MovieChat Forums > The Exorcist (1973) Discussion > When Medicine Fails.....

When Medicine Fails.....

posted 3 years ago by ecarle (14979)
35 replies | jump to latest

The Exorcist's enormous success reflected its mix of bestseller source(ala The Godfather), gotta-see-it horror reputation(ala Psycho) and something else: director William Friedkin's desire to at once make a cynical study of modern medicine AND to speak to religious beliefs and values. (As critic Pauline Kael wrote in her angry pan of the film in 1973, "It's the biggest booster for the Catholic church since Bing Crosby in Going My Way.")

The rather unlikeable creative team who made The Exorcist(abusive William Friedkin and fatuous William Peter Blatty) both noted that evidently for 1973 audiences, the biggest horrors in The Exorcist weren't in the scenes with the monster in the bedroom -- they were the medical scenes, principally the surgical procedure (filmed in bright, flat, realistic light) in which the big long needle was inserted into sweet little Linda Blair's neck. THAT was the scene, said the makers, that caused fainting and vomiting in the audience.

As well it might. Because people don't much like going to the doctor, or going to the hospital , or getting a shot, or being physically invaded.

And The Exorcist subjected Regan (and her long-suffering mother) to ALL of that and then made the scariest announcement of all: sometimes medicine fails. Sometimes, the cure can't be found. Sometimes, the "medical experts" have no idea WHY a person is sick.

I've seen this with friends and family. Doctors and surgeons are OK with setting broken arms, removing appendixes and gall bladders, and even the life endangering but safe matters of heart surgery.

But what doctors are NOT OK with is being unable to really TELL a patient what is wrong with them when the disease is "unknown"...and EXACTLY how it can be treated or cured. I've known person after person who is frustrated and sad when doctors tell them "we don't really know what this is, or how we can treat it." Usually, a medication is used that is used to treat some other disease. "Fingers crossed."

The Exorcist offers rather a "fantasy" solution to the age-old problem "when medicine fails": Faith healing. That's controversial, right there. If you don't believe in faith, or religion or God...the "solution" to saving Regan(an exorcism) falls flat. (Jane Fonda evidently turned down the Mother role saying "she didn't believe in fairy tales.") If you DO believe in faith, indeed, here is the movie that tells you that it can overcome and solve the problems that no doctor can handle.

Which is another reason this movie was a big, big hit. Foul-mouthed, gross and gory -- but deeply of faith.

The question remains: just how much did the filmmakers BELIEVE in this faith?

PS. In today's era of comic book films, faith-based solutions to everything come up in the final act...but it is faith in superpowers and the icons that create them, not in religious faith.

[–] christomacin (4526) 3 years ago

Blatty seemed to me genuinely sincere in his Catholic faith, as one of his other films The Ninth Configuration might suggest. Although as a showman he wasn't above a bit of Hollywood sensationalism to sell tickets. Friedkin is more of a slippery eel on what he actually believes in... or so it seems. Before Blatty died, I saw one of Blatty's appearances (on YouTube) on some Christian channels hawking the re-release of The Exorcist: The Version You've Never Seen with Friedkin in tow. Friedkin, a Jew, buttered up the host and talked about his deeply religious experience while having a specially arranged visit with Blatty to the see Shourd of Turin. Not sure I bought his religiosity during the interview as much as Blatty's, and I suspect he was mainly there to generate some publicity for the re-release. Friedkin made two gay-theme films (Boys in the Band and Cruising) which were condemned by both gay and straight alike. You'd be hard-pressed to gleam where he comes down on the subject of how that community should be represented. What was his view on cops? The French Connection has a cop shooting a suspect in the back like Dirty Harry and cutting ethical corners to nail his man (Liberalism gone too far)... but at the same time he is a racist and screw up that gets his own people killed (out of control cops). To Live and Die in L.A. has similarly morally ambiguous police characters, with a lot of noirish " Jungian double" imagery, as did Cruising, which took the noir theme into the territory of gay/straight identity. One scene in particular shows Pacino (straight, a cop) and a suspect (gay, a killer?) in a park mirroring each others movements. The end of Cruising folds back in on itself, Ouroboros fashion, and the actual identity of the killer(s?) seems either logically impossible or requiring a supernatural interpretation to make sense of. A very murky film, indeed. And finally, the death penalty. Friedkin was an opponent of the death penalty earlier in life, but seemed to have a conversion to the pro-death penalty position half-way through filming Rampage. Do his films exhibit brilliant, morally ambiguous Kubrickism, or are they merely the product of a muddled mind? The viewer must decide.

