CaptainHowdy.com The #1 Exorcist Fansite Since 1999
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Hiya dsea, I’m not sure at all about flickr … it may be a freebie too, colombian. Thanks for pointing it out dsea.
I think the boarded window is there to reinforce the exorcism and the plunge of death on the steps. As far as a timeframe, they never mention how long it’s been since the exorcism and the move out … even the weather is the same … cloudy and cold … so it looks like autumn.
The house is really confusing from the outside and the inside. I’ve watched the camera pan from far off to the up-close shot of the back of the house and a partial view of the right-hand-side (front, in other words) and I still don’t see the Hitchcock steps. Maybe there should be blueprints to figure out what’s going on and where. I know they built an additional exterior the real house to lead the steps, but it still doesn’t show up in the film very well; e.g., when Karras makes his leap, it appears that the steps are directly below Regan’s window, but in the finale the steps appear to be across the street. Confusing, ain’t it?
dsea … here’s a link to the video, but it’s just the initial part of the scene. Her transformation comes right after the bulging throat … watch the DVD and you’ll see what Columbian is talking about.
Enjoy:
Colombian … have you tried making a scan and putting it on youtube or myspace? I think these are the el cheapo way to go. Does anybody else have a way to do this? I’m semi-PC literate, but technology is going wonderfully rampant. 🙂
Hey JP,
Check out the link (June 2006 Archives) right here on CaptainHowdy.com. Howdy has three videos of McCambridge:
RARE VIDEO FOOTAGE: Mercedes McCambridge demonstrates the voice of Pazuzu
She’s incredible to listen to. I kept thinking they were dubbing her voice, but she actually did a demonstration of her talent by reading a portion of the demon-voice script on the Mike Douglass Show in the 70’s.
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.
