Brooke Shields & Richard Chamberlain to Star in Premiere of THE EXORCIST — Page 7

Press Reel footage: https://losangeles.broadwayworld.com/videoplay.php?colid=382534

What do you mean by 'well said'?

He's complaining about a show he hasn't even seen, and calling it a fail.

---

You da ho.

---

I have no opinion on any version of The Exorcist, as I've not seen or read any incarnation about it, but I don't think the creative team behind this production is trying to destroy the illusion that Regan is a child. The only sentence in that article that could even possibly be construed to fit that narrative is this one:

"In casting 23-year-old UCLA grad Emily Yetter as Regan, Doyle and Pielmeier hoped to eliminate a distraction for theatergoers who might have a difficult time watching a child utter profane and potentially offensive dialogue."

As that sentence is not a direct quote from the creative team, I don't think it's fair to say they want audiences to think the character is older than she's supposed to be. Rather, I think they want to prevent any outrage from audience members who likely don't want to see an actual little girl do this. Yes, I know, an actual little girl did it on film. However, film is a different medium than theatre. It's one thing to watch a little kid play this role on screen, where audiences are more likely to be aware of the technical manipulations used, such as having another actress voice the "demon" character. However, on stage, those sort of manipulations aren't possible, and thus the atmosphere would be a hell of a lot more uncomfortable, too uncomfortable even for this material. Rather than allowing the audience to focus on the issues presented by the material, which is certainly a stated goal of the creators, they would simply be too distracted that a little girl was actually doing all this horrible and profane things live and in front of them. Not to mention, it's doubtful that there are many, if any, child actors that could do this role well.

---

I'm not saying that the team wasn't directly quoted; that's not what I wrote. What I said was that there was only one line in the article that could be used to fit your specific narrative that the creative team doesn't want to create the illusion of a little girl, and that was a line added by the writer of the article, not an actual quote from the creative team.

As for the quote you reference, I don't think that means they're trying to remove the illusion of a child. Rather, they don't want an actual child doing it because they believe (rightly, in my opinion) that it would simply be too large a distraction for the audience. The use of a child and the use of an adult who looks like a child are two very different things. But nowhere in that article does the creative team say they don't want the character to be a child, that's only something you're reading into the casting.

---

Right, but that doesn't mean they don't want audiences to view the character AS a child. Just that they don't want them creeped out thinking "How could they let a child actor do/say these things?"

Saw the play this week. Would be very surprised
If it lives on.

But isn't it possible that the people behind this production simply aren't interested in creating a 'horror' piece? I mean, I think doing so would simply invite comparisons to the movie, and I don't think anything would could do onstage, short of a Spider-Man sized budget, would be able to convey the same sort of horror that film can.

I understand that the book and the film are horror, but that doesn't mean this adaptation has to be, or is even trying to be.

---

1) Not wanting the audience to believe the character is a child.

2) Not wanting the audience to believe the actor playing the character is actually a child.

Those are two different things. Entirely.

Best12, I think we are all reassured to know that animals are not actually harmed in the making of a movie even when the movie asks us to believe we are watching animals being injured. The same goes for children. Theatre involves a suspension of disbelief. I know I am not alone when I say that, as amazing as it might seem, I believed the horses in War Horse were horses even though I saw them being manipulated by a group of men. And even though I knew they were not actual horses.

The only issue here is whether the actress playing Regan gives a believable performance as a child. I happen to agree with the artistic team that having an actual child play Regan on stage would be a distraction from the work itself. I can easily see myself much more aware of the sensationalism and dangers of casting an actual child in the role than I would be of the story unfolding on stage.

Now, an interesting question, and one I'm not sure I can answer easily, is why some, including myself, would be much more concerned with the casting of an actual child as Regan on stage than we perhaps were in the film. Perhaps part of the reason is that because of the film's obvious fx implementation and use of Mercedes McCambridge's voice, it was always clear that, as Chris McNeil says, "that thing upstairs is not my daughter." The stage production in contrast uses minimal special effects and from what I understand it does not use, or at least rely on, dubbing - the dubbing btw remains for me the most frightening aspect of The Exorcist as it was when I first saw the movie when I was very young.

