Brooke Shields & Richard Chamberlain to Star in Premiere of THE EXORCIST- Page 2

[Playbilly]

Posted: 5/18/12 at 7:36pm

In the book the mother is a movie star, gone through a messy divorce, and perhaps a bit neglectful of the daughter. As great as Burstyn was, the character in the book was little deeper, with the arc of non-believer to believer. Shields may have the heft to pull it off --I haven't seen her on stage,, but it does seem a little miscasting.

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 5/18/12 at 9:01pm

Blatty wrote the novel with Shirley MacClaine as a character model for Chris, and she was initially approached for the film.

[RippedMan]

Posted: 5/18/12 at 9:36pm

I do love the designs for all of his shows, so I'm excited that it's going to be an environmental type production.

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 5/18/12 at 11:56pm

I have also worked at the Geffen and hope to be on this production. It's not going to be the film on stage, so don't come in expecting that...

It's based more on the book.

I'm very excited for it!

[romgitsean]

Posted: 5/19/12 at 1:25am

Make as many sarcastic bitchy comments as you all want - creating horror or suspense on stage can be done. The goal of theatre is to evoke emotion from an audience, and to evoke fear from a live audience when done correctly is a very powerful thing. I'm extremely glad they're not making this a parody or going the camp route and are really taking a big risk here because it is such unusual material. I have nothing but high hopes for this production, and it seems like it's got a pretty good cast and crew on his hands. I only wish I could be there to see it.

[castlestreet]

Posted: 5/19/12 at 10:19am

Why not really throw everyone for a loop and go the Thornbirds route at the end and have Chamberlain run off with Shields at the end?

All joking aside... its a VERY tall order. This was the first movie that ever actually scared me and bothered me for weeks. And regardless of how different the book is in parts, and if that is indeed what it is going to be based on, most people are going to be expecting the movie, and that is very hard to live up to.

I do wish them all the luck in the world though- I would love for something like this to work well on stage.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 5/19/12 at 10:54am

The character is modeled on MacLaine, clearly, even the name. Shields is not a bad idea, believably this movie star on location, and will give the audience a kind of access, since she's a warm presence. My guess is, the take of AGNES OF GOD, a spiritual mystery, will be employed, with perhaps a kind of EQUUS technique to tell the story "in one setting," as they say in the panel discussion. I can see it done effectively like EQUUS. They are very proud of eschewing special effects (a wise decision) and I suspect sound and lights will be used, obviously with some overdubbing for the demon voice. The rest might like the recent CARRIE, projections.

I always read that Jane Fonda was offered the role of Chris on screen and turned it down. MacLaine was a friend of Blattey, and actually made a genre rip-off, THE POSSESSION OF JOEL DELANEY*, based on another bestseller.

*Corrected, thanks to Egghumor.

Updated On: 5/20/12 at 10:54 AM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 5/19/12 at 11:54am

"Who ARE you, Peter Proud?"

I remember that from the commercial.

[egghumor]

Posted: 5/19/12 at 12:50pm

Auggie, I believe the MacLaine film you're referencing is actually THE POSSESSION OF JOEL DELANEY. That one really scared me at the time.

[JohnPopa]

Posted: 5/19/12 at 10:24pm

"The Exorcist" was a moment in time that electrified and terrified the moviegoing audience like nothing really had before and nothing really has since. Sure, there have been scary movies since then but "The Exorcist" tapped into a primal and spiritual part of our country that no one had dared go after before -- and went after it with a viciousness not seen in movies before. People weren't ready for it and couldn't handle it. People fled theaters and got physically ill watching the movie.

To say this stage version is 'going to be more like the book,' is frankly, meaningless. The scenes that matter in 'The Exorcist' are nearly identical in the book and the movie (remember Blatty wrote his own screenplay.) Really, the book is nearly forgotten in the wake of the powerhouse movie. Sure, there are a couple subplots that could be dug into but why bother? The struggle at the center of the story will overpower everything, which is probably why the filmmakers wisely cut to the chase in the first place.

And, no, using a college graduate, no matter how young she looks, neuters the shock of the story completely. No one wanted to watch a twelve year-old masturbate in the movie either but the filmmakers made us watch it happen anyway, because that's what the story requires to truly frighten and shock us.

Why go see a stage version of the same story that has already told us they don't have the same nerve?



Updated On: 5/19/12 at 10:24 PM

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 5/20/12 at 12:32am

Way to shoot it down before you've even seen it!

[Playbilly]

Posted: 5/20/12 at 12:43am

"Why go see a stage version of the same story that has already told us they don't have the same nerve?"

Maybe because...it IS a stage version.

[best12bars]

Posted: 5/20/12 at 1:33am

I won't go so far as to shoot it down the way JohnPopa did, although I tend to agree with everything he said above.

But I don't like the sentiment posted here that this will be scarier than the movie. Really? You want to dare to say that now before it's up on its feet. That's quite a challenge and quite a claim.

Part of the problem is that no movie, including "The Exorcist" itself, can be as scary as the film version of "The Exorcist" was in its day. Our society has been desensitized by dozens of ripoffs of that same book and film. The levels of violence and profanity have pushed far beyond that now. This is the era of "torture porn" movies.

And I absolutely agree with JohnPopa that the one thing that would still make audiences "freak out" today without question is having Regan played by a 12-year-old girl, as they did in the film, and have her go through what she does as the character.

So to say "this play is going to be scarier than the film" and then take away the most disturbing aspect of it is inviting one hell (no pun intended) of a challenge.