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

A well-written essay on Exorcist and Friedkin with one noticeable flaw: Michael Mann directed Manhunter. You might be thinking of To Live and Die in L.A. which came out roughly the same time as Manhunter

[–] christomacin (4526) 3 years ago

You're correct... I got the name of the film wrong... He did direct a film about a serial killler, though, and this is the one I am thinking of, though the title escapes me. {EDIT} The title of the film is "Rampage"

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

Thanks for clearing that up! I have never seen Rampage. Cruising is a film I have thought interesting for many years even though the gay activists in Manhattan tried to shut the production down when it was being made because it was perceived as being a killer queer on the loose movie, though that would be oversimplifying matters. I love the ambiguity of that film and that it leaves us with the unsettling thought that the protagonist might possibly be a killer himself. Supposedly, Al Pacino hated it when he first saw it because that was not the direction the original script went and those ambiguous touches were things Friedkin came up with during editing.

[–] MichaelJPollock (649) 3 years ago

Very interesting posts all around...

"Do his films exhibit brilliant, morally ambiguous Kubrickism, or are they merely product of a muddled mind? The viewer must decide."
I wouldn't say Friedkin's films are morally ambiguous, so much as they refuse to pass judgment on their protagonists. I like that Friedkin is not a "moralist" (say, a Haneke), and that he leaves the onus on the audience to sort out their own moral dilemma and how they feel about the protagonists actions and intentions.
One thing for sure though, almost all of his films are, at heart, about contamination.

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

Do his films exhibit brilliant, morally ambiguous Kubrickism, or are they merely the product of a muddled mind? The viewer must decide.

---

In his autobio(I think it is called "The Friedkin Connection"), Friedkin reveals that with at least two of his films -- The French Connection and Cruising -- he pretty much changed the endings either during editing or by re-staging scenes. With Cruising, I guess it was editing only , because Pacino was enraged to see himself portrayed as "maybe the killer." That's not the role he signed to play, he said -- Friedkin changed it on a whim.

Friedkin did SOMETHING to the ending of French Connection in editing, which is why it ends with the rather murky shot of Hackman running into a blur...I think it is a rather weak ending, but its what Friedkin chose to do.

I think "muddled mind" isn't too off point... Friedkin lacked discipline and believed too much in his ability to "change things in editing." The proof was in the pudding: no real hits or particularly well-reviewed movies after his Big Two(The French Connection and The Exorcist) -- and I personally think that those Big Two have serious flaws. The French Connection for instance, is boring a lot of the time, to me.

[–] MichaelJPollock (649) 3 years ago

> "no real hits or particularly well-reviewed movies after his Big Two(The French Connection and The Exorcist) -- and I personally think that those Big Two have serious flaws. The French Connection for instance, is boring a lot of the time, to me."
Fair enough. I find that a little harsh myself, as I think "To Live and Die in L.A." and "Sorcerer" are both excellent films. The former, substantially superior to "The French Connection", and the latter, probably his masterpiece (and allegedly his favourite film of his).

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

I much prefer To Live and Die in La to The French Connection -- though it wasn't nearly as much of a hit. I like how To Live and Die in LA is as much an 80's film as The French Connection is an 70s film. And I like the big LA freeway car chase in LA better than The French Connection chase.

Sorcerer -- coming right after The Exorcist -- was Friedkin's "Hollywood downfall." Hollywood moneymen banked on Friedkin to deliver another blockbuster, but he went all egotistical on them, made fun of them, refused their suggestions, overspent their money.

When Sorcerer -- however good -- flopped -- the Hollywood moneymen got their revenge. He cost Universal multi-millions and started getting blacklisted from the "big movies." Cruising with Al Pacino was made when Friedkin had some residual clout but then it had its controversies. Final nail in the coffin. Except..nobody who makes a blockbuster is ever TOTALLY out of work in Hollywood.

Friedkin kept working intermittently over the years, but he never had movies that mattered in the culture after the Big Two, again.

Still -- with the luck of the Devil himself - in the 90s(?) Friedkin married Paramount studio head Sherry Lansing and -- voila -- he started getting directing jobs at Paramount. But not very good ones.

