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

[BrodyFosse123]

Posted: 7/12/12 at 2:01pm

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

[castlestreet]

Posted: 7/12/12 at 2:11pm

Well said Best12Bars- btw- I watched Don't Look Now on Netflix after going through this thread the other night- interesting watch! That last image of the midget in the red coat is one I will NEVER be able to erase from my mind!

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 7/12/12 at 2:14pm

What do you mean by 'well said'?

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

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 7/12/12 at 2:22pm

I don't think that's fair. How is he supposed to see shows when he's in Idaho or wherever?

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 7/12/12 at 2:32pm

You da ho.

[best12bars]

Posted: 7/12/12 at 4:33pm

Reading comprehension is a good thing. Some of you should think about practicing it before you jump down my throat. Like the smart-assy, pious Namo, who can't stop harping on the movie, yet I haven't mentioned it once since he decided he knew exactly how everybody reacted to it across the country in 1973. Of course, he wasn't there seeing the movie. Not even in one theatre screening. He only knows what he reads and then passes it off as his own knowledge of exactly how everyone reacted, nearly 40 years after the fact.

Kinda like reviewing a play without seeing it. Namy-poo and his crystal balls.

Yet he still thinks he can catch me on reviewing a play I haven't seen. Where did I review this show or the 23-year-old's performance who is playing Regan?

I haven't. Go back and look. That would require reading comprehension again. And he lacks that ability, time and time again. So do several others here who have chastised me. They're up to their same old bratty schtick.

I criticized the CASTING of a 23-year-old as Regan, absolutely. Diva said the photos of her were taken during harshly-lit scenes, and they were too close, definitely things to consider.

Namo got smart-assy yet again (so surprising!) when he said I couldn't use my imagination and picture a 12-year-old on stage. Once more, completely lacking any reading comprehension skills (what did they teach you in Big Smart-Ass City, or wherever it is you live now? Certainly not to use your brain. Only to flunk geography enough to rattle off Idaho. That was so cute.).

My last posted comment was a reaction to the director and writer of this play who said in the interview Diva linked to that they were NOT trying to create the illusion for the audience that this was a 12-year-old girl. (Read it again, they don't want us to buy it.) They thought it would be too diverting and disturbing to think there was a child suffering these horrible demonic events. So they've made it quite obvious in this interview and to all who see the show that they cast a Regan who is clearly not twelve years old. There, we can all rest assured and feel comfortable. But this is a horror story (yes, the novel, Namo) about a CHILD who is possessed by a demon. That's what made it special and shocking before the countless imitations that followed it. Why should audiences be made to feel comfortable and reassured? That's a failure.

As far as the casting goes here, I DO think this is a FAIL. I have not criticized the 23-year-old's performance because I haven't seen it. I have only read that they are quite happy that everyone knows she's a college grad and not twelve. This is their intent. Of that, I'm definitely critical.

Updated On: 7/12/12 at 04:33 PM

[wonderfulwizard11]

Posted: 7/12/12 at 5:13pm

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.

[best12bars]

Posted: 7/12/12 at 5:20pm

Wait, you say it's not a direct quote of the creative team?

Here is the direct quote from the playwright Pielmeier, which I referenced in an earlier post on the last page:

"We didn't want to have an audience step back from the play to say, 'Oh, how can her parents let her do this?' Or 'How can this 10-year-old girl say these words?'" Pielmeier explained.

[wonderfulwizard11]

Posted: 7/12/12 at 5:28pm

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.

[best12bars]

Posted: 7/12/12 at 5:35pm

I don't think I'm reading it into the casting since it's in the article that they don't want the audience distracted by a child going through this ordeal on stage. Quoted several different ways, that still means they want to assure everyone that Regan is not being played by a child.

EDIT: If they really wanted us to believe in this illusion, why would they go to such lengths to assure us otherwise?

Updated On: 7/12/12 at 05:35 PM

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 7/12/12 at 5:40pm

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?"

