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

[SNAFU]

I bought into the hype when the movie came out and waited 2 1/2 hours in line. There were no faintings. Yes there were a couple people troubled by the movie who discussed it upon leaving, but nothing near the hysteria portrayed in the media. It was the Hollywood PR machine working overtime. That said, I still find it a well made film and after seeing the recent extended cut a few years ago, wholeheartedly agree with the editorial decisions made for the actual release cut!

[humbugfoto]

I don't think I've seen this mentioned elsewhere, so forgive me if I missed it, but does anyone think this might have a chance at/be considered for transferring to Broadway?

[MrMidwest]

"I'd know it in my gut. And I'm telling you that thing upstairs isn't my daughter!"

[Auggie27]

I'm with all the best12 posts. I saw the movie opening day (in Washington DC, my home town, and we were obsessed with it for the obvious reasons). Dinner before at Hamburger Hamlet. A lot of bourbon afterwards after getting home. A lot. And I stayed home from work (I'd just begun, my first job) the next day: Dec. 27th, 1973. Scared the s--t outta me.

Does anyone else recall: DON'T LOOK NOW came out in most urban areas 10 days before? That little doozie knocked me flat, just before Christmas. So we were all freaked into the winter of 1974.

[best12bars]

Auggie27---"Don't Look Now" is a minor masterpiece. I watched it last Halloween again. That movie crawls under your skin and stays there. There are so many classic visual images. I don't think I realized just how close together these two movies were released.

[Auggie27]

Best: I wanted to make sure my memory is accurate, and checked. DON'T LOOK NOW opened on December 9, 1973. THE EXORCIST, famously, December 26th. So I think my 10 days apart viewings track.

DON'T LOOK NOW is completely different in tone and style. It's grief-infused, as the couple's young daughter dies in the opening scenes. That overlay of sorrow is what makes it so haunting. Death is very much a "character" in the Roeg film, and all of that sadness gets to you as this family tries to put their lives back together, only to face new horror. It's the ties between the daughter's death and the stuff in Venice that got me.

Along came THE EXORCIST about another little girl, arguably in effect abused by a demon. The two movies are a powerful one-two punch with children in extreme jeopardy at their heart. THE EXORCIST may have the "happier" ending, but its imagery is so potent, now iconic, that for many of us we cannot separate our initial responses from subsequent, more measured ones. I can look at DON'T LOOK NOW today, and rather than re-experience the fear, just feel the parental pain of Christie and Sutherland.

Quite a Christmas season at the movies back in '73.

[doodlenyc]

How did I stay out of this discussion for so long?!

Much of the discussion here is very interesting and, I believe, most opinions are fed by our own experiences.

Like Besty, who is the same age as me, people were effing scared, whether they fainted or puked may have been exaggerating, but there was real terror and fascination surrounding this film. This is after it was a best selling novel, so everyone knew what was going to happen on screen, but to actually see it and the details that were portrayed were shocking to most people.

If anyone paid anyone to pretend to faint and run in the aisles, I would bet it would be the catholic church. This forgotten, dead terror became the talk of everyone and made the catholics relevant again. Having been raised catholic and being too young to see the film originally, it had a profound effect on me before I flipping saw it! The Carol Burnett sketch with Bernadette Peters, the mention of it on Maude when the kid joked about wanting to see it to see how fast he'd puke. It was everywhere...scaring everyone. So when I finally saw it a few years later, it didnt disappoint scare-wise for me, even though I did expect alot of what happened. I can imagine being truly freaked if I'd seen it originally in the theater.

I certainly can understand, however, if someone was raised without much religion (like Linda Blair, btw), just not getting the fright of it all, and perhaps looking at it as silly.

The frights in the film for me were the unexpected stuff, like the candle in the attic.

[Idiot]

^ What's good about the film for me is the story and the performances. That's why I think it may work on stage. We shall see. Looking forward to it.

[keb2]

I don't know if the press release for this has gone public yet, but Teller (of Penn & …, I'm assuming) and Sir John Tavener have joined the creative team for this.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

I like the idea of Diane Lane.

[Owen22]

If the show is well received at the Geffen the money is in place for both a Broadway AND a London run.

[Michael Bennett]

It had been years since I'd looked at the novel of THE EXORCIST.

