In the trivia it says that he thinks that Roy Scheider was wrong for his role as Scanlon, saying; "Roy Scheider in the l
-
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. -
bronzescag — 12 years ago(June 08, 2013 05:02 PM)
While I love Roy Scheider, I think McQueen would have brought a certain movie star charisma to the film that would have made it seem less dour at times. Scheider was a fine fine actor, but he wasn't a movie star in the way that McQueen is - or George Clooney is today.
-
ccr1633 — 12 years ago(August 05, 2013 11:10 PM)
Friedkin has been very clear about this issue. His regret of not getting Steve McQueen had everything to do with getting a marquee name (of high enough quality) in a film that otherwise, for American audiences, featured completely unrecognizable actors. It didn't have to do with Scheider's ability as an actor.
So far as the box office is concerned, Friedkin was proven correct to be concerned about this. Star Wars really killed this film, but McQueen probably would've helped generate interest. The lousy ROI almost destroyed Friedkin's career, and although he recovered somewhat he never made anything that came close to The French Connection, The Exorcist, or Sorcerer.
Conclusion: in a limited sense Friedkin was 100% correct. -
pullgees — 12 years ago(August 07, 2013 10:28 AM)
I don't think either the French Connection or the Excorcist had stars, the main characters were all previous supporting actors.. Even Mcqueen had flops and I really believe he would have been a terrible choice for Sorcerer; you needed someone who looked fraught and haunted, on the edge. King of cool McQueen would have ruined it.
No it was wrong title, wrong time, bad luck. -
ccr1633 — 12 years ago(August 07, 2013 11:49 AM)
I disagree. Max von Sydow and Lee J. Cobb were very well known at the time of Exorcist's release, and Burstyn wasn't exactly unknown. A popular name brand like McQueen never hurts and can only help so far as box office is concerned. A name like McQueen can compensate for the bad word of mouth that settles in after a couple of weeks. The issue of the superior choice - Scheider or McQueen - is a separate matter entirely.
-
pullgees — 12 years ago(August 07, 2013 03:08 PM)
Yes but the actors in The Excorcist were not top stars like McQueen
I'm not sure what your argument is. You make the point that lesser known actors compared to top billing stars were starring in successes such as the Excorcist and French Connection and in the same breath say that Scheider wasn't big enough for Sorcerer.
Sounds like some sort of quandary Freidkin might have wrestled with.
You and Freidkin like the idea of McQueen yet Le Mans flopped. IMO the "king of cool" as Scanlon would have been a disaster. McQueen aside, no matter how big the star was in this production it could have stilled bombed, with even greater losses and damaging the directors reputation moreso as well. Freidkin should have looked on the bright side. -
ccr1633 — 12 years ago(August 07, 2013 08:42 PM)
My argument is that McQueen could only have helped Sorcerer's box office (how could he have made it any worse?), and in that sense only I believe Friedkin to be correct in his regrets. I saw Friedkin speak in Brooklyn recently. He was very clear that he was happy with Scheider's performance, but also reiterated his