CaptainHowdy.com The #1 Exorcist Fansite Since 1999
- This topic has 31 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 6 months, 2 weeks ago by
.
-
Posts
-
The part of Mark Kermode’s book (really worth owning if you don’t already!) that you mention is the one in which Marcel Vercoutere is recalling the spider-walk scene from memory in 1983.
Kermode summarized Vercoutere’s statements in which Vercoutere accords, “… the scene became ‘kinda bloody’ and so disrupted [sic] the natural progression of Regan’s illness, since it would have ‘clinched it for the audience that she was possessed.’ [Kermode, Mark. (1997). BFI Modern Classics: The Exorcist. London: British Film Institute Publishing.]”
Fine forensic analysis, Mr. Vercoutere. 🙂 However, William Friedkin really thought of that genuine idea and conclusion first. Friedkin directed The Exorcist and that means he directed everyone to abide by his demands.
Friedkin repeated his assessment of that scene publicly several times over that 10-year-span prior to Vercoutere’s statement. This leads me to believe Vercoutere is recapitulating the original owner’s thoughts and ideas.
Friedkin never said a word about the “kinda bloody” part. Nor does Friedkin “wow us” with the alternate version that has blood pouring from Regan’s mouth. If you listen to or read his interviews, he’s very well versed in pointing out the “wow” factors. Therefore, I don’t believe for a moment that he would have forgotten something like that scene being filmed with the blood … I’m still convinced that WB added the CGI blood to Regan’s mouth for a more “traditional bloody and gory horror film look” and to make that scene more intense.
So, let’s just say that Vercoutere has an incredible memory that is different from the director, writer, and other crew members. Keep reading until the end and maybe you be will influenced more that Vercoutere may have mixed up the crucifix scene with the spider-walk scene. That, of course, is speculation on my part about what Vercoutere could have been thinking of at the time of that statement. On the other hand, perhaps Vercourtere was simply expanding the meaning of the words ‘kinda bloody’ from actual fake blood to that of an “elevated vernacular.” His statement does have quote marks surrounding those two words which can offer another benefit of the doubt to Mr. Vercoutere.
In Kermode’s book, there are lots of incorrect statements that don’t match up with his book and his own interviews in The FoG. For instance, just before this statement is made in the book about the spider-walk scene from Vercoutere, Mark Kermode notes that Linda Blair said “.. that the athletic Eileen Dietz had taken part in such a scene.” That information is incorrect as noted by the screen capture above by WB and through simple research on who the contortionist is in that scene (Linda R. Hager).
I gave comparison shots between the original release and TVYNS of Linda R. Hager. You can see that is has been digitally remastered because of the clarity and brightness in that one shot. So, if we use Vercoutere’s statement to say that Linda R. Hager descended the stairs with blood pouring from her mouth, it certainly is more than a human mouth full of blood. If you watch the scene until the very last second, even more blood gushes from Hager’s mouth. She either swallowed massive quantities of fake blood and vomited it on cue or was wearing Dick Smith’s vomit appliance filled with fake blood. Seriously doubtful on either count. Plus, it doesn’t quite fit by today’s standards because CGI is easier (you’ll see why I am convinced of the CGI from Friedkin’s own words).
Why am I so convinced of the CGI? Friedkin!
Here’s a FAQ by William Friedkin. So, now I AM convinced that what is used in the scene is a carefully mastered version utilizing CGI:
____________________EXORCIST FAQ by William Friedkin
Q. When you release this new version on dvd, will you PLEASE include the Georgetown Birthday scene in it’s entirety and any other cut snippets or outtakes, a photo gallery from behind the scenes (I KNOW there are tons of photos not shown on the 25th Anniversary Edition such as makeup tests, closeup shots, set stills,etc.) and the audio radio spots and the television spots with the female voiceover? Also, that Spider-walk special effect in the new version… Was that digitally done for the new release or was the blood shot that way originally?… And BRAVO that upsets to the new version. This should have been the original release version… sorry Mr Friedkin if you… Is Linda still your assistant?
A. A lot of the scenes you refer to have been lost. We restored everything we had that was complete in both sound and picture. The spider walk had to be digitally restored for the new release. Thank you for your comments and, no, Linda is no longer my Assistant.
____________________Doesn’t sound like Friedkin is mentioning the filming of the blood. The spider-walk scene goes right along with that of the novel and script. To me, that is more in tune with the filming of that infamous scene than anything otherwise. In fact, Friedkin is saying from his own answer that scenes were “digitally restored.”
And, finally, but most importantly is Friedkin’s answer to this question that came from a 13-y-o no less:
____________________Q. Hi, I’m 13 and I just saw the exorcist two nights ago. it was the 25th anniversary edition. Now when it came time for that in the movie they didn’t show the spider-walk. Why is that? And was there really an alternate version where she slithered down like a snake?
A. The spider walk was cut from the original release because I didn’t feel it was very effective technically. Now with digital technology, we have been able to make it look convincing. There was no alternate version of this shot.
____________________Um, I see a period at the end of Friedkin’s sentence. And, yes, the 13-y-o asked about the, “alternate version where she slithered down like a snake.” Friedkin would have jumped on the bloody alternate scene … he’s too swift and brilliant to not take advantage of that opportunity. 😉
I hope that helps because it’s coming from the “real expert’s” mouth – William Friedkin.
Want the full FAQ by William Friedkin? Read it here.
