Linda Blair has kind of faded into oblivion.The last thing I remember she was in was "Repossessed" a parody starring Leslie Nielsen
The Exorcist talk reminds me of the Sat Night Live skit with Richard Pryor playing the part played by Jason Miller. Lorraine Newman playing Ragan says to Pryor "Your mother sews socks in hell" He says "Say what" she repeats it whereupon he proceeds to beat the living snot out of her.
best, I would be curious as to how young the actress playing Regan looks when you are sitting in the audience, as opposed to having a camera right up in her face. While I'm sure she never truly looks as young as 12, I'd be willing to bet she comes across a bit younger when you are seeing the show from the house.
I do like the production shots, though I agree that the ones released here do not give the feeling of dread you would expect. And I agree that a photo can be scary and evocative of horror. The original poster for the movie, with Merrin standing in that shaft of light, certainly lets you know that something is not right in that world.
I would definitely see it and the production photos would pique my interest. Then again, I do not hold against this production the mortal sin of Not Being The Movie. I mean, I realize people died watching that movie when it first premiered, heart attacks, mouth foaming; it was the bath salts of its day. But I would like to see the show. Maybe that's just me. The curious type.
Big fan of the movie and would be dead set against a remake, but something intrigues me about a stage adaptation. I'm interested in seeing this - even more so after seeing the photos.
I agree she looks to old- one of the aspects of the film that so effectively adds to the terror/grief of the piece is that Linda Blair looked so young and innocent in that movie, making everything that happened to her, everything she said all the more shocking and horrifying. If the audience doesn't feel that this is a young girl in true jeopardy- it will take away from the overall boom of the show.
I'm interested in hearing about the rest of the cast as well.
"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.
"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.
"Nobody wants to watch an actual child go through what Regan goes through on stage, especially eight times a week," added Yetter." A little write up on the show.
I must say, I find it interesting to say how some of the more brutal aspects of the movie have been toned down. I've heard many interviews with Blatty, and he always has such interesting reasons for why he included the things that he did.
A couple of examples would be the vomit, Regan abusing herself with the crucifix, and the profanity. Blatty said that he believed that the main reason for demonic possession was to try and make human beings look animal, ugly, vile, and unworthy of God's love. When Regan vomits on people and on herself, it makes her look grotesque and revolting, and it causes repugnancy to those around her.
The most controversial moment in The Exorcist, novel or film, is when Regan is abusing herself with the cross. Blatty said that he reached a point in the narrative where he need a reason for Chris, who was staunchly atheistic, to go to priests for help. Blatty said that he thought that the worst thing a demon would do to a little girl is to sexually abuse her, and by using a crucifix it also blasphemes God and soils sacred items.
Basically what I'm saying is, I think that removing too much of the "shock scenes" would probably be a mistake. Very curious to hear more details.
"Blatty said that he believed that the main reason for demonic possession was to try and make human beings look animal, ugly, vile, and unworthy of God's love."
Blatty's absolutely insane of course, so there you go.
"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.
"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.
"Nobody wants to watch an actual child go through what Regan goes through on stage, especially eight times a week," added Yetter."
It's a distraction from the story? No, it IS the story. They have no business doing this, because that's exactly what it's about and that's why it's so effective. It's the demonic possession of an innocent child.
Diva, thanks for posting that. And I appreciated your earlier comments about the lighting and keeping a distance from her helping to create the illusion that she was a child. But it sounds here like they are well aware she isn't a child, and that's exactly what they want.
Fail. Go do another story then. This one's about a little innocent girl being possessed by the devil.
"The Warner publicity stated that Friedkin had actually looked at some five hundred girls, and Pauline seized on this fact for one of the most lacerating observations she ever put down on paper. "I wonder about those four-hundred and ninety-nine mothers of the rejected little girls.... They must have read the novel; they must have known what they were having their beautiful little daughters tested for. When they see THE EXORCIST and watch Linda Blair urinating on the fancy carpet and screaming and jabbing at herself with the crucifix, are they envious? Do they feel, "That might have been my little Susie-- famous forever?"
One of the magical things about theater is the way it encourages us to use our imaginations. As such, we agree to suspend disbelief once the show starts. I've loved shows in which adults played little kids, like "...Spelling Bee," and I've been creeped out by the effective use of shadows and suspense in others.
If you really think the movie is that great and the story can't stand up to a different take, I recommend not going to see it and staying home in what surely must be your state of the art home movie room.
Besty, I try to respect your opinions, but it's always the same old shtick with you. You judge and trash a production without seeing it. You do it over and over again.
Looks fascinating. Glad to see Harry Groener step into something so quickly after the dismal production of The March at Steppenwolf in Chicago. Who'd have thought Sherman's march during the Civil War could be so utterly boring?
Bea Arthur Nude Sells For Nearly $2 Million At Auction
Drama Desk Award Winners - MATILDA, VANYA AND SONIA, PIPPIN, VIRGINIA WOOLF & More!
Gyllenhaal, Pine in Talks to Join INTO THE WOODS Movie?
John Bantay Talks to Richard Jay-Alexander About Musical Mondays Farewell
BWW TV Exclusive: Prince, Lewis & More Remember Kevin Gray
BWW Interviews: ABC's Newest BACHELORETTE Desiree Hartsock
Seth MacFarlane Will Not Host 2014 OSCARS
Rooney Mara is the Face for New Calvin Klein Scent
BWW Reviews: LEGENDS At 30 Is Still Lots of Fun
Shocker - Best Buy Reports Better Than Expected Q1 Results, Revenue & Online Sales Up
BWW Blog: Leah Edwards - Practice. Perform. Repeat
BWW Reviews: John Cranko's ONEGIN at American Ballet Theatre
2013-2014 Season Highlights at Carnegie Hall
joined:6/29/05
Posted: 7/4/12 at 11:12am