[best12bars]

Posted: 7/12/12 at 5:47pm

I understand what you mean, Reg, truly. And I can picture all the details of Grover's Corners without seeing the actual houses and buildings.

My issue is with "reassuring" theatre audiences in a horror story. To me, you fail this particular story by reassuring them. This isn't a reassuring tale.

"Horror" is one of the hardest (perhaps THE hardest) genres to convey on stage. There are too many theatrical devices that spoil the illusion and put audiences at ease. My issue is with calling attention to the most obvious one: Regan isn't a child.

Updated On: 7/12/12 at 05:47 PM

[Alec3]

Posted: 7/12/12 at 6:09pm

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

[best12bars]

Posted: 7/12/12 at 6:14pm

Alec3---Were you scared or shocked or unsettled? Horrified in any way? Did you buy into the belief (even a theatrically devised one) that Regan was an innocent young girl possessed by a demon?

Curious to know.

Updated On: 7/12/12 at 06:14 PM

[wonderfulwizard11]

Posted: 7/12/12 at 6:15pm

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.

[best12bars]

Posted: 7/12/12 at 6:18pm

Yes, you are absolutely right, ww11. That's what I'm really critical of in the end, in a nutshell.

To take the most successful horror novel off all-time (which was adapted into the most successful horror film of all-time) and remove the horror?

That's like adapting Gone With the Wind and removing the Civil War. Yes, you can still have a love story with Scarlett and Rhett ... I suppose.

EDIT: And I don't think a "Spider-Man sized" budget is the answer. I think the closer you can get to realism, the closer you'll get to a success. Friedkin knew that when he directed the film. Go for realism. He stripped the movie of most of the score, and the special effects were stage-worthy, not Star-Wars-scale. It comes down to the peril of an innocent child, and this story supposes "what if it really happened?" The horror lies in making the audience believe.

If you take that away, you are left with a theology and philosophy debate on God and the Devil. An allegory of Good vs. Evil on earth. That is most definitely part of this story, but to make it work, you have to create a genuine sense of peril.

Updated On: 7/12/12 at 06:18 PM

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 7/12/12 at 6:24pm

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

[best12bars]

Posted: 7/12/12 at 6:29pm

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 about the story itself.

henrik, is it still not clear? I only want the illusion that Regan is a child. Convince me, that's all.

My last complaint was that they wanted to reassure us she wasn't, not convince us she was. They wanted us to "build Grover's Corners" and make her a child in our minds. Suspend our disbelief, instead of convince us with a believable illusion.

It's the "reassurance" in a horror story that I object to.

Is that clearer?

Updated On: 7/12/12 at 06:29 PM

[wonderfulwizard11]

Posted: 7/12/12 at 6:30pm

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.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 7/12/12 at 6:34pm

It is clear, best12.
But my point is that without such reassurance about the actress's not being a 12 year old, I fear that I would be unable to put aside my concern for the actress and thus unable to be concerned about the character. This apparently is the creative team's concern as well, and I can well understand why it is.

[best12bars]

Posted: 7/12/12 at 6:34pm

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.

[best12bars]

Posted: 7/12/12 at 6:37pm

But my point is that without such reassurance about the actress's not being a 12 year old, I fear that I would be unable to put aside my concern for the actress and thus unable to be concerned about the character. This apparently is the creative team's concern as well, and I can well understand why it is.

Yes, that is their concern, and I feel it greatly undermines the story. I think the audience should be ready to crawl out of their seats. I would want them checking their programs at intermission to see who the "kid" is playing Regan, only to find she's a college graduate. I wouldn't want them sitting comfortably reassured in their seats for a horror story and show ... unless, as you say, it isn't intended to be a horror show at all. Again, to me that's like taking the war out of Gone With the Wind.

Updated On: 7/12/12 at 06:37 PM

[Alec3]

Posted: 7/12/12 at 6:38pm

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

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 7/12/12 at 6:41pm

The Variety review has just been posted on another thread, Alec. It's negative but does state that Regan is believably a child.

[best12bars]

Posted: 7/12/12 at 6:53pm

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