As for Sorcerer, its been years since I've seen it so I can't really comment on it other than to note its a remake(of The Wages of Fear) and just didn't excite audiences at all...even given the supposedly surefire suspense material. Something went wrong -- star casting? Grimness? (It came out the same month as Star Wars and got trounced.)

Oh well, Friedkin's Big Hits brought Oscars, fame and more wealth than God.

[–] christomacin (4526) 3 years ago

The Wages of Fear is a better film than The Sorcerer. No argument there. I do wonder if part of the reason many more famous French actors like Yves Montand and Jean-Louis Trintignant declined a role in the film was out of loyalty towards Clouzot, resenting an American remake of a French classic. Bruno Cremer was good in the movie, and he had a much bigger career in France than I realized, but he wasn't a big international star.* Scheider was a moderately big star, but unfortunately Jaws was an ensemble film with three other actors - one of them named Bruce. So, he wasn't seen as being "bankable" at that point, much like Harrison Ford wasn't "banakable" until Raiders of the Lost Ark. As for Friedkin comebacks and bankable stars, I think if he had bagged a bigger star than William J. Petersen in To Live and Die in L.A. he might have had that comeback. I could picture Mel Gibson in that role, actually. Gibson always had a bit of "off" in his screen persona, and his Lethal Weapon character Riggs isn't all that far removed from Petersen's Chance in TLADILA. Imagine Mel Gibson in that VERY sexy bedroom scene between Darlanne Flugel and Petersen. Gibson wasn't exactly shy about dropping his trousers during this period either, and was a major sex symbol. The tickets sales from the female half of the population would have guaranteed a hit. A lot of girlfriends would have been oddly keen on their boyfriends taking them to a macho cop thriller back in 1985, methinks, and oddly "enthusiastic" after getting back home from the cinema. "Mel? Who's Mel?" LOL.

*NOTE: Platoon 317 (1965) with Bruno Cremer is an absolute must-see film about the conflict(s) in Indo-China/Vietnam, and one of the best war films ever. I can't believe it is so unknown. I encourage everyone to seek this film out.

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

The Wages of Fear is a better film than The Sorcerer. No argument there.

---

Its funny. As I post this, I have recently watched the original Wages of Fear on the HBO Max service(which, to its credit, runs a lot of classic foreign films.) Its decades since I saw Sorcerer, but just days since I've seen The Wages of Fear -- and THAT one holds up just fine -- even as it takes over a half hour of meandering around before even starting the real premise(desperate men hired to drive trucks filled with nitro across bumpy roads and dangerous bridges to an oil fire.) This "meandering"(deep in detail about what MAKES these men desperate) is part of the now-lost magic of that era. (I was also amused, in this 1953 film, of a long take of Yves Montand sitting by a pin-up of a clearly, fully nude woman. US Films were over a decade away from such frankness. Though the pin up is actually quite small, more a photograph than a calendar page.)

---

I do wonder if part of the reason many more famous French actors like Yves Montand and Jean-Louis Trintignant declined a role in the film was out of loyalty towards Clouzot, resenting an American remake of a French classic.

--

Its possible. Of course, Montand is the young handsome star of The Wages of Fear. I suppose he was offered the "older guy" part in the remake, much as Michael Caine did in the Get Carter remake and Burt Reynolds in the The Longest Yard remake.

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

Bruno Cremer was good in the movie, and he had a much bigger career in France than I realized, but he wasn't a big international star.* Scheider was a moderately big star, but unfortunately Jaws was an ensemble film with three other actors - one of them named Bruce.

---

None of the three male stars of Jaws were leading men until AFTER Jaws, and each of them got star careers , but for varying times. Richard Dreyfuss did the best and lasted the longest(with a Best Actor Oscar for The Goodbye Girl.) Robert Shaw became an action star of sorts but died young of a heart attack at 51. And Scheider just sort of struggled. One classic after Jaws -- All That Jazz (in a role vacated by Dreyfuss!) A few starring roles(Blue Thunder, Still of the Night). But pretty much over by the mid-eighties and not nearly bankable enough for Sorcerer.

Friedkin had pitched the American role in Sorcerer to Steve McQueen, who took the offer seriously from the director of French Connection(which McQueen had turned down) and The Exorcist. But McQueen asked for something for his wife Ali MacGraw(if not a role in the almost all-male movie, then a producing credit) so she could follow him to the distant jungle locations. Friedkin wouldn't do it. Other "usual suspect" men got the offer, said no. Scheider got it. And he wasn't enough.