Updated On: 5/20/12 at 01:33 AM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 5/20/12 at 1:43am

"People fled theaters and got physically ill watching the movie."

At least that's what the publicity department told us.

[best12bars]

Posted: 5/20/12 at 1:47am

Maybe you haven't seen the documentaries and news footage released at the time, Namo, but they actually did that.

I suppose these could have been hired actors. Really good ones. And lots of them. But it was well documented in the news outlets around the country, not just in studio press releases of the day.

EDIT:


Audience reactions to The Exorcist

Updated On: 5/20/12 at 01:47 AM

[Idiot]

Posted: 5/20/12 at 2:01am

I'm seeing this in August and looking heartily forward to it, though yes -- the casting did cause a 'hmmm'.

A friend of my was up for the role of the girl and I'm sure that from a few feet away and with the right styling she'd have passed for a child. She played a teenager in my first feature while in her twenties and looked younger in the role than was even intended.... and that's with close ups. Yes, this can be pulled off quite easily.

I"m not really a fan of the director but who knows -- maybe I will be by September!

[devonian.t]

Posted: 5/20/12 at 4:17am

If The Woman in Black can scare audiences for over 20 years by getting them to imagine a ghost woman, there is no reason why this production cannot get the audience to imagine the devil.

In terms of comparing reactions, the general public was less generally horror-saturated, though, when The Exorcist burst on the scene. Nowadays, it's hard to provoke such a fresh response.

I wish them luck.

[lemiz1862]

Posted: 5/20/12 at 4:33am

I know that many people will come to the theater expecting to see the movie, but ya'll have to remember this won't be the movie. At all. This is going to be eerie and scary in a different way. This is going to be a completely new take on the material. This isn't going to be a "stage version" of the movie.

JohnPopa, I especially dislike it when you say "that's what the story requires to truly frighten and shock us." This is a gross generalization. I don't know when you know learned exactly what the story "requires", but I've seen multiple readings of the play, (the cast had their first read through this week) and from the technical designs of the show to the cast, this play is truly shocking. But, I guess you know better than an accomplished playwright, a Tony award winning director, and a very well know Los Angeles theater company.

It would be illegal and impractical to cast an actual twelve year old in the role of Regan due to the physicality of the role and things other than the masturbation, but under a lot of your guidelines, I guess we must immediately recast Adam Chanler-Berat in Peter and the Starcatcher, because Peter is 12 in the book, and Chanler-Berat is what, 26? Or Jeremy Jordan, who is almost 30 yet playing a 16 year old? I guess everyone will just have to suspend belief for two and half hours! But isn't that what theatre is all about?



Updated On: 5/20/12 at 04:33 AM

[best12bars]

Posted: 5/20/12 at 7:25am

But, I guess you know better than an accomplished playwright, a Tony award winning director, and a very well know Los Angeles theater company.

Not to entirely defend JohnPopa's post, but you lose me completely when you say something snotty and arrogant like that.

Good luck with your play. Good luck on these boards.

You're going to need it.

Updated On: 5/20/12 at 07:25 AM

[Luscious]

Posted: 5/20/12 at 7:37am

In my opinion, what made the movie shocking and what made the movie scary (and stay with you long after leaving the theater) are two completely different things. There's no way that the stage version is going to out shock the movie or today's audiences, and from what I've read, that's not what the playwright and director are going for. If they can tap into what truly made the movie scary, they'll have a hit.

[best12bars]

Posted: 5/20/12 at 7:50am

I agree, they were two different things. But unless you can shock an audience to that extent, you'll never be able to scare them with a mere "theological debate" about God and the devil alone.

The real shock is what opened up audiences' minds and allowed them to consider if something so heinous could happen, demons and the Devil surely existed. And if they existed, God Himself existed.

It wasn't just a 12-year-old girl with a crucifix that drove people into hysterics. It was the symbolism of the greater message. But you couldn't get to one without the other.

They used the Hellfire and brimstone approach. And through the raw, realistic shock of seeing a demon and the Devil in action on an innocent child, it worked on then-modern and usually cynical audiences around the country and around the world.

Even the Catholic church understood that. It's why they not only supported the film, but allowed Jesuit priests to serve as advisors as well as appear in the movie as actors.

Updated On: 5/20/12 at 07:50 AM

[Auggie27]

Posted: 5/20/12 at 7:52am

Egghumor, you are so right. I'll amend my post. Thank you. Reincarnation and possession aren't the same thing (as a general rule!)

[Auggie27]

Posted: 5/20/12 at 8:17am

I'm drawing an admittedly vague parallel here with the stage version of MISERY, which was a modest success in England. Were plans ever made to move that to NY? (Anyone see it?) I know that Sharon Gless (good casting) did well in the role that won Kathy Bates an Oscar. MISERY of course is basically a two-character stalking story, 90% of which occurs in tight confines. It strikes me as terrifically stage-worthy in its use of the unities. THE EXORCIST is sprawling in comparison, with short staccato scenes, rather than the sustained pas de deux in King's tale. Stage adaptations of novels are always intriguing. I recently re-read the Albee version of BALLAD OF THE SAD CAFE for the first time in years, and was struck how narration can be a blessing and curse (wondering if Pielmeier has employed it) I was startled to learn that Pielmeier wrote this in 10 days. That certainly reveals an affinity for the story and a strong command of its elements.

Updated On: 5/20/12 at 08:17 AM

[MrMidwest]

Posted: 5/20/12 at 8:18am

Shirley talks about The Exorcist

[Auggie27]

Posted: 5/20/12 at 8:22am

"My daughter and I are immortalized in the annals of evil."