Well, I don’t want to turn this into a debate; so I’ll talk about The Exorcist specifically.
I don’t have Fangoria here, but here goes… Friedkin and Blatty had been “battling” over the original cut for a couple of decades. Blatty was pleased with the test screenings, but Friedkin went back to re-cut when the film went back to Hollywood. Blatty felt that important elements were left out when this happened. After seeing the re-edit, I agree that the scenes in the doctor’s office should never have been cut. I thought they were important to the development of the characters. Friedkin said in the Fangoria article that at the time he didn’t want the film to run more than two hours. In a way, he was “editing for the MTV crowd”; thinking that an extra quarter hour might tax viewers’ attention spans. He needn’t have worried.
I mentioned the CGI demons that appear from time to time. I think it’s clear that Friedkin would have put them in in 1973 had the technology been available. He originally used very quick (less than a second) shots of a demon’s face in several scenes, so it’s clear what he wanted to do, but couldn’t at the time.
Clearly scenes were added to Star Wars to get more money out of it, and to prime audiences for The Phantom Menace. No doubt money was a factor in the new edit of The Exorcist. But the scenes in Star Wars were newly created. The additional footage in The Exorcist was shot in 1972. Friedkin intended to use that footage originally, but decided not to later.
I think this could be considered a “director’s cut” (or probably more accurately, the “writer’s cut”). It is the way the film was originally intended to turn out.
The digital add-ins did not change the fundamental nature of the film. I will agree, however, that the pumped-up sound was a little obnoxious at times. But most of the digital visual FX did not make the film “too obvious”.
According to Friedkin, most people didn’t “get it”. That is, audiences thought the film was about a girl being possessed. For some reason the demons wanted to torment her “until she rots”. A restored scene makes it clear that the demons possessed Regan to torment the priests. Friedkin said he thought it was clear in the original cut, but now says it wasn’t obvious at all. And as I said earlier, it’s clear that Friedkin wanted to put tome semi-subliminal FX in the original film, but couldn’t in 1973 because of technological limitations.
I don’t think that the intent was to create an “artificial need” to see a masterpiece. Although the new version has CGI FX in it, they are not the major addition. The major addition were the scenes that were originally in the film when it went to test audiences, which the audiences liked, and which Friedkin cut because he had an idea that (in his opinion) the film shouldn’t run more than two hours. Certainly everyone involved is going to get more money from the re-release, but I think the intent was to restore the original vision and intent of the film. (Aside: Whether you like the “director’s cut” of Blade Runner, or the original, the “director’s cut” is the way it was supposed to be.)
Having said that, I’ll reiterate that the pumped up sound (the “help me” scene reminded me of Psycho) was a little cheap. But I think the restored footage and the few CGI FX added to the film.
I don’t think this was the intent of Blatty or Friedkin, but:
Father Karras speaks with Father Dyer just before he dies, gripping Dyer’s hand.
When Kinderman and Dyer are talking about films at the end, Dyer repeats statements made by Karras to Kinderman earlier in the movie, even though he wasn’t present to hear them. Is this supposed to somehow signify that a part of Karras passed into Dyer just before he died? And… scary music
…which part?
:eek:
Otherwise, Mrs. Chalupa and I thought the ending was completely hokey.
And I thought the CGI spooky faces were kinda hokey too.
I saw The Exorcist last night with 6 friends of mine. I hadn’t seen the original version or read the book. I already knew about the faces and was watching for them since I’d read “Big Secrets.” Were they subtler in the original? They seemed fairly obvious to me… It was the symbolism, the sounds, the subtle things that got to me. And the medical tests, those were hard to watch. I didn’t find the crabwalk scene scary at all, and actually kind of corny, since I could tell she was about to do something weird. There were some parts that seemed to be deliberately sped up, incuding that scene, which just ruined the effect.
SanibelMan, I’ve never met anyone who’s seen the re-release without seeing the original (I know very few people who have not seen the original), but I’m guessing the new stuff didn’t seem as cool to you because you had nothing to compare it with.
The original didn’t have the subtle faces in it. Instead, it had flashes of a deamon’s face. These are also in the re-edit. I didn’t know the CGI images had been added, so they were a surprise to me. Since you knew they were there and were looking for them, they were no surprise to you.
