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?

[–] WarpedRecord 14 years ago

I'm very surprised to hear Friedkin say that because I think Roy Scheider was positively brilliant here. I can think of only a few other actors who could have pulled this off -- Burt Reynolds, Steve McQueen, Charles Bronson -- but they have a bit too much star quality for a film that looks and feels very much like a documentary.

[–] christomacin 13 years ago

If he wanted a "big star" he could have gotten someone who was a "star" but still had an "edgy" persona...maybe Nicholson or Hackman. The advantage of Hackman would have been that people might have gotten the equation (Friedkin + Hackman = edgy thriller), that this was no horror movie, despite the title "Sorceror". McQueen, Newman were too old, not dark and edgy enough, and past their prime. James Coburn? Maybe a bit past his prime at that point also. Bronson, Eastwood? Not good enough actors, despite looking the part. Some less well known, but edgy actors, such as Bruce Dern and Warren Oates, would have been interesting too, but no more of a draw at the box-office than Scheider turned out to be.

As it turns out the right actor did get the part, whether Friedkin was smart enough to realize it not withstanding.

[–] balthazar_bee 13 years ago

I do not agree with Friedkin; Scheider's terrific in the part. On the other hand, McQueen's never really been my cup of tea.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] coex23 13 years ago

Friedkin was on a roll back then and it's known his ego was out of control. What happened since the 70s? He's never really got that groove back (with maybe the exception of To Live and Die!). And with an ego like that, it's no wonder he got stuck with actors he wasn't keen on. BUT, he still directed a really great film with someone that wasn't his first choice!

Roy Scheider is amazing. For all the reasons his defenders list here. I mean, he's a solid actor, looks average enough to be human, and draws us all in to the story and character. We'll never know what the film would be like without him now, and that's just fine with me.

[–] TheManInOil 13 years ago

I haven't yet seen this, but the idea that Scheider is not a star is preposterous. He's a fine actor and a strong leading man.

"I'll book you. I'll book you on something. I'll find something in the book to book you on."

[–] avezou1 12 years ago

I think Friedkin blames Scheider for the movie's commercial failure.

But the movie's failure was due to the fact he was released at the same time as 'Star Wars'.

And hadn't it been Scheider in the main role, we'd just have a good seventies' action movie slitghly below the 'cult' status it has achieved. Scheider gave a depth to his character that McQueen couldn't have given: he brought a huge dramatic dimension, the kind that makes a good action film unforgettable.

Same as 'Jaws' to a lesser degree (Brian de Palma said that Scheider was the weak point of 'Jaws' - to me he brought a lot of humanity to the film, which otherwise would have just been a good adventure yarn).

[–] Noir-It-All 12 years ago

Let's face it: we are all major fans of Roy Scheider. I don't think that Brian de Palma ever fulfilled HIS promise.

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

[–] superman1 11 years ago

I wonder if charisma, or star quality, is mainly our projection and not real.
Therefore, is the main contention that his looks cannot allow him to be a main star and best man for the job no matter how good he acts?

This would still be the same movie, no matter what actors.
And without Star Wars probably still a flop. It's a remake without room - or thought - to upgrade dramatically (unlike The Thing and The Fly) and so already in a sense cancels any credit. Much as I mostly love it.

The Wages of Fear should have been the honest title.

[–] bronzescag 11 years ago

While I love Roy Scheider, I think McQueen would have brought a certain movie star charisma to the film that would have made it seem less dour at times. Scheider was a fine fine actor, but he wasn't a movie star in the way that McQueen is - or George Clooney is today.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ccr1633 11 years ago

Friedkin has been very clear about this issue. His regret of not getting Steve McQueen had everything to do with getting a marquee name (of high enough quality) in a film that otherwise, for American audiences, featured completely unrecognizable actors. It didn't have to do with Scheider's ability as an actor.

So far as the box office is concerned, Friedkin was proven correct to be concerned about this. Star Wars really killed this film, but McQueen probably would've helped generate interest. The lousy ROI almost destroyed Friedkin's career, and although he recovered somewhat he never made anything that came close to The French Connection, The Exorcist, or Sorcerer.

Conclusion: in a limited sense Friedkin was 100% correct.

[–] pullgees 11 years ago

I don't think either the French Connection or the Excorcist had stars, the main characters were all previous supporting actors.. Even Mcqueen had flops and I really believe he would have been a terrible choice for Sorcerer; you needed someone who looked fraught and haunted, on the edge. King of cool McQueen would have ruined it.
No it was wrong title, wrong time, bad luck.