I saw a copy this weekend at Barnes and Noble, and just re-read it again to see if there was some kind of a deeper psychological undercurrent to the written text that could fuel a stage adaptation of the work.

I have to say, I only came away reminded how incredibly faithful, and how incredibly good the film adaptation is of the novel.

The film perfectly captures the tone and the essence of the book - the characters, the psychology... and all the moments that are horrifying and shocking (still) and now iconic about the film are lifted pretty much line for line, description by description, head turn by head turn, from the book.

I'm excited to see how the play approaches this material, but I saw nothing in re-reading the novel that screamed out dramatic stage adaptation to me. It certainly isn't, at least,a case in which the film sensationalized the novel and twisted the genre in doing so. The novel is definitely a horror story.

It will be exciting if they are able to pull it off.

[MrMidwest]

Diane Lane talks about her career, including her early theater work:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGRY2RrIV88

[landlocked_mermaid]

I still can't wrap my head around the idea that they are actually going to do this. The movie scared me silly when I saw it years ago and to this day, I still can't bring myself to watch it again. Still, I am interested to follow its progess and see how they address some of the things that have been brought up here.

And this actually scares me less than the idea of Mike Tyson on Broadway. :)

[TheatreDiva90016]

Just got back from watching the final dress. Enjoyed it very much. No pea soup, no head spinning (Although, there is a bit where she sits with her back to the audience and she very slowly turns her head towards us, and you can tell the audience is thinking, OMG! Are they going to do it?!

Its a very low key production, rather quiet, so there are some sound effects that startle you. The stage looks like the inside of a church, or at least the wrought iron gates outside of one, all in black, with a giant crucifix hanging over the entire thing.

The best bits are a levitation gag and (SPOILER ALERT) when the giant crucifix gushes blood at the end of the show.

They had four guys playing smaller parts, but then they all came together to do the voice of the Devil, while all wearing priest robes. It was rather effective.

[rosscoe(au)]

Looking forward to seeing this

[Auggie27]

Quiet sounds smart to me. The film brilliantly employs Burstyn's mounting hysteria, entirely justified based on the story's escalating crises, but of course, as a medium film allows split second cuts to bucolic shots of DC, etc. If a theatrical version begins with a lot of raised voices and overly emotive scenes, with volume up or down, the piece could feel just silly. I'm thinking the decision to keep the storytelling intellectual, a spiritual quest, is wise. Here's a wild guess, but in style and presentation, is it closer to, say EQUUS or AGNES OF GOD, the latter written by the playwright-adapter?

[TheatreDiva90016]

Yes, it is.

He did a wonderful job with staging the piece, with scenes flowing from one to the next without scenery shifts. He kept it very isolated and dark, with the actors moving into pools of light.

Lots of chanting, and breathing sound effects.

It was a brisk 90 minutes with no intermission to break the tension.

And Richard Chamberland is still as handsome as ever.

[Playbilly]

Is it Broadway matetrial?

[somethingwicked]

How was Brooke Shields, TheatreDiva?

[ljay889]

Yes, thoughts on Shields, please.

[TheatreDiva90016]

Brooke was wonderful, if restrained. The entire production is more restrained than the film.

I think the biggest problem it will have is that people will have the film in the back of their heads the entire time.

[best12bars]

Some photos of the production have been posted.

You can only see Regan's face in two shots, but she looks closer to 30 than 12, even if she's short. Impish, yes. A child, no.

I realize the issues of hiring a child, but still, that's one of the main reasons the story is so powerful.

These photos show an interesting look to the production overall. Intense if not exactly scary.


LINK

[Auggie27]

I have to agree, all of the photos were impressive, except those with close-ups of Reagan. She just looks like a young woman (eerily like Maureen Anderman, early in her career). I love the restraint, but wonder if substituting an adult for a child blocks the suspension of disbelief. I must say, 90 minutes without a break sounds wise.

[songanddanceman2]

Besty i am pretty sure the photo's were not meant to scare anyone, you know, because they are photos.

[best12bars]

They weren't mean to scare anyone?

That's a great idea when you have a play based on one of the best-known and best-selling HORROR novels of all-time.

Make sure your photos aren't scary.

And if you're implying photos can't be scary, you need to see more photos.

EDIT: Or "photo's."