MovieChat Forums > Sorcerer (1977) Discussion > Anybody agree with Friedkin?

Anybody agree with Friedkin?

posted 16 years ago by prohibited-name-2541
51 replies | jump to latest

In the trivia it says that he thinks that Roy Scheider was wrong for his role as Scanlon, saying; "Roy Scheider in the lead was the worst casting decision he has ever made. Although he felt Scheider is a good actor who did a great job he is only interesting in a film as a "second or third banana, he's not a star." Though i love and respect Friedkins ability and cannon of work, i think that this is a real point of contention.

I think that Scheider is amazing in this role as well as several others throughout his career. Thoughts?

[–] tetsuo 16 years ago

Actually I don't,

I think that Roy Schneider is better for the part than Steve McQueen and was the star of the film(the other actors were also great) though I understand why William said this since Roy and Friedkin had big arguments on the set of Sorcerer and they never worked again.

[–] Gordon-M 16 years ago

Well, I'm a big fan of casting great actors who normally don't play the lead and aren't "stars" playing the lead in certain types of films and this is one. I mean, Walter Matthau plays the lead in Charley Varrick and he's perfect. Also, don't forget that Scheider is top of the bill in Jaws. Like Matthau, he has that classic 'hangdog' face that is perfect for Sorcerer. With McQueen in the rope-bridge scene, everyone would have though, "oh, this will be cinch for STEVE MCQUEEN!" but by having Scheider in there, on first viewing, I honestly thought for a moment, "you know, it wouldn't surprise me if he doesn't make it!".

As for Friedkin and Scheider arguing on the set, if it had been McQueen, it would have been 20 times worse. McQueen would have argued over EVERYTHING in that film - I mean, it was a CRAZY production, well organised, yes, but for someone like McQueen, at that stage of his career and life, his patience and ego would have been tested almost every minute of what was a long shoot.

[–] hairyhand 13 years ago

I think part of Friedkin's feelings comes from the fact that the movie, good as it was and is, didn't do well at the box office. Should it have been a major hit, like the Exorcist, he wouldn't have felt this way. He would have felt different and commented differently. He probably placed the 'blame' on the fact that he had no major 'stars' in the film. In actuality, part of the box office failure is how they market it...the title itself was ambiguous. I never saw the movie in the 70's. In fact, I saw it this year and regard it as a great film! But...back then I remember watching the commercials and not having an interest in seeing a film called 'Sorcerer'. It wasn't enough to lure me into the theaters.

[–] Noir-It-All 13 years ago

For Americans, so many non-Americans in the film may have been a turn off. By 1977, fans were turning away from the dark films of the time and going toward the light, young, upbeat fare of Star Wars.

"Two more swords and I'll be Queen of the Monkey People." Roseanne

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] cultfilmfreaksdotcom 8 years ago

Steve McQueen would have been more interesting. His very persona does carry a film all by itself. But, this is not a star-driven picture. It's an equal ensemble that needs someone like Roy who can be both up front and vanish into the backdrop, like his character does. The Frenchman has the same amount of importance to the story. His backstory is far more sympathetic and involving, in fact. But with a big action star like McQueen, he'd take all the energy away from what Roy allowed to be equalized throughout with the three other characters. I mean, they're all in that jungle hell and eventually, in the same sinking ship, so having this be a "Steve McQueen Movie" would not have worked in the long run, although maybe, for Friedkin, it would have helped the box office.

All Movie Reviews www.cultfilmfreaks.com

[–] harryovercoat 16 years ago

This is one of my favorrite films of all time.

I agree that Roy Scheider works in the film. But what he does is make the rest of the elements of the film pop to the front. With a strong subtle leading actor like Steve McQueen I think you'd get more layers to the whole thing not less. Watch McQueen in THE SAND PEBBLES. He woulda been a plus, not that Scheider's bad, per se, but...

[–] themovienut-1 16 years ago

Scheider and McQueen are two of my favorite actors. It's a toss-up. Friedkin had said that he made a mistake in not going with McQueen, but Steve wanted a part for Ali McGraw. If Friedkin caved to that, it would have been disasterous. So I am personally glad he went with his instincts (as a young man) and not cast McQueen.
What would have been the best is have both men in it. Have McQueen be the lead (the Frenchmen part, in the original WAGES OF FEAR) and eventually die (the twist of Fate) and Scheider continue to blow out the fire, then have the second twsit like the end of SORCERER. The irony that the title taken from the truck that did not make it.

[–] wrfarley 16 years ago

I think Friedkin was less disappointed with Scheider than the fact that the film flopped at the box office (no wonder, it opened the same week as STAR WARS!). I'm not so sure Friedkin doesn't actually mean the movie would've been more successful (as oppposed to better) with McQueen in it.

