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

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.

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.

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.

---

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.

---

"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.

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.

Apparently you can't click on a link.


Does this look like one person to you?

---

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

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

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.

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.

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.