20/12 at 3:04pm

"People fled theaters and got physically ill watching the movie."

"At least that's what the publicity department told us."

That's what I thought, too. But I'm the youngest of 7 and I have plenty of siblings who grew up at the time the film was released and they all confirm there were people throwing up, crying, and some even fainting around them.

Still hard to believe, but then again, I'm speaking as someone who would watch that film as a kid, alone, in the dark, at night, while nobody was home...

...and laugh my ass off when devilish Regan's noggin would spin and she'd exclaim "DO YOU KNOW WHAT SHE DID? YOUR C*NTING DAUGHTER?"

Only one scene in that film truly scared me enough that I'd skip it every time and still have trouble seeing it today, and that's that brief shot of Karras' mother on Regan's bed. Holy sh*t.

[Playbilly]

Posted: 5/20/12 at 5:02pm

They will need to hag-up Shields to make the character work, and she's going to have to show a lot more depth than she has. Good luck to them all. Hope it works.

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 5/20/12 at 5:45pm

How does one actually do projectile vomit on stage without the audience laughing hysterically?

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 5/20/12 at 8:47pm

"They will need to hag-up Shields to make the character work"

Why would they need to do that? The character of Chris MacNeil is a movie star. Yes, she might need to do a progression through the evening to look a bit worn out, as there is a huge emotional and physical toll on the character, but there is no reason to "hag" her up.

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 5/20/12 at 9:14pm

I'm sorry, but the expression 'Hag her up' makes me laugh.

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 5/21/12 at 12:40pm

Am I the only person that was neither scared nor shocked by the movie? Perhaps it was the build up for me. Every time it was on TV, my family freaked the F*CK out and sent me running to my room. I think they thought I'd actually be possessed or something. Finally, when I was 14, my friends rented it to show me...I was terrified at the beginning. And then it went on. And on. And finally, I was like, 'Really? That's it?'

Since then, I've come to appreciate it as a film, and I try to imagine what it would have been like to see a film like this upon its release. But I was pretty sheltered as a kid (from horror movies at least...for God's sake, the ablino from Foul Play was the height of terror for me as a kid). I guess I've never fallen under the spell of this particular story and would welcome another telling to see if there's anything I can gain from it.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 5/21/12 at 1:51pm

"...I have plenty of siblings who grew up at the time the film was released and they all confirm there were people throwing up, crying, and some even fainting around them."

In approximately 30 years there will be people SWEARING "The Blair Witch Project" was a documentary cobbled together from found footage of three young people who were trying to find out the truth about the Blair Witch, and they ENDED UP MURDERED!

It's funny to see the Hollywood myth-machine did its job so well that people have passed The Exorcist tales down from generation to generation. I'm not surprised best12bars is a true believer, given his Great Love of Movies, but here's the deal. When the film was first released, it did cause a visceral physical response in a handful of movie-goers. It must have been the pea soup or Linda Blair's crucifix ride or the twisty head, right? No. It was the spinal tap scene. In fact, I'm pretty sure it was exactly one person who fainted. The theater called an ambulance, the publicity department got wind of it and knew that THIS is a way to market a horror film and voila! Now people think they saw the movie surrounded by people throwing up, crying and fainting.

Updated On: 5/21/12 at 01:51 PM

[best12bars]

Posted: 5/21/12 at 4:43pm

Apparently you can't click on a link.


Does this look like one person to you?

[nasty_khakis]

Posted: 5/21/12 at 4:47pm

Wasn't there a famous B-Horror producer who would hire fake nurses and actors to go into hysterics during screenings just to create buzz? He also did gimmicks like seatbelts on chairs to keep you from literally jumping out of your seats? I know this isn't the same producer as The Exorcist, but same publicity idea.

My mother tells a story about her friend getting violently upset during a screening and how she spent most of the movie in the bathroom sobbing. I guess in PR when ya got it, flaunt it.

[best12bars]

Posted: 5/21/12 at 4:52pm

It's funny to see the Hollywood myth-machine did its job so well that people have passed The Exorcist tales down from generation to generation. I'm not surprised best12bars is a true believer, given his Great Love of Movies ...


Yes, it's all faked. In fact, the '70s were fake. The only truth is whatever Namo writes pages and pages and pages about as an expert on the subject. He is the '70s. His is the only truth. Everything else has been staged for your entertainment or spun by media experts.

LOL

I saw "The Exorcist" in its first run in a movie theatre. I didn't see people fainting, but I did see them running up the aisle, crying. Never to take their seats again.

But these were just actors, you see, because Namo knows the truth. He's the only one.

He also knows exactly what they were reacting to (the spinal tap), because he was there. At every single screening across the country. He was able to read their minds, too. It's so impressive!

