CaptainHowdy.com The #1 Exorcist Fansite Since 1999
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Cap, I guess it’s my great love for Kidman’s acting in every film that makes them wonderful. To me, Kidman is like the Australia version of America’s Meryl Streep because she can do so many accents and her acting is stupendous. If you ever seen the film To Die For, she’s a knockout and so believable as the semi-autobiographical true case here in America. What stumped me was why the Academy Awards didn’t nominate her for the role of Suzanne. But, she did win The Hours. And won numerous awards for The Others including Best Actress.
Plus, and most importantly, she is hot!
This is really a cool topic for us diehard fans. Although I tried to point out the scene with comparisons and the words of Friedkin that do not support a version with blood in Hager’s mouth, I would love to see something that is more concrete in terms of that scene being filmed the way we saw it in TVYNS. I searched everywhere and I’ve read a lot of information on this topic for 35 years now.
I don’t believe that the scene was filmed in 2000 at all based on the costs and the things you other guys pointed out; i.e., lighting, etc. I don’t believe that Hager did the scene with blood in her mouth because it looks like CGI and the look on Hager’s face does look distorted through CGI as well. I really believe what Friedkin said on his FAQ that I posted on here. Why would Friedkin not take advantage of another “car salesman” twist? Why hasn’t Dick Smith mentioned it or anyone else?
In addition, as pointed out repeatedly by Friedkin, he thought the scene was too early in the film. Therefore, I do not think his “heart” was in it and, frankly, I believe he thought it cheapened the film and made it more a stereotypical horror film. Friedkin was looking for a documentary style film, which is exactly what he got.
An assumption based on the above is that, for this scene, Friedkin may have had an assistant director to mess around with that shot instead of being on the set himself. Also, if it really was filmed with the blood pouring from Hager’s mouth, would that not mean a terribly long and expensive repetitive shot for a film that was already under a critical time crunch and well over budget? Just one point: Carpet … it means that the carpet would have to be replaced each time Hager performed the scene … unless she rehearsed it with water that could be dried easily and leave no stains. The real “fake” blood scene filming seems unlikely to me because I don’t know how many times it took to get that scene the way they wanted it. Moreover, this too explains why the scenes look somewhat differently because it had to be filmed several times.
What it means = WB CGI tech picks the best-filmed version and then adds his magic. It’s wasn’t hard to do in 2000.
I do hope HorrorHound will bring us some kind of evidence to the contrary because it would be exciting news to hear. 🙂
Do I dare say, The Others? Good theme similar to The Sixth Sense with the twisted ending. I was totally off guard and thought Kidman was just a whack job (well, she was, but in another sense).
Oh, Witch, the statement you are replying to is a “tongue-in-cheek” statement. The issue here is really not about “using CGI to paint out the cig.” The issue is one of continuity. Shit happens in filming and this just so happened to be a highlight scene in The Exorcist.
I think when they go HD, Friedkin will use the original theater-released version only. I don’t think he’ll mess with TVYNS, so the spiderwalk scene will be moot.
I truly believe that WB did the re-edit from the stuff they found in the vaults and that Blatty nor Friedkin had a lot of say (or power) about the re-release content of TVYNS. It’s a cash cow for WB and has been for 35 years now. I think deep down that Blatty and Friedkin (Friedkin, in particular) are very disappointed in TVYNS. However, vocalizing that would be a financial disaster for the one who comes out against it first. It was not the best of the best and TVYNS really put a lot of “cheap makeup” on the “Mona Lisa” with contemporary CGI that looks trite.
I’m not sure if the Captain did a poll on here about which version is people’s favorite. But, now that TVYNS has been out long enough now, it would be nice to see how the poll goes.
Cap, have you done this in past? I can’t remember.
Like I said, TVYNS is like adding neon paint to the Mona Lisa. It was unnecessary to add all the CGI crap because it was crap! I mean, why did some idiot at WB put Pazuzu’s face on the exhaust vent over the stove in the kitchen when the lights kept going out on Chris while she was calling Sharon’s name. BIG FUCKIN’ DUH! That really scared the shit out of me, NOT!
Hiya Witch,
Q. “Is it possible that something was cut from the final and remained cut in the new version that would had explained this. Perhaps a take showing the new cig being lit?”
A. I am ruling that out because of the script (I have an original altered and final version). Plus, if you watch the scene, it does have continuity in the speech between Chris and Karras and an additional scene asking for another cigarette didn’t happen and would not work. Why? Well, if you look closely at the length of the burning cigarette throughout the entire scene, you’ll see it starts off at full length. Chris smokes about half of it when she and Karras are talking in that one long shot scene that includes stomping out the smoke. The cigarette Chris is smoking in the continuity flub is at the half-way point. Therefore, that’s not indicative of a request for a new cigarette. It’s just a continuity issue.