But, the fact is, I'm really not entirely sure why the casting of an actual child would be a much greater concern to me on stage than it was in the film. But I am utterly convinced that it would be, so much as to potentially distract me from an appreciation of the story, which, of course, as you rightly frame it, best12, relates the demonic possession of a young child. The trick then is to convincingly relate precisely that while at the same time not having the actress be an actual child, thereby leaving the audience more concerned with the harm the production might be doing to the child actress than it would be with the harm the forces of evil are doing to Regan McNeil.

Come to think of it, that might be a big part of the performance by an actual child being far more problematic on stage than on screen. Viewing a movie is viewing a finished product. Viewing a play is viewing a living thing unfolding in front of our eyes. It seems relatively easy to accept that Linda Blair was well treated during the filming of The Exorcist, but the filming of The Exorcist is a fait accompli to anyone watching it. In contrast, the performance of the play would not be a fait accompli to anyone watching it; instead it would be something we are a party to at the actual moment it is happening. As such it would be a very difficult thing to ask an audience to turn a blind eye to the potential harm being done to a non-fictional child and, by so doing, to fully experience the harm being done to the fictional one.

Updated On: 7/12/12 at 06:24 PM

The special effects in the film may have been "stage-worthy" but the fact of the matter is that the were special effects for film, where things can be manipulated out of frame, even if they are done simply. That is much harder to do on stage because you can't control where the eyes of your audience goes. In film, it's easy to conceal the people controlling an effect, not so much on stage.

When I suggested that the production team isn't interested in creating a horror story, I simply meant that they weren't interested in trying to create the specific horror that film can create. I don't think they're eschewing the idea of horror entirely, rather I imagine they're just not doing the same things as the film. Horror can be low-key, or a creepy horror. It doesn't have to be that over the top, which could possibly be seen as campy anyway.

---

I actually got very interested when they hired Teller for the illusions. Magicians illusions can seem very realistic, and the ones in the Exorcist are rudimentary, when you think about it. A levitating bed, a shaking bed, a levitating girl, a dresser drawer opening up (startled people in its day!). The tougher ones would be the head spinning around, but again, if you can realistically show me a lady being sawed in half, I'm sure there are ways to do this on a live stage.

---

Im from NYC, was in LA to see the show....
There is so much lacking in this production.
I don't like being negative, but have to be honest.
I saw the original broadway prod. Of Agnes of God,
Amanda Plummer, Elizabeth Ashley.. And Geraldine Page..,
3 gifted actors that.. Mesmerized you.. Were in synch.. Had range...
You cared about them - Simply, great acting!
This cast generates no heat, empathy, excitement.
The servicable story ticks off the plot elements but never blooms into
a piece where you care about the characters.
You feel nothing for the "child"... Or really anyone.
And after all the build up the exorcism is a quick Few minutes..
The Cliff Notes? ... Excorcist Light?
A dramatic theme or idea?
There is a deeper point trying to be made about what evil is.. Where it lurks...
Etc.. But salted in occasionally and not clearly or in a dramatic context.
The over produced sound design does not a drama make.
And
The surprise "shocking?" visual belongs in a John Carpenter film.
On a positive note , the lighting was good and the Geffen is a beautiful Venue.

Updated On: 7/12/12 at 06:38 PM

henrik---I saw that Variety believed her as an "adolescent," and while not the same as an innocent child of ten or twelve, it definitely didn't seem to be any major issue for them, I agree. They had so many other issues!

Alec3---I saw Agnes of God in NY too (minus Plummer, with Maryann Plunkett). I was riveted and couldn't stop thinking about the play for days.

I still think the issue with this latest approach to The Exorcist, above all else, is that you can't feel anything major is at stake unless Regan is "believed" to be an innocent child (not necessarily played by one). This is a "God vs. Satan" horror story. If Regan is a teen or an adult, it's too easy to accept or buy into the idea that she deserved this as some sort of twisted punishment for past transgressions.

The reason so much is at peril (more than just a human horror story) is that she's "just a child." She is pure. She has not yet been touched by any history of sin. Then audiences get a contrast of heinous, unspeakable acts, and we are are "shocked" with the scenario of a "good" person at peril. She is holding on for her very life and her soul.

Then you can raise the theological and philosophical questions with the priests and Chris while everything is hanging by a thread, and it resonates in ways it just won't without this unnerving peril.

---

Updated On: 7/12/12 at 06:53 PM