---
So, he wasn't seen as being "bankable" at that point, much like Harrison Ford wasn't "banakable" until Raiders of the Lost Ark

---

Yes, I think people forget that while Ford got roles right after Star Wars, they weren't in very good movies(Force Ten From Navarone with Robert Jaws Shaw; The Frisco Kid) and he was rather struggling when he replaced Tom Selleck in Raiders and TRULY became bankable. Movie stardom can be a matter of luck.

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

Perhaps Sorcerer was always doomed with American audiences because the American lead had to share the story with three stars from other countries -- Friedkin kept following his "Eurofilm" influences as well as his documentary style -- both of which were going to be liabilities as Lucas-Spielberg arrived.

Post-mortems noted that with the title 'Sorcerer" (the name of one of the nitro trucks), audiences thought another Exorcist was coming. I suppose that hurt, but if Sorcerer had hit elements, the title wouldn't have mattered.

Hollywood insiders and then Friedkin himself noted that it was his contemptuous treatment of the "suits" at Universal that helped sink Sorcerer AND Friedkin's career. No less a director star than Alfred Hitchcock was always saying things like "I never forget I am spending the money of my studio investors and I must treat it with respect and seek a profit." Eva Marie Saint said that Hitchcock stopped filming North by Northwest to tour the money men around the set and treat them right.

Meanwhile, Friedkin did a lunch with HIS backers on Sorcerer on purpose in crummy bum clothes and drinking from a Vodka bottle and making fun of their suggestions. When Sorcerer flopped...they never forgot.

Note in passing: Orson Welles, too, always disrespected the money men and they spent decades cutting him off from projects. They even tried to stop his AFI Life Achievement Award!

I'm not necessarily taking the money men's side here. With new directors on new films they could be tight with the dollars and the schedules, and a lot of directors rebelled and spent all over the place once they had a hit(see: Steven Spielberg, John Landis.) But there's a delicate balance, and Friedkin disrespected it.

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

Note in passing: in the early 70's, three directors were hot -- Bogdanovich(The Last Picture Show, What's Up Doc); Friedkin(French Connection/Exorcist) and Coppola(The Godfathers.) So hot that they formed a production company called The Director's Company. It collapsed in egos. Bogdo made Paper Moon(a hit) and Daisy Miller(a flop.) Coppola made the great "The Conversation" but it flopped(and Friedkin hated it.) Friedkin made nothing. The company dissolved and within a few years, Bogdo was over, Friedkin and Coppola were struggling. As it turned out, what MADE Bogdanovich, Friedkin and Coppola so famous (early 70's style) was out the door by the 80s.

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

As for Friedkin comebacks and bankable stars, I think if he had bagged a bigger star than William J. Petersen in To Live and Die in L.A. he might have had that comeback.

---

Very likely. In the 70's, star directors could get away with non-star casts(Hitchcock's Frenzy, Zinneman's Day of the Jackal) , but by the eighties, stars were back. Peterson as the lead also struck me as one reason that the first Hannibal Lector movie(Manhunter, badly titled from Red Dragon, the novel) failed. It had no stars in it. (The remake had PLENTY of star, plus Hopkins as Lector; he wasn't in the original.) The proof was in Peterson's career: big stardom came, but on TV (CSI) and that was pure luck.

---

I could picture Mel Gibson in that role, actually. Gibson always had a bit of "off" in his screen persona, and his Lethal Weapon character Riggs isn't all that far removed from Petersen's Chance in TLADILA. Imagine Mel Gibson in that VERY sexy bedroom scene between Darlanne Flugel and Petersen. Gibson wasn't exactly shy about dropping his trousers during this period either, and was a major sex symbol.

---

Well, Mr. Peterson in that movie joined that rather small circle of male actors willing to go full frontal; I wonder if Gibson would have gone all the way, too. Wouldn't matter if he didn't; he was MEL GIBSON -- and likely would have done some nudity.

---

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

The tickets sales from the female half of the population would have guaranteed a hit. A lot of girlfriends would have been oddly keen on their boyfriends taking them to a macho cop thriller back in 1985, methinks, and oddly "enthusiastic" after getting back home from the cinema. "Mel? Who's Mel?" LOL.