Updated On: 5/21/12 at 04:52 PM

[Playbilly]

Posted: 5/21/12 at 5:12pm

Namo, did you see the film in the theater whenit was released? People did freak out. One of the reasons was people didn't know how the special effects were done. Not like today when everything about a movie is publicized and "leaked" before release. Granted, Warner Bros. did try to pretend Blair did the demon voice, but that truth was released quickly. The movie was a true phenom, and becasme the biggest box office hit of all time.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/domestic.htm?page=1&asof=1982-01-01&p=.htm

People might have WANTED to be freaked (that's why you go tyo a horror movie...), but recations were real.

[best12bars]

Posted: 5/21/12 at 5:23pm

I have no doubt that the hysteria fed on itself and spread not unlike Beatlemania. It was a phenomenon on a scale that you won't find with moviegoers today, because they don't line up for ten city blocks, for months on end, to see movies anymore. Those days are gone.

But to say all of these reactions were just a myth is laughable. Unless you were there at every single screening around the country. Oh, wait ... yes, you were, and they were all reacting to the spinal tap scene specifically. Yes, that's right.

I was there, too, in one theatre during opening week. I went back again two weeks later. That, and my own personal reaction at the time, are all I experienced firsthand. And Namo is way off.

Updated On: 5/21/12 at 05:23 PM

[MrMidwest]

Posted: 5/21/12 at 5:27pm

MacLaine talks about demonic possession on The Dick Cavett show in 1972:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WluVN1kKd0

[Idiot]

Posted: 5/21/12 at 6:55pm

Robbie: "Am I the only person that was neither scared nor shocked by the movie?"

Nope, count me in, at least half of the way.

It did 'shock' me a bit -- I mean, come on... "Let Jesus duck you!" I don't know how that scene would fail to shock a single living soul.

But 'scare' me? Nope. Never has. 'Devil' stories don't really frighten me, though I do find them very entertaining.

[best12bars]

Posted: 5/21/12 at 7:09pm

Idiot & Robbie --- did you see the movie first-run? Just curious. There were definitely people who weren't affected by it initially, such as yourselves. It wasn't an "all or nothing" collective reaction. Still, to deny the widespread hysteria (worldwide) at the time would be as bad as denying that you felt the way you did when you saw it.

I will say this ... I saw the movie again around 1981 at a midnight showing. It was the next time after the original release for me. Eight incredibly formative years had passed. And people laughed out loud at the screen. Was it overexposed and had it become a cliche? Had there been too many ripoffs since then? Had audiences become desensitized to such depictions of violence and good vs. evil? Or did they just find it plain stupid?

All I know is the audience I sat with in general was terrified when I first saw it, with people running up the aisles and others gasping and sobbing. In 1981, several of them were laughing.

A sign of the changing times, to me.

EDIT: It's also a classic example of what happens to so many mega-hit movies. People know every line, every scene, every shock, and all the parodies (did anybody see the Carol Burnett Exorcist spoof before they saw the actual film?). There could never be an element of freshness or surprise, as a result of being exposed to all of that in advance.

Updated On: 5/21/12 at 07:09 PM

[Idiot]

Posted: 5/21/12 at 7:53pm

Best12 -- no, I was too young to see it when it first came out. I finally saw it in it's entirety years later on one of those giant videodiscs, I believe. And yes -- I'd heard A LOT about it, as everyone had.

[best12bars]

Posted: 5/21/12 at 8:54pm

Don't you think that took the edge off of it for you?

For me, I can only compare it to something like "Casablanca" (frightening!). Not as a scary movie, but as a film that I knew so well before I saw a single frame of it. I had seen the parodies, heard the lines, seen the posters and images of Bogart and Bergman on everything from coffee mugs to commemorative plates. it was everywhere in pop culture. So when I first saw the film when I was in college, it left me completely cold. I thought it was corny and forgettable. After that initial viewing, I warmed up to it. I still wouldn't call it one of my favorite films, but after many additional viewings, I can see the real mastery behind it. I left my expectations of finding something emotionally fresh and exciting behind, and just studied the brilliant work by everyone involved.

[Idiot]

Posted: 5/21/12 at 9:49pm

Besty, I'm not sure. Some people are genuinely scared by satanic material - it's just not very frightening to me. I've always wondered if it's because I'm not a conventionally religious person.

Don't get me wrong -- I really like THE EXORCIST.

[Leadingplayer]

Posted: 5/22/12 at 3:00am

Actually the part that made people freak out and pass out was the spinal tap scene not the demon stuff. The medical scenes were very intense and had not really been done much on screen prior to this.

Here is Burstyn talking about it:
Burstyn on Exorcist