[Sofia]

You went to see it yesterday. 😉

[actfray]

 I'll try not to give away any spoilers in the event that some of you may still want to see the play. But there's nothing much to spoil. Since we're all fans of the movie, any of us (myself included) will see this play with a biased point if view.

 

 I had a great seat, so I didn't have to strain to see anything. The Geffen Theater is a beautiful venue that's not so big to be overwhelming. While I was definitely not bored by the production, I just wish I would have been drawn in a little more. The director, John Doyle, has a very mannered approach to the material, so this caused the play (for me) to come off as one-dimensional and chatty. I certainly didn't expect to see a live version of the movie, but the characters never really seemed to connect onstage. Regan (played by 23-year-old Emily Yetter who is very good) is the centerpoint of the production, both literally and figuratively – while she is centerstage for the entire 95 minutes, most of the other actors stand apart from one another in profile while saying their lines. For me, this created a division that never really allowed the characters to connect on a human level. It was almost as if they were only representing characters and not inhabiting them. Richard Chamberlain's breaking of the fourth wall to speak directly to the audience didn't bother me, but I guess I would have rather seen the events played out from start to finish without the commentary from Merrin. My favorite performance was from David Wilson Barnes who played Karras as a conflicted man who is losing his faith but not his wit or sarcasm. He brought some humanity to the proceedings that was sorely lacking in some of the other characters (the doctors, for example). Harry Groener as Burke Dennings was a nice fleshing out of the character that was only hinted at in the film (Having not read the novel in many years, I can't remember if Dennings was more detailed in that). Mr. Groener brought the funny to the play in the appropriate places. His fate in the story caused one woman in the audience to scream out in horror – the sound effects and music did their jobs.

 

 And then there's Brooke Shields. I wish I could tell you that she transcended the role of Chris MacNeil, but I knew that wasn't going to happen before I even set foot in the theater. Ms. Shields gave it her all, but there was very little restraint in her performance. I always felt she was anticipating each moment instead of living in the present one, and her vocal range never left the upper register. No one will ever top Ellen Burstyn in the film, but I can only imagine what a seasoned stage actress such as Cate Blanchett or Kate Winslet would have done with this role. Even during the curtain call, she looked uncomfortable as about one third of the audience stood to applaud.

 

 Emily Yetter was a pleasant surprise as Regan. The 23-year-old has a face that can be cute one minute and evil the next. Much of her performance was mimed, but she was able to contort her body in ways that allowed the audience to believe that a demon was indeed taking possession of her. Whenever she said “Come closer, I want to tell you a secret” to certain characters, some members of the audience averted their eyes and covered their ears. Ms. Yetter without a doubt created a palpable sense of dread whenever she appeared onstage.

 

 I also enjoyed Roslyn Ruff as Carla, the MacNeil's housekeeper and watchful eye over Regan. Having witnessed atrocities in Rwanda, Carla is no stranger to evil or demons for that matter, and Ms. Ruff does a fine job of portraying this earnest woman.

 

 Overall, I was entertained by the play, and it was a kick to hear famous lines from the film intertwined with new ones written specifically for the stage version. The set was appropriately church-like and cacophonous, and a huge cross hung over the stage that would symbolize a heroic act that takes place at the end (and we all know what that is).

 

        

[Sofia]

“(Having not read the novel in many years, I can't remember if Dennings was more detailed in that)”

Yes, he is.

Thanks for your review.

In the script that I read, one of the doctors asked Chris if Regan had been sexually abused which was never hinted in the novel. Do they ask her this on the stage play? If Granville knew about this he wouldn't give the stage play a chance lol.

[actfray]

Yes, the doctors do ask her this. In fact, they suggest that perhaps Reagan’s father (referred to as “Howard”, hence Captain Howdy) may have been the abuser. Chris absolutely denies any of this.

[granville1]

Actually I'm glad they put that in, because modern audiences are so attuned to PedoParanoia that they would almost need to have this unpleasant contingency waved right in their face. In the novel, and implicitly in the film, Regan's many medical tests never uncovered sexual abuse. But implicitness is no longer trustworthy for a public steeped in news of sex abuse, especially the “Catholic” kind. So it is probably good that the issue is brought up, faced squarely, and rejected – so that audiences can get back to the story itself, whose only molester is the demon. They can relax, knowing that Regan has not been abused by any human agency, and pay attention to the unfolding narrative.

[Sofia]

actfray said:

Yes, the doctors do ask her this. In fact, they suggest that perhaps Reagan's father (referred to as “Howard”, hence Captain Howdy) may have been the abuser. Chris absolutely denies any of this.

I never thought of that before! It's actually kind of interesting and makes more sense to me than the theory of Burke molesting Regan.

[Sofia]

granville1 said:

 In the novel, and implicitly in the film, Regan’s many medical tests never uncovered sexual abuse.

 

Yes, that’s true, but did they ever examine her… umm… vagina? In the first medical scene, Regan tells Dr. Klein to keep his fingers away from her c*nt and doesn’t let him examine it. Had she ever been through a gynecological exam? That was never mentioned.

[granville1]

We  don't know if the Dr completed the exam or not – the text doesn't tell us anything about it except Regan's obscenities Therefore we don't know how far the exam proceded before Regan objected. Maybe the Dr chickened out and therefore got zero data; otoh, he may have been able to go far enough along with it to ascertain the basics. Also I would think that the Barringer testing would, as a matter of course, have included a gyno exam, with the specific purpose of checking for molestation which might account for Regan's symptoms. That's not stated in the book, either, but to eliminate molestation is almost demanded as part of the thoroughness Blatty wants to convey … in order that the reader knows that no mundane physical cause has resulted in Regan's condition.

[Sofia]

You're right, I'm just being brainwashed by all those “Regan was molested” theorists. 😉

[granville1]

But you did bring up a good point, that maybe the Dr was unable to finish Regan's exam. As always with you, Sof, good food for thought.

[Sofia]

Thank you. 😉

[Author]

Posts