In the trivia it says that he thinks that Roy Scheider was wrong for his role as Scanlon, saying; "Roy Scheider in the l
-
wrfarley — 17 years ago(June 19, 2008 11:50 AM)
I think Friedkin was less disappointed with Scheider than the fact that the film flopped at the box office (no wonder, it opened the same week as STAR WARS!). I'm not so sure Friedkin doesn't actually mean the movie would've been more successful (as oppposed to better) with McQueen in it.
The one argument between Friedkin and Scheider I know of is that Scheider wanted to befriend a little boy from the village to humanize his character so he wouldn't be a man with no personality constantly sitting around staring into space. Friedkin steadfastly refused saying he wanted the character of Scanlon to be a blank slate (wanting the audience to invest their emotions into the character).
Whatever the deal, Scheider always refused to talk about the film, except for once in the NY Times profile around the time of the film's release when he said, "I felt the characters were more important the goddamned panoramas." He and Friedkin evidently had little or no contact after SORCERER, and I wonder if Scheider's opinion of the film ever changed. -
asgard-5 — 17 years ago(June 26, 2008 05:47 PM)
I agree with Friedkin that Roy Scheider is not a star. He's not. He's just a fine actor to have in any film. To my mind stardom limits an actor to a bulk of selected studio stuff. I saw Sorcerer before I knew who Steve McQueen was, whom I didn't like in what I saw him in too much, so I'm happy it's the way it is. I think Sorcerer is one of the best films of that decade.
-
jon-gwynne — 17 years ago(August 06, 2008 08:16 PM)
I agree. Though, to be fair, it was a crap film so I'm not sure anyone could have saved it. It was a lame idea and a rotten script.
Idiot/block list: No_Bama_Ever, kmm39, jack_spicer, John_Merrick, dbblsanta, gallus
-
goodfoo — 17 years ago(August 19, 2008 04:46 PM)
Scheider was wonderful in this role, Friedkin was out of line with his comment. Way to appreciate your actors, Friedkin!
Scheider exuded a sense of lean desperation. I think McQueen was looking rather jowly at this stage of his life, and it appears he had other priorities, such as finding work for his no-talent wife. -
wab-3 — 15 years ago(March 28, 2011 07:57 PM)
"Lean desperation" is the perfect description. I always thought that was the unique thing about Scheider: he had a way of showing you the vulnerability without undercutting his machismo. He played "mean-scared" tough guy better than anyone.
The epitome was how he played the Chief in Jaws, but he's great in this too. -
HolyShackles — 15 years ago(March 30, 2011 04:40 PM)
Scheider was a fine actor who had a lot of charisma and star quality potential, All That Jazz more than proves it, it's just that a bulk of the leading roles he took came along with lousy scripts (The Seven-Ups, Last Embrace) and Vincent Canby gave him the highest praise possible about his performance in the latter film by saying "no other leading actor can create so much tension out of such modest material." I think this exemplifies the artistic success of Sorcerer, Scheider takes the good material above and beyond even what it would have been with a more literate movie star like McQueen.
-
bcibiblack — 17 years ago(October 26, 2008 05:40 AM)
As much as I admire Scheider's work, he was much better when sparring against a stronger actor - he seemed to rise to the occasion. Witness his performances in Jaws with Robert Shaw, The French Connection with Gene Hackman, and Dustin Hoffman in Marathon Man (awesome fight scene!). Definitely one of America's finest character actors, IMO he lacked that one vital ingredient : charisma, or star quality, whatever you want to call it. McQueen had it in spades, and it would have been interesting to see what he would have brought to Friedkin's best film.
-
turtletommy — 17 years ago(November 01, 2008 12:31 PM)
Could it be that it strangely feels like a foreign film or arthouse flick because it was based on the classic (French) foreign film, Wages of Fear? (-:
Wages of Fear is a terrific movie, in look, feel and presentation. Sorcerer was a good remake and I have always liked Scheider and thought he did a great job in this. The film was mostly "flawed" by the horrible name, and bad timing to come out at the same time as Star Wars. Obviously if they had to do it all over again the studio wouldn't have named a Friedkin movie "Sorcerer" when he was so identified with The Exorcist and it was an entirely different subject matter. I remember the first reviews being positive but critics thought the title was going to confuse people- duh. McQueen would have been an interesting lead and he had just a few years before done an arguably career-peak performance in Papillon. But let's face it everything else at the time Sorcerer came out was lost in the mushroom cloud of Star Wars and more youth-culture movies! -
rogerscorpion — 13 years ago(August 21, 2012 04:16 AM)
Friedkin was wrong.