---

Ha. I can tell you that even with Peterson in the role, I worked at a place with several female secretaries and THEY all saw To Live and Die in LA, and THEY were clucking about how sexy Peterson was. I recall thinking: (a) This guy might become a star and (b) yes, women think about sex as much as men.

Back to Gibson in the role. SPOILER : To Live and Die in LA took the "70's" approach of killing Peterson off(violently and surprisingly) and letting his "meek" partner get revenge. No sequels for Peterson. I wonder if Gibson would have agreed to that.

And: great title theme song. Wang Chung. Tres' cool. Tres' 80's.

--
*NOTE: Platoon 317 (1965) with Bruno Cremer is an absolute must-see film about the conflict(s) in Indo-China/Vietnam, and one of the best war films ever. I can't believe it is so unknown. I encourage everyone to seek this film out.

---

I for one, will go looking.

[–] MichaelJPollock (649) 3 years ago

>"The Wages of Fear is a better film than The Sorcerer. No argument there."

As much as I adore 'The Wages of Fear' and Yves Montand -probably my favourite French actor- (and it's probably besides the point, but I'm French myself, and have a lot of respect for almost all of Clouzot's films), I think Sorcerer is the better film.
The sheer "Herzogian" scope of the shoot in the jungle (that bridge sequence!), how efficiently Friedkin is able to portray hell on earth, slow death and malaria, with only a handful of shots (the first few shots at Porvenir)... I also think Friedkin manages to work the theme of fate inherent to Georges Arnaud original story into his film, in a more interesting and consistent manner than Clouzot did.

Speaking of alternative casting of actors and directors: it's quite cell known that Friedkin's original casting choice for Sorcerer was to be Steve McQueen, Mastroiani, and Lino Ventura (a recurrent actor in Jean-Pierre Melvilles's film, another great French director...), but I believe it's a less well known fact that Richard Gere was originally considered for Pacino's part in 'Crusing'.

> "Platoon 317 (1965) with Bruno Cremer is an absolute must-see film about the conflict(s) in Indo-China/Vietnam, and one of the best war films ever. I can't believe it is so unknown. I encourage everyone to seek this film out."
I second that. Fantastic film by Pierre Shoendorffer. Try seeing "Objectif: 500 millions", the film he directed just after (in '66), also with Cremer. It's almost every bit as good as "La 317e Section"!
Also, quite different in tone and theme, but check out 'Under The Sand' (François Ozn, 2000), to see the great Bruno Cremer at the end of his great career, and still at the top, in a very quiet role.

[–] christomacin (4526) 3 years ago

Yes, it was Lino Ventura I meant to say, not Yves Montand, although he could have been considered for the Cremer part, too, I suppose. Pierre Shoendorffer's 1967 documentary about the Vietnam War "The Anderson Platoon" is also worth watching.

[–] christomacin (4526) 3 years ago

"Friedkin did SOMETHING to the ending of French Connection in editing, which is why it ends with the rather murky shot of Hackman running into a blur...I think it is a rather weak ending, but its what Friedkin chose to do."

It is kind of pointless. Doesn't the text that flashes up on the screen kind of negate what Friedkin did with the ending? We know that Frog One isn't being shot in the next room, and we know Doyle doesn't shoot himself in remorse for killing Mulderig. The text tells us Charnier is never caught and that Doyle and Grosso are reassigned. So it isn't really ambiguous then, is it? This also begs the question of why Doyle is even shooting at all. Doyle chasing after shadows? Maybe.

A dark ending 70s ending that would have squared with the actual historical events... an epilogue in which Grosso and Doyle go into the storage room in the police station where the seized contraband is being kept, and finding it empty. Cue the creepy, conspiratorial music: https://youtu.be/iqN4uinjRQo Individual cops being show as "good" (sort of) while "the system" is shown as sinister and corrupt would have kept most audiences happy in 1971, and maybe even more so than with the ending we got. In fact, showing the text crawl after THIS ending and hearing THAT music is downright unsettling. The NYPD wouldn't have been too thrilled by such an ending, especially because it's true. Maybe why it didn't have that ending?

P.S. I just realized the ending of French Connection I makes a the sequel rather problematic, doesn't it? I thought Charier was never caught? I think the sequel might have referenced the drugs from Part I disappearing, though I can't remember. Now that I think of it, a Friedkin-directed Serpico would have been interesting.

