CaptainHowdy.com The #1 Exorcist Fansite Since 1999
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I think the skin ripping was a powerful special effect. When I see it, I have no idea why is was put in other than to show the violence of the demon resisting the exorcism. I do notice the holy water and always interpreted that as the cause of the flesh rip. It is a good effect, and I think, columbian, you’re on target with a show-off Dick Smith effect … that actually works because if you pause that scene, you really don’t see the wire connected to the latex nor do you see the latex covering the rip.
Also, since we’re on topics of noticing things, you can clearly see the tube running along Eileen Dietz’s hair to the vomit tube. Once you see it, you wonder why the studio didn’t cover it with some CG editing. To make it clear … this is the scene where Father Merrin takes his purple stole off for Regan (Dietz) to vomit on. Look at the profile and you’ll know it’s Dietz in Smith’s vomit gear. At least Smith got to use it twice even though it was cut and replaced in the projectile vomiting scene.
Also, Blair’s eyebrows were never shaved off … Smith used latex to make the forehead protrude out, giving Blair a more masculine look. The larger brow line simply covers Blair eyebrows beneath.
Columbian, good point on the first time when Regan’s changing look … it’s perfect for the, “Fuck me!” scene … rotten teeth dentures and all.
It’s really ashamed that the sound editors couldn’t do more with Blair’s voice because I think she would have won the Academy Award over Tatum O’Neil in Paper Moon. I guess the Academy freaked about giving a 14-year-old an award after listening and watching her violent performance versus O’Neil’s “cute” one.
I do remember the controversy that Mercedes created over the fact that it was her voice as demon, and not Blair’s, that deserved to be recognized; e.g., Mercedes comments didn’t help Blair’s recognition at Oscar time.
Welcome, JP! I vote for McCambridge, but if you want to hear what was originally in store for us fans, watch this (and thank God Freidkin went for Mercedes!):
http://youtube.com/watch?v=HLyCVsTKGbo
Fr. Bowdern
Why thank you granville1 for your fine forensic analysis of my “petulant sarcasm.” Your initial comment read, “Thanks, Fr Bowdern. Yes, the cabbie may have declined payment – or maybe the bishop gave Merrin a substantial overpayment to guarantee the ride – it was an emergency trip. Maybe Merrin just handed over the lump sum when he entered the cab, the cabbie has already been paid – that’s why we don’t see it …” Is that sarcastic or are you trying to be “cute?” This was followed by even more silliness by dseabroo: “Maybe the bishop or Merrin’s religious order had a contract to use that cab company based on a annual fee arrangement, or carried a tab. Maybe the cabbie was paid by the pope, or maybe he was Jesus.” Followed up by you again, granville1, with, “dseabroo, thanks for the input – yeah, a contract with the cab company would also explain Merrin’s “non-payment.”” Why the wisecracks about the Bishop, the Pope, or Jesus? I intentionally directed that comment, “these posts just wreak of intelligence,” to just you “two fellow fans” because I initialized a more static answer (of which I erased and chose to edit with your own words). Go back and re-read your posts … they’re childish and for no good reason, particularly since I have never attacked you or your beloved “fellow fan.” Zeroing in on the voucher concept is sophomoric on your part and assists you in, “mixing lies with the truth” by helping you to proceed with your negativity.
My granville1, how adult of you. I’ll bet it took you hours to find the words, “condemnatory,” “petulant,” and “plonked” from Thesaurus.com. “Plonked!?!” What planet are you from and how old are you to use that word??? You are just plain weird, little one. LMAO at you!
You guys crack me up! 🙂
The Pope? The Voucher? Why, these are two of the most awe-inspiring posts that I have ever read on any website. The posts just wreak of intelligence. The posts are “beyond comprehension.” It’s amazing how two separate individuals could actually think that much alike … true soul mates at work … ahhh, it must be love.
Look, here’s a site to help: http://www.archaeowiki.org/Pazuzu
What an interesting observation, jguthrie. Perhaps the cabbie declined payment. Or, maybe the bishop gave Merrin a substantial overpayment to guarantee the ride, after all, it was an emergency trip. Or, maybe Merrin just handed over the lump sum when he entered the cab, therefore, the cabbie has already been paid and that’s why we don’t see it. Or, maybe the bishop or Merrin’s religious order had a contract to use that cab company based on an annual fee arrangement or they carried a tab. Maybe the cabbie was paid by the Pope, or maybe he was Jesus.