The one argument between Friedkin and Scheider I know of is that Scheider wanted to befriend a little boy from the village to humanize his character so he wouldn't be a man with no personality constantly sitting around staring into space. Friedkin steadfastly refused saying he wanted the character of Scanlon to be a blank slate (wanting the audience to invest their emotions into the character).

Whatever the deal, Scheider always refused to talk about the film, except for once in the NY Times profile around the time of the film's release when he said, "I felt the characters were more important the goddamned panoramas." He and Friedkin evidently had little or no contact after SORCERER, and I wonder if Scheider's opinion of the film ever changed.

[–] asgard-5 16 years ago

I agree with Friedkin that Roy Scheider is not a star. He's not. He's just a fine actor to have in any film. To my mind stardom limits an actor to a bulk of selected studio stuff. I saw Sorcerer before I knew who Steve McQueen was, whom I didn't like in what I saw him in too much, so I'm happy it's the way it is. I think Sorcerer is one of the best films of that decade.

[–] davidandrews27 9 years ago

I love Roy Scheider, but I kind of like this idea. They could have given McQueen the French financier's backstory - McQueen would have aced it like he did Thomas Crown.

[–] Theo87 16 years ago

haha, so true!!

[–] jon-gwynne 16 years ago

I agree. Though, to be fair, it was a crap film so I'm not sure anyone could have saved it. It was a lame idea and a rotten script.

-
Idiot/block list: No_Bama_Ever, kmm39, jack_spicer, John_Merrick, dbblsanta, gallus

[–] goodfoo 16 years ago

Scheider was wonderful in this role, Friedkin was out of line with his comment. Way to appreciate your actors, Friedkin!

Scheider exuded a sense of lean desperation. I think McQueen was looking rather jowly at this stage of his life, and it appears he had other priorities, such as finding work for his no-talent wife.

[–] wab-3 13 years ago

"Lean desperation" is the perfect description. I always thought that was the unique thing about Scheider: he had a way of showing you the vulnerability without undercutting his machismo. He played "mean-scared" tough guy better than anyone.

The epitome was how he played the Chief in Jaws, but he's great in this too.

[–] Doom 13 years ago

Wow. Did/does Friedkin really feel that way?

I take it he's not a big fan of "All That Jazz" then, eh?

I thought R.S. was great in the lead here.

------

Wait a minute... who am I here?

[–] HolyShackles 13 years ago

Scheider was a fine actor who had a lot of charisma and star quality potential, All That Jazz more than proves it, it's just that a bulk of the leading roles he took came along with lousy scripts (The Seven-Ups, Last Embrace) and Vincent Canby gave him the highest praise possible about his performance in the latter film by saying "no other leading actor can create so much tension out of such modest material." I think this exemplifies the artistic success of Sorcerer, Scheider takes the good material above and beyond even what it would have been with a more literate movie star like McQueen.

[–] bcibiblack 16 years ago

As much as I admire Scheider's work, he was much better when sparring against a stronger actor - he seemed to rise to the occasion. Witness his performances in Jaws with Robert Shaw, The French Connection with Gene Hackman, and Dustin Hoffman in Marathon Man (awesome fight scene!). Definitely one of America's finest character actors, IMO he lacked that one vital ingredient : charisma, or star quality, whatever you want to call it. McQueen had it in spades, and it would have been interesting to see what he would have brought to Friedkin's best film.

[–] turtletommy 15 years ago

Could it be that it strangely feels like a foreign film or arthouse flick because it was based on the classic (French) foreign film, Wages of Fear? (-:

Wages of Fear is a terrific movie, in look, feel and presentation. Sorcerer was a good remake and I have always liked Scheider and thought he did a great job in this. The film was mostly "flawed" by the horrible name, and bad timing to come out at the same time as Star Wars. Obviously if they had to do it all over again the studio wouldn't have named a Friedkin movie "Sorcerer" when he was so identified with The Exorcist and it was an entirely different subject matter. I remember the first reviews being positive but critics thought the title was going to confuse people- duh. McQueen would have been an interesting lead and he had just a few years before done an arguably career-peak performance in Papillon. But let's face it everything else at the time Sorcerer came out was lost in the mushroom cloud of Star Wars and more youth-culture movies!

[–] rogerscorpion 12 years ago

Friedkin was wrong.

He was my favorite director of the 70's. Over Coppola & Scorcese.

THIS was my favorite Friedkin film. Over 'French Connection'. Over 'The Exorcist'.

Naming it 'Sorcerer' was a mistake. I blame the studio, rather than Billy Friedkin.

McQueen might've worked (but his Ali demands were absurd).

Scheider was absolutely brilliant. Bogart-esque. Fred Dobbs. No one looked desperate like Scheider.

If it had not been for 'Saturday Night Fever', Scheider'd been an Oscar nominee.

I'm so glad that Billy Friedkin is back, with 'Killer Joe'.

Carpe Noctem!