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

A dark ending 70s ending that would have squared with the actual historical events... an epilogue in which Grosso and Doyle go into the storage room in the police station where the seized contraband is being kept, and finding it empty. Cue the creepy, conspiratorial music: https://youtu.be/iqN4uinjRQo Individual cops being show as "good" (sort of) while "the system" is shown as sinister and corrupt would have kept most audiences happy in 1971, and maybe even more so than with the ending we got. In fact, showing the text crawl after THIS ending and hearing THAT music is downright unsettling. The NYPD wouldn't have been too thrilled by such an ending, especially because it's true. Maybe why it didn't have that ending?

--

Hmm..I didn't know any of that, and yes, perhaps NYPD would have sought vengeance(cutting off cooperation to film in NYC for other films?)

Note in passing: evidently when he went to NYC to film North by Northwest in '58(for '59 release), Hitchcock said something disparaging about the cooperation of NYPD and they cut off protection for the opening scene where Cary Grant is walking down the street surrounded by a crowd(extras, mainly, but some REAL people.) It made for a hairy filming experience.

--

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

P.S. I just realized the ending of French Connection I makes a the sequel rather problematic, doesn't it? I thought Charier was never caught? I think the sequel might have referenced the drugs from Part I disappearing, though I can't remember.

---

Do you recall how the very last shot of French Connection II(directed by then-veteran John Frankenheimer) shows Charier FINALLY getting shot to death by Hackman? Its the very last ten seconds of the movie and the screen cuts to black, no music for a bit, then credits.

I rather liked that, the idea that Popeye Doyle had to wait two entire movies and to the very last shot to finally get his man. (Rather like one has to wait through both Sleepless in Seattle and the last minutes of You've Got Mail to see Tom Hanks kiss Meg Ryan. Hah.)

--Now that I think of it, a Friedkin-directed Serpico would have been interesting.

--

Well Sidney Lumet did it in the "French Connection style." Lumet made quite a few movies about police corruption. He felt it was the most important topic you could discuss -- if your police are corrupt, your society fails(I'd say its more gray than black and white.)

[–] MichaelJPollock (649) 3 years ago

By the way, speaking of a muddled mind, Michael Mann -who, like Friedkin, is from Chicago- allegedly wanted Friedkin to play Hannibal Lektor in 'Manhunter', before deciding on Brian Cox...

[–] christomacin (4526) 3 years ago

That would have been something... and poor Peter Bogdanovich would have spent the last 35 years hearing people tell him "loved you in Manhunter" (they sound and look almost the same sometimes). LOL.

P.S. I didn't come down one way or the other as to whether Friedkin has or had a muddled mind, I merely posed the question whether his personal and cinematic ambiguity was evidence of brilliance or muddledom (not sure if that's a word). I very much like some of his work, but I understand the criticisms.

[–] MichaelJPollock (649) 3 years ago

"and poor Peter Bogdanovich would have spent the last 35 years hearing people tell him "loved you in Manhunter" (they sound and look almost the same sometimes). "
> Haha! Yes, they DO do look like each other a lot don't they? Never realised that before!
Great filmmaker too, Bogdanovitch. Altough most people only seem to (sadly) know him for 'The Last Picture Show'... One of the last "living memory" of old Hollywood as well. Worked with Orson Welles, interviewed several of the great old timers (including a very much non-cooperative John Ford... https://youtu.be/ZBg65ZgDNu0?t=82).

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

By the way, speaking of a muddled mind, Michael Mann -who, like Friedkin, is from Chicago- allegedly wanted Friedkin to play Hannibal Lektor in 'Manhunter', before deciding on Brian Cox...

--

I didn't know that. Among the various reasons that Friedkin's star director career sputtered out is that by all reports, he was a very mean and tempermental man...came close to having a criminal career in his Chicago youth before movies saved him. When he was on top, people put up with that; when his movies started failing...over. And yet, he "thrived and survived." The two blockbusters were always on his resume. He also had, evidently, quite a way with women -- as many rich directors do(Hitchcock excluded.) Evidently his mean dominant personality was catnip(plus...he was rich.)