I think the most important restoration to the film was putting the scenes in the doctor’s office back in. In the original, there were some scenes of Regan going through some tests, but the conversations with the doctor weren’t there. These added depth to the picture that weren’t there before. (Actually, there’s really not all that much character development in the film at all; yet it still works!)
As I quotes in another post in this thread, Friedkin had some problems with the “spider walk” scene:
I can see how you would not find it particularly scary, or even corny. But I think it has some good shock value, and it’s looks neat.
It sounds as if you liked it though! (BTW: Tubular Bells is a great piece.)
I haven’t seen the renovated version, but I very much want to (knowing that it will disturb my sleep for nights, though). I first saw the original version when I was 17, and although I was one of those jaded, Faces-of-Death viewing kids, the movie scared the hell out of me, and shocked me to a jaw-dropping point (I remember in particular being surprised that the, ahem, scene with girl and the crucifix, was even legal-- that one blew me away). I had been warned at a young age (at a church youth group meeting, heh heh) about the semi-subliminal demon shots (that was a brand-new effect then, and there was some controversy about it).
That wasn’t really Linda Blair. To get the shot, they had Linda Blair plunging the crucifix down and up; but it was an above-the-waist shot. I believe she was actually plunging it into a wet (“bloody”?) sponge between her legs. Then for the crotch-shot, they had an actress of legal age.
Ahh, the Exorcist. I am totally (well to SOME degree) obsessed w/ it.
I read the book a couple of times, and then saw it in theatres last month…i rather liked it; but too much of the book was left out in the film…
I agree, too much relies on special effects nowadays. And I don’t know, “poor” quality a lot of times makes a film seem better. Nowadays, when a film looks TOO real, its almost unrealistic…you know?
And I completely agree w/ the kids in the audience thing. I’m pretty liberal, that is, I don’t really like the whole ratings idea, but still- you’d have to be really sadistic to bring your kid to this movie. Hey I’m sixteen and i got a bit freaked out. Imagine how those little four and five year olds must feel…particularly the ones intelligent enough to realize what is going on. <shudder> I don’t know what’s going on in those parents’ kinds, but please if you’re a parent who brought your kid to that movie, i have to know- WHY.
Oh…that was in the book when she’s coming down the stairs all contorted and she follows Sharon around everywhere…in the movie though, it ends w/ her spewing blood. I guess it would have been hard to do it the way they did in the book…
They left out too much of the movie, I thought…
Oh speaking of Exorcist, Reposessed was on Comedy Central this afternoon. i saw parts of it. (is it just me or is the guy who plays the version of Damien Karras rather sexy?)
It might just be me, but I need to ask: In the scene when the detective is speaking to Father Karros for the first time, aren’t the girls playing tennis in the background just amazingly hot? Not that I’m complaining, but for the rest of the scene, pictures of Anna Kournikouva were bouncing through my mind… Mmm, Anna…
I have to say, I did not notice the hotness factor. Could be b/c I’m a hetero- female…but next time I watch it, I’ll have to pay special attention to that scene.
Why is it that hetero females tend to miss the overwhelming hotness of nubile young tennis players in movies that center around demonic possession? Granted, there aren’t that many of them, but that should make them stand out that much more, non?
<cinema major>
In fact, it was the scarcity of the nubile young tennis player in the demonic possession films that first drew my attention to the young women in question. Rarely are such breathtaking female specimens as the ones found in the Exorcist shown to such magnificent advantage (read: wonderfully short little tennis skirts) without being inserted for the sole reason of eliciting lust in either the primary male protagonist, or members of the audience. Furthermore, as the protagonist - Karros - seemed blissfully ignorant of their divine beauty (doubtlessly inserted to embody the purity of the Churtch), it was obvious that they were inserted for the latter purpose. I felt obligated, therefore, to pay homage to the efforts of the film-makers by drooling, er, paying close attention, to these fine young women. So, you see, my interest in these women is not a sign of insanity, but rather a sign of the skill of those who made the film.
</cinema major>
[sub]Please fall for that, please fall for that…[/sub]
Damien (or I guess I should say jason mills) was a hottie, though. He seemed so right for the part and i just wanted to get into his pants (or okay, that thing- cassock?- that priests wear) when I watched it.
I guess the Exorcist isn’t really a film for guys who want good looking hot women, unless you count the tennis players…and unless you’re turned on by crucifix crotch stabbing and the like.