Q. “Also, you believe inserting a close-up of Chris taking a second cigarette would not work?”
A. Based on my first answer to your first question, the answer is no. Most importantly, if that scene was never shot, it’s impossible to go back and re-film because of Burstyn’s age and the demise of Miller. I believe the “angle” you are shooting for is one in which we just show another cigarette being handed over to Chris from Karras in an extremely tight closeup of just hands sans the words that would go along with it. Well, that wouldn’t work either because, as I stated above, the cigarette is half-way smoked. Karras is a priest, so I know he didn’t deprive her of a full cigarette. 😉
I really do believe in TVYNS, WB would have made someone fix the continuity error because it’s been talked about for so many years. Plus, it’s noticeably by the less hardcore fans of The Exorcist just as much as us.
I hope that helps and ends our mystery of the “reappearing smoke!” 🙂
1. Karras ultimately reaching into the lower, right-hand pocket of his blue Georgetown University jacket.
2. He removes his pack of cigarettes (and cleverly covers the brand name with his fingers). This is probably because product advertisers didn’t want to be associated with The Exorcist. Can you image being a marketing manager having to ask the CEO if it’s okay to advertise in this controversial film? 🙂
3. Karras removes only one cigarette and hands it to Chris.
4. Karras pulls out a red disposable lighter from his lower, left-hand trouser pocket and lights Chris’ smoke.
5. Chris keeps the lighted cigarette in her leather-gloved right hand.
6. The cigarette in Chris’ hand is alway in view with smoke coming from it.
7. The clincher: In the same shot as Karras and Chris are walking, Chris drops the cigarette to the ground (you can actually hear it hit the walkway). Chris intentionally stops, stomps the smoke out, and looks back to make sure it’s out. (Great acting that’s natural on Burstyn’s part!). Okay, still the same scene (no cuts, no edits, no new shot), Chris lifts her leather-gloved right hand and adjusts her sunglasses. No cigarette because we know what she just did. Additionally, she puts her leather-gloved right hand into her pocket (OUCH if she put her hand in their with a cigarette!) 😉 This scene is a one-camera fully read scripted scene similar to what Polanski did a lot of in Rosemary’s Baby. It’s effective, which I might assume is why it’s one of my favorites, just like the Captain. The new camera scene is that of a closeup shot of Chris. Smoke is rising in the air and the cigarette is in her left hand as she adjusts her sunglasses again. There are no pauses or what-ifs to consider because it’s a continuity issue that the crew on the set forgot about, including Burstyn. However, we don’t really know if they shot that full “DVD chapter” in one full day, so it’s easy to forget if there was a cigarette in her hand or not. Or, perhaps it was filmed out of sequence and then edited together.Also, the next closeup scene which features Karras is really when you notice the “vanishing smoke.” The following scene is one in which Chris starts to wipe her nose and eyes with a tissue.
My hypothesis is that the “vanishing- reappearing cigarette” scene is extremely pivotal because Chris is asking exorcism. That, if any scene, was probably shot numerous times. It just so happened that it was film incorrectly with the burning cigarette.
There’s is no implication of a second cigarette. If the “stomp-out smoke” scene is removed, it would mean a cut that would ruin the long scene altogether. Unfortunately, there is really no way to fix this scene except to remove the smoke through CGI and cutting the closeup even further on the left-hand side of the “cigarette hand” of Burstyn. But, that means we don’t get part of Chris’ face and that’s not what I would do.
Hi Sofia,
I’ve missed you! This is good news and I’m happy you are back. I’ll look forward to the A&E bio of Linda. I’ve lost track of where the original blog was on this topic, but I remember you had posted a portion of the bio on youtube.
I hope you are doing well, friend! 🙂
madzatec, if only I had seen The Blair Witch Project without knowing it was fake, I could have potentially bought into some of it (especially when the weird and freaky lady is being interviewed in the beginning … a true “off-the-street” amateur).
Ghetto, I agree about Friedkin’s “car salesman” approach (I’ve hit on him for being a Bible salesman on here, too).
Look at the source. Plus, “a second cigarette off screen” is just a way to resolve the fact that it didn’t happen.
madaztec2, I’m sorry I was clear about the actors. I actually think their “candid interviews” (although somewhat vaguely scripted) appeared pretty genuine. I absolutely agree with you about the ending. When “what’s her face” went looking for “Josh” (I think that’s the name she kept calling out, while she was going through the house was indeed a its best moments. The hand prints of the kids was a unique twist for a horror film, yet very effective (I still see these on Halloween props and I think of the movie).