My own personal experience with Red Dragon(the first Hannibal Lecter novel written by Thomas Harris) and Manhunter was instructional to me. Totally personal ,but: I thought Red Dragon was a classic thriller novel and that Hannibal Lecter was a great creation. Then the movie goes into production with a different title(Manhunter; generic), a no-star cast(though Brian Cox was fine as Lecter, he's not in the movie much and he had NO star ID), a "Michael Mann Miami Vice feel" (wrong for the movie, I thought) and....Mann took out the thrilling ending of the book.

Manhunter failed and I was sad to see Hannibal Lecter go nowhere.

Until...five years later...in one of the "miracles of movies," Hannibal Lecter got a second chance in a BIG hit from a new Harris novel("Silence of the Lambs") that won key Oscars and created the "Hannibal the Cannibal industry" that we have today.

And I'm glad they put the right title on and re-made Red Dragon with a better cast...and Hopkins in the role.

A movie miracle.

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

That would have been something... and poor Peter Bogdanovich would have spent the last 35 years hearing people tell him "loved you in Manhunter" (they sound and look almost the same sometimes). LOL.

---

That's a funny point, never thought of that, but they did.

Elsewhere in this thread, I note how Friedkin, Bogdanovich and Coppola formed The Director's Company in the 70s, but it crashed and burned mainly on Friedkin's ego. He didn't like the other guys' movies and bailed before he had to make his.

---

P.S. I didn't come down one way or the other as to whether Friedkin has or had a muddled mind, I merely posed the question whether his personal and cinematic ambiguity was evidence of brilliance or muddledom (not sure if that's a word). I very much like some of his work, but I understand the criticisms.

---

What's funny is seeing Friedkin on all these DVD documentaries praising Alfred Hitchcock (for whom he worked on the TV series) and other directors like a warm-hearted syncophant. Its as if he is "doing penance" for his mean years(in which he insulted Hitchcock at a party) and the early heart attack that came with them. He's a much nicer guy today.

Friedkin personally made ME mad when I saw The Exorcist at the National Theater in Westwood(next to UCLA) in 1974. That movie had a very LOUD soundtrack that actually hurt my ears while I tried to watch the movie(like with the clanging hammers in the opening Iraq sequence.) Some time later, I learned that Friedkin would personally drive to the National to make sure that they had turned up their sound beyond "dangerous levels." He'd check in from time to time to make sure they weren't turning the sound down. Jerk.

[–] christomacin (4526) 3 years ago

Friedkin seemed to have some kind of sado-masochistic fetish back then. Causing pain was part of his artistic makeup . As a matter of fact, this may be more true than we know. There is a deleted scene in The French Connection, which we see (à propos of nothing) the hit man Pierre Nicoli (played by Marcel Bozzuffi) being whipped S & M fashion by a prostitute. Or maybe it WAS à propos of something after all. This could be another example of Jungian parallelism too, as we see that earlier in the film Doyle himself handcuffed to a bed by a young bedpartner when Grosso comes to visit his home. The cops and bad guys are closer to each than either realizes. There was certainly some darkness and ugliness inside Friedkin in his youth.

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

Friedkin seemed to have some kind of sado-masochistic fetish back then. Causing pain was part of his artistic makeup .

---

It is evidently documented that on The Exorcist, to get the effect of Ellen Burstyn flying backwards into a wall, he had grips pull on a hidden rope and shot the scene so many times the Burstyn asked not to have to do it that way. He said OK -- and then had the grips pull the rope again on the next take -- injuring Burstyn's back.

The early "bed leaping up and down" effect hurt Linda Blair.

And to get a shocked reaction out of a real priest playing a part, Friedkin slapped him in the face.

So maybe Friedkin did get off on pain. The worst thing you can do with a person like that is say "please, don't hurt me again." Burstyn did so plead, and paid the price. But -- she was madly in love with him, too. These are the darknesses of romantic life even among civilians but in Hollywood -- with millions to earn at stake and no controls on human behavior -- hoo boy.

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

---
As a matter of fact, this may be more true than we know. There is a deleted scene in The French Connection, which we see (à propos of nothing) the hit man Pierre Nicoli (played by Marcel Bozzuffi) being whipped S & M fashion by a prostitute.

---

Hmm. The movie was rated R, but mainly for language and violence. That scene might have advanced the movies in their newly perverse manner, yet again -- I expect Fox felt it threw off the cop movie too much.

---

Or maybe it WAS à propos of something after all. This could be another example of Jungian parallelism too, as we see that earlier in the film Doyle himself handcuffed to a bed by a young bedpartner when Grosso comes to visit his home.

