CaptainHowdy.com The #1 Exorcist Fansite Since 1999
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Not so sure about that one because McCambridge was hired after the scene was shot. Although, the voices could have been recorded and Blair had to learn to mouth what she heard on a tape. Much like lip-syncing only much, much harder. But, hey, she was 14 and had a lot of time on her hands while sitting the makeup chair for about three hours a day.
Well, after reading these replies, I’m still under the impression that Blair is lying about not knowing what she was saying or what she was doing.
Remember that Blatty AND Friedkin were looking for a very mature 12- to 14-year-old to play the part and they both, in various interviews, said Linda fit that mold very well.
I grew up in a big intercity, like Linda. I was about her age when she played the part. Trust me, if you hear or see the word “Fuck” and don’t know what it means by the time you’re 14, you’re going to get “Fucked” and know what it means right away. If she really was that naive (HA!), I find it incredibly hard to fathom that a 14-year-old girl wouldn’t ask why she was saying, “Let Jesus fuck you,” while slamming a crucifix in a box soaked with fake blood located directly in her crotch!
I stand by what I said earlier, and with hatter’s comment, “She’s full of SHIT!”
Hey dsea … I didn’t see that one, but I watch a documentary on the Science Channel with very religious scientists who were trying to prove the shroud was real. But, when they took a sample of the blood remnant, it turned out to be paint (I believe it was iron oxide … one of the paints in medieval times, if I remember this correctly). Of course paint was not the only measure used to examine the shroud … it failed, unfortunately, all tests including carbon dating which is has never been wrong yet. The shroud was made several decades after Christ’s death and it could not have been made during his death. Bummer.
Personally, I think it would have been a great piece of evidence that Jesus existed. However, as it turns out it was a hoax played by a very sophisticated medieval painter(s).
Ben, I see that etrigan has some raised important questions. I now consider you a “guru” on the subject. I’d love to hear your thoughts and insights, too.
As an aside, in terms of the reality of religion, when I think about the Shroud of Turin, I wanted to desperately believe in it. But, being a scientist raised as a Roman Catholic, I could only concur with what science has to offer on the subject. It’s a wonderful thing to behold, but the evidence just isn’t there … unless we are true believers and can ignore the fact that the “blood” on the shroud is actually a form paint used in medieval times. The debate still rages … 🙂
Oh, I agree with you Rat … it would be like remaking Gone with the Wind or The Wizard of Oz! Petition the remake before Friedkin approaches WB/Morgan Creek. I mean, how many times can you re-release The Exorcist original with CGI crap?!
Ben,
I was raised as a Roman Catholic, but we never delved into demonic possession even when I was a young teenager and The Exorcist had made its name in the media and churches at that time. Although exorcism was something, “the Catholics like to keep in the closet,” it was never a topic of discussion at church, school, or home.
Perhaps I was raised in a time when the “boogey man” was only a monster that was under your bed. But, after viewing The Exorcist at age 13, it certainly had an psychological affect on me because I was Catholic and I bought what the film was telling me (albeit I didn’t fully comprehend it from a mature point of view).
My viewpoint is one of the tremendous amount of charlatans profiting from what “they” call demonic possession while pocketing change from the mentally challenged or devoutly religious zealots (oh, and I’m not referring to you here, Ben). 🙂
Ben, are you providing any signed copies? I missed the boat on adding to your publication. Perhaps better luck next time … I’ll just keep secretly publishing under different pen names. 😉