I’m sorry to sound so sarcastic and nasty. But, that’s what nine-year-olds do, don’t they?
CC your right on a couple of points here:
I was watching the new version where the very first restored scene includes what we are to assume is Regan’s bedroom. The camera-sweeping scene starts with the light going out in her upstairs bedroom and ends at M street and that’s the window where Karras leaps from. The window is located on the far right side of the house. It’s also the same window that Kinderman watches “floating-walking” Regan go by the window (right after Karras meets Regan for the first time).
The second window is the one on the front left-hand side of the house and that is the window with the light shining through when Merrin arrives.
I’m glad you brought this up because there are two windows in her room from an outside angle, but we don’t see that at any point during the film. Go figure!
As Justin mentions this is probably “stock audio.” However, it is owned by someone, somewhere, and the payment goes out of someone’s pocket for the use of it. In fact, I have heard Ellen Burstyn’s blood-curdling scream (located at the end of the masturbation scene in The Exorcist) used in other non-owned WB films.
Please do listen to the audio in both films. Again, I listed where these voices can be heard in both films. Please draw a conclusion (if you choose, dsea) based on what you hear. This is not a case of two studios stealing intellectual property from one another, rather it’s probably just a licensing agreement between with a third-party intellectual property owner. Plus, you don’t know that WB didn’t sell this recording to the MGM.
I don’t think your “pragmatic” theory about “sound technology” is really an issue here at all. It’s actually silly and sophomoric even from a novice standpoint. Isolating specific sounds and voices had been done for many, many years prior to the release of The Exorcist (in both film and vocal/musical recordings, etc.). To address your point, keep in mind that Mercedes McCambridge did the voice-over for Blair – separately. McCambridge recorded the voice in a sound booth – independently. Additionally, listen to the multiple voices used when Regan is talking backward after the holy water sprinkling … each voice was separately and independently recorded and then mixed (that is a fact I do know from researching this film and wouldn’t you find it ridiculous to think that everyone got together at one time to record the voices?).
So, back to the point, if anyone is interested, did anybody notice this sound byte in both films? Perhaps The Exorcist is riddled with a lot of them that we don’t notice until they are pointed out. Subliminally, “I’m gonna get you,” is a powerful statement in a film like The Exorcist as it impacts our psyche to think that the devil is “gonna get you.”
PS: Touché to your blog edit, dsea … nice job. 😉 But, you might want to edit your contradictions in two of your posts: 1. “The phrase “I’m going to get you” is hardly copywritten,” and, 2. “I noted the copyright issue because you mentioned the two competing film studios, and yes, copyrights are an issue when it comes to voice recordings in movies.” ??? Are you an expert in copyright? If so, where did you study this?
Dear dseabroo,
I never mentioned the word “copyright.” In fact, I worked with copyrighted works for years, so I’m lost by your insinuation. I only mention that the exact voice/phrase is in indeed in two different horror movies.
You have missed this background recording (and intentionally so because it is subliminal). The line, “I’m gonna get you,” is in the film The Exorcist on a couple of occasions. One: the park scene where Chris and Karris meet after Regan’s crucifix masturbation scene. Two: the end of the film when Chris and Regan are leaving the house on M street when Father Dyer walks them to the car. It’s very clear when it’s pointed out to you and you hear it repeated over and over … it is the same voice. In The Amityville Horror, the exact same voice, same line appears when the priest comes by to bless the house (the fly invasion scene) … it is the exact voice.
Listen to both movies … perhaps you’ll be surprised at what comes through in subliminal messages. And, yes, I am claiming it is the exact recording, but you have to listen for yourself.
Hmmm .. I know Blair said her “mother wasn’t the type to sue,” but I wonder if Blair was paid when she turned 18 because of the pain she’s suffered all her life. I remember her appearance on The Mike Douglas Show and illustrating one of the low-gravity body slings and talking about the fact that she did it everyday because she was in so pain after making the film and sustaining permanent back damage. Even Burstyn was rushed to the hospital after the crew yanked her so hard during the masturbation scene. ??????
I have the same video (on VHS!!!). It’s so worth the few dollars if you can find it. There are about four copies currently on eBay, however, there are 18 new & used at Amazon HERE.