He was my favorite director of the 70's. Over Coppola & Scorcese.
THIS was my favorite Friedkin film. Over 'French Connection'. Over 'The Exorcist'.
Naming it 'Sorcerer' was a mistake. I blame the studio, rather than Billy Friedkin.
McQueen might've worked (but his Ali demands were absurd).
Scheider was absolutely brilliant. Bogart-esque. Fred Dobbs. No one looked desperate like Scheider.
If it had not been for 'Saturday Night Fever', Scheider'd been an Oscar nominee.
I'm so glad that Billy Friedkin is back, with 'Killer Joe'.
Carpe Noctem! -
WarpedRecord — 16 years ago(December 13, 2009 03:39 PM)
I'm very surprised to hear Friedkin say that because I think Roy Scheider was positively brilliant here. I can think of only a few other actors who could have pulled this off Burt Reynolds, Steve McQueen, Charles Bronson but they have a bit too much star quality for a film that looks and feels very much like a documentary.
-
christomacin — 15 years ago(March 06, 2011 09:11 PM)
If he wanted a "big star" he could have gotten someone who was a "star" but still had an "edgy" personamaybe Nicholson or Hackman. The advantage of Hackman would have been that people might have gotten the equation (Friedkin + Hackman = edgy thriller), that this was no horror movie, despite the title "Sorceror". McQueen, Newman were too old, not dark and edgy enough, and past their prime. James Coburn? Maybe a bit past his prime at that point also. Bronson, Eastwood? Not good enough actors, despite looking the part. Some less well known, but edgy actors, such as Bruce Dern and Warren Oates, would have been interesting too, but no more of a draw at the box-office than Scheider turned out to be.
As it turns out the right actor
did
get the part, whether Friedkin was smart enough to realize it not withstanding. -
coex23 — 14 years ago(October 07, 2011 06:06 AM)
Friedkin was on a roll back then and it's known his ego was out of control. What happened since the 70s? He's never really got that groove back (with maybe the exception of To Live and Die!). And with an ego like that, it's no wonder he got stuck with actors he wasn't keen on. BUT, he still directed a really great film with someone that wasn't his first choice!
Roy Scheider is amazing. For all the reasons his defenders list here. I mean, he's a solid actor, looks average enough to be human, and draws us all in to the story and character. We'll never know what the film would be like without him now, and that's just fine with me. -
TheManInOil — 14 years ago(October 14, 2011 01:54 PM)
I haven't yet seen this, but the idea that Scheider is not a star is preposterous. He's a fine actor and a strong leading man.
"I'll book you. I'll book you on something. I'll find something in the book to book you on." -
avezou1 — 14 years ago(March 10, 2012 06:22 AM)
I think Friedkin blames Scheider for the movie's commercial failure.
But the movie's failure was due to the fact he was released at the same time as 'Star Wars'.
And hadn't it been Scheider in the main role, we'd just have a good seventies' action movie slitghly below the 'cult' status it has achieved. Scheider gave a depth to his character that McQueen couldn't have given: he brought a huge dramatic dimension, the kind that makes a good action film unforgettable.
Same as 'Jaws' to a lesser degree (Brian de Palma said that Scheider was the weak point of 'Jaws' - to me he brought a lot of humanity to the film, which otherwise would have just been a good adventure yarn). -
superman1 — 12 years ago(May 04, 2013 10:25 PM)
I wonder if charisma, or star quality, is mainly our projection and not real.
Therefore, is the main contention that his looks cannot allow him to be a main star and best man for the job no matter how good he acts?
This would still be the same movie, no matter what actors.
And without Star Wars probably still a flop. It's a remake without room - or thought - to upgrade dramatically (unlike The Thing and The Fly) and so already in a sense cancels any credit. Much as I mostly love it.
The Wages of Fear should have been the honest title.