[–] ccr1633 11 years ago

I disagree. Max von Sydow and Lee J. Cobb were very well known at the time of Exorcist's release, and Burstyn wasn't exactly unknown. A popular name brand like McQueen never hurts and can only help so far as box office is concerned. A name like McQueen can compensate for the bad word of mouth that settles in after a couple of weeks. The issue of the superior choice - Scheider or McQueen - is a separate matter entirely.

[–] pullgees 11 years ago

Yes but the actors in The Excorcist were not top stars like McQueen
I'm not sure what your argument is. You make the point that lesser known actors compared to top billing stars were starring in successes such as the Excorcist and French Connection and in the same breath say that Scheider wasn't big enough for Sorcerer.
Sounds like some sort of quandary Freidkin might have wrestled with.
You and Freidkin like the idea of McQueen yet Le Mans flopped. IMO the "king of cool" as Scanlon would have been a disaster. McQueen aside, no matter how big the star was in this production it could have stilled bombed, with even greater losses and damaging the directors reputation moreso as well. Freidkin should have looked on the bright side.

[–] ccr1633 11 years ago

My argument is that McQueen could only have helped Sorcerer's box office (how could he have made it any worse?), and in that sense only I believe Friedkin to be correct in his regrets. I saw Friedkin speak in Brooklyn recently. He was very clear that he was happy with Scheider's performance, but also reiterated his feeling that the lack of a genuine marquee name further cemented the fate of a film that was probably doomed either way, thanks to Star Wars and the tough, grim, and grimy subject matter.

Unfortunately, we can't go back in time and to do the McQueen-for-Scheider experiment and analyze its effects. I think we can at least agree that it's not a quantifiable or resolvable issue. But make no mistake, I'm not impugning Scheider's performance in any way whatsoever. Put yourself in Friedkin's shoes. Box office return was certainly more important to him than cinefiles like us. His career was irreparably damaged after this film and money was at the root of it.

[–] pullgees 11 years ago

I take your point, although there are many key factors that a film needs to stand a greater chance of success beside headline stars.

I'm not sure Stars Wars had any bearing at all as it was released six months after Sorcerer if my reading of IMDB is correct.

[–] ccr1633 11 years ago

Friedkin talks about Star Wars in his recent autobiography. Sorcerer opened at Grauman's Chinese Theatre, following Star Wars I believe. Sorcerer bombed and they brought Star Wars back again. If I read Friedkin right, he thinks the dreary tone of Sorcerer was no longer in step with the times, and Star Wars signaled a new zeitgeist toward a more chipper vibe. There's probably no cause and effect at work here. Sorcerer would've bombed regardless. Star Wars just accelerated Sorcerer's departure from the important Grauman's run. See this page: http://www.in70mm.com/news/2003/star_wars/

[–] pullgees 11 years ago

Could be that audiences wanted a more upbeat style and the fashion for nihilism had run its course. Yet I'm audience and I loved it then as I do now. Mind you I'm an eternal noir fan anyway.

[–] ccr1633 11 years ago

pullgees wrote:

Could be that audiences wanted a more upbeat style and the fashion for nihilism had run its course. Yet I'm audience and I loved it then as I do now. Mind you I'm an eternal noir fan anyway.

Yes, I am also. These things go in cycles, and Sorcerer is now getting its due, at least among the film hipsters. I suspect that many filmgoing youngsters these days see a certain shallow slickness in today's "gritty" films, and see Sorcerer as an example of the genuine article. Has a dirtier, grimier, sweatier, more unshaven, and relentlessly tense film ever been made?

[–] BigWhiskey 10 years ago

Scheider was awesome in this. He always brought the 'everyman' appeal to nearly every role he had, but he brought a lot of nuances to each character he played and nailed the emotions to the people he played. Very unshowy actor, full of self-conflict and natural rugged realism every bloke can relate to.
My favourite scene of his is the scene in Jaws, where he is at the dining room table, solemn, drinking whiskey and quietly contemplating how *beep* he is that he was pressured in leaving the beaches open. That scene with him and his kid, just beautiful.
My second is the zoom-out of his face at the end of Sorcerer. Haunted and ghostly, he knows he's *beep*
One of the great actors.

A man who runs behind a car gets exhausted.