---

THAT , I do remember. I recall thinking that it illustrated that even a middle-aged, not-that-handsome guy like Gene Hackman(as Popeye, at least, he WAS handsome in other movies) could get a hot chick with boots to sleep with him, as long as he was a tough cop. The boots were part of Popeye's kink; the handcuffs...hers?

---

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

The cops and bad guys are closer to each than either realizes.

---

That was the "pitch" of both The French Connection and the OTHER big cop movie of 1971, Dirty Harry, which had this poster tag line: "Dirty Harry and the psychopath. Harry's the one with the badge."

It remains an issue today: cops and crooks both operate in the same depraved and violent world that us regular folks never have to confront. Both are familiar with violent death. Still..cops are our "good guys" when we want them to be, and when we need them to be. It remains the big issue for all to confront: what if you called 911 and nobody came?

The French Connection makes another point in the scene where the French villain and his cronies are dining in a warm, exepensive elegant restaurant as Popeye watches them, eating hot dogs in the freezing cold.

----
There was certainly some darkness and ugliness inside Friedkin in his youth.

--

Billy Bob Thornton said "People say that Hollywood turns people into a-holes and sociopaths. But what if it ATTRACTS people who were like that already?"

[–] christomacin (4526) 3 years ago

Boots make everything sexier... LOL

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

Er...no comment.

[–] christomacin (4526) 3 years ago

Ha... we've veered off into some odd territory, and I'm to blame, perhaps. That deleted scene is included on the Bu-Ray, though, I'm not making it up. Anyway, what about Friedkin and his seeming pleasure in inflicting cinematic pain on the viewer, and (sometimes) even physical pain to his actors? I suppose we might want to work our way back to The Exorcist. Didn't Ellen Burstyn receive an injury when she got pulled back by some cockamamie harness during filming? And there was Friedkin firing off his starter pistol on set. Naughty boy.

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

Yep..I put some stuff up there about the Burstyn injury and other things of that nature(I forgot about the starter pistol.) Its a lot, nobody's required to read it.

I"ve always felt that the "three superthrillers" -- box office wise and impact-wise -- are Psycho, The Exorcist and Jaws. Other famous thrillers didn't quite make the money of those three or have the impact on the culture.

Consider the contrast among the makers: Alfred Hitchcock was "old school," celibate and married for decades. He kept his "kink" in his movies and perhaps in some psychological torment of some of his players. His Psycho screenwriter, Joe Stefano , was rather a newbie when he adapted Robert Bloch's fine(but unheralded) novel . Stefano went on to create and produce The Outer Limits , but didn't much hang on after that.

Meanwhile, William Peter Blatty, who had written some meh sitcommish movies in the 60's, made sure his name was all over The Exorcist as a novel. It became a bestseller, a behemoth and as much HIS baby as Friedkins when the movie came out. And yet, both men seemed more "off" than Hitchocck and Stefano. Blatty took his work VERY seriously, and publically decried The Sting beating The Exorcist for Best Picture. There's also footage of him on the Johnny Carson show saying "Pauline Kael needs an enema."

Steven Spielberg was a very young movie brat when he made Jaws, bereft evidently of either Hitchcock's celibacy or Friedkin's anger management issues. And the screenwriters of Jaws were a varied lot: Peter Benchley(author of the novel, ANOTHER bestseller, as The Exorcist was and Psycho was not) was one of them; but so was comedian Carl Gottlieb(in the movie as a portly reporter) and evidently a bunch of guys(including Robert Shaw himself) who wrote Shaw's great USS Indianpolis speech.

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

My point: Hitchcock and Stefano on Psycho were fairly "usual" guys. Spielberg and his team of "Jaws" writers were fairly "usual" guys. But the combo of William Friedkin and William Peter Blatty was,in some way, a controversial pair of guys. Friedkin's anger issues and contempt towards others was palpable, and Blatty became very self-important.

Although, this: the record shows that Psycho screenwriter Joe Stefano filled Hitchcock in on his participation in some S and M "clubs" in Hollywood, even in the 50's. Hitchcock wouldn't go near such places, but loved to hear about them and I suppose we can figure that some of this seeped into Psycho (as in the millionaire's imagined threat "If any of my money's missing, I'll replace it with her fine soft flesh.")