As a favorite line of mine goes in The Exorcist:
“There is only one.” 🙂
drexul, I love that word, “snarky!” Consider that I’m going to steal it from you and use it from now on! 🙂
With that one sentence, there was no intention on my part to be “snarky. That reference to the word “period” in that sentence is just that. Friedkin didn’t go on any further (which surprises me). That particular sentence is intended to be read as a part of the whole paragraph where I ended it with a wink. ( 😉 )
Incidentally, although your posting led me to finding this information, it really is meant to be shared with everyone … don’t take it so personally. “Blogging,” like email, can be misinterpreted as “snarky” sometimes when there is no intention of that at all. >>>>>> 🙂
Peace Out!
Are you trying to say that the whole blood coming out of mouth was cgi to begin with? Would the actress then have had to just have had her mouth open with nothing coming out for them to add in later? Perhaps so. Remember that they drew in Linda’s vomit.
hey there…
no worries fatherbowdern…I love your posts on here…Im amazed at the information you bring here. And I love the word snarky too….its so rare that one gets to use it.drexul, to some degree, yes. What I’m saying is that Linda R. Hager’s mouth was created opened through CGI with the blood pouring out. Two reasons: 1. Blatty said there was never an alternate filmed (i.e., no bloody one; no snake-like one); 2. CGI artists have been able to create the entire mouths of animals and humans for years now on moving faces. Look at Eddie Murphy’s version of Dr. Doolittle.
As far as the painstakingly frame-by-frame painting of the vomit coming from Regan’s mouth, Friedkin knew after he saw the dailies of Dick Smith’s device on Eileen Dietz that he didn’t like it. Therefore, he filmed that singular scene of Blair with her mouth open simulating the vomiting action then. (In The FoG, Smith said he never knew that his device was not used for the entire scene until the premiere). We know we see Eileen Dietz in the apparatus for that one split second at the end. This is perhaps because that quick spot worked. However, if you freeze-frame that scene, it doesn’t look a thing like Linda Blair, so you know the entire scene was probably a dud and Friedkin acted on it then. In post-production, Friedkin said the vomit was painted in coming from Blair’s face because it just did not work on the Dietz version.
Which leads us back to the Linda R. Hager scene on two levels. In 1973, you really needed to have the actor with the mouth open to add that special effect of vomiting (the Blair scene). Today, CGI can fake most anything … including drawing in the whole mouth with blood pouring out (the Hager scene sans an open mouth).
Finally, I can only go by the FAQ from the snarky William Friedkin. Plus, other facts from books and online references don’t expose another filming with blood. No other scene existed. So I am convinced that CGI was employed that opened Hager’s mouth with blood pouring out. I have been studying this film for over 25 years on some level because it made me think hard about religion and Catholicism. I am both religious and a Catholic, but my work is in science. So, I try to have a balanced approached on my views and seek the reality versus the fantasy. Yet, The Exorcist is exactly that … a fantasy escape written by this society’s Edgar Allen Poe.
Oh, and the snake-tongue flicking out of Regan’s mouth was done after she (Hager) flipped around. IOW, after Linda R. Hager finished her scene. Someone on here has already mentioned that. If you watch the snake tongue flicking out of Blair’s mouth it is hardly plausible and tremendously laughable. And the clincher is (I’m repeating myself), where would the blood from Regan’s mouth have gone after she flipped around and started doing the snake tongue flicking? It doesn’t make sense to have Blair without the blood on her face and doing this snake tongue flicking thing. Continuity would have been shot down the tubes.
Watch the scene the way it was shot and edited in its entirety (the only one that exists). The original was intermixed with the side view and the front view. It’s here. By comparison, watch the scene that has been severely cut. That scene features only two shots: one in which Hager climbs backward all the way down with only the last few seconds devoted to the “bloody-mouth spewing.” That scene is here.
drexul, I too enjoy our quid pro quid blogs. It’s fun to be able to share information on here, ya big ole “snarky” friend of mine! 🙂
Hi Folks,
I’m happy to say I received my figurine today! I ordered it through the link below and it arrived within one week (they sent it FedEx which was a great surprise)!
I’m not sure if I’m the first one to get this figurine as a fellow Exorcist Fansite member (I haven’t read any reviews yet), so I’ll be the first to give you a quickie review:
1. Packaging is expertly executed both from the figurine aspect and the shipping aspect.
2. The sculpture and painting of the figurine is par to none. It is extremely detailed which gives this figurine the “wow factor.” I know we’ve all seen mock-up figurines that are painted very intricately and then order one only to receive a very low-grade job. This is not the case here … I am more than pleased and you will be, too.
3. Cost is always a major factor in well-done figurines and this one is a shocker at only $17.00 margin. More than well worth it’s cost for a poly-resin figurine that depicts the scene with the greatest of accuracy.
It’s worth getting this in the mail by ordering through this great site! The purchases we make here benefit CH.com, so I’m copying the link from the homepage to order yours:
I can’t wait for the second one!
Order Yours Here!
Bowdern, now you’ve peek my curiosity. I’ve examined both of those clicks in detail off-line in slow motion. Although I cannot make any judgement, especially given the poor resolution of the clips, clearly a view of the girl coming down stairs existed in the original shot and I believe there was more than enough to work with to create the “open mouth” graphically. I cannot say anything for certain, I don’t know whether they’d had done it via 3D modelling or composite. In either event unless someone can prove otherwise I’m going to lean toward the fatha’s opinion on this one. Thanks
“no snake-like one”
That was filmed though, with the tongue, right? Or are you referring to something else people were saying were alternates?
It dawned on me as well that the entire mouth may have been put on by CGI. Such a shame that Linda Hager didn’t do more films, and that you can’t find her on Google like Eileen. I’d e-mail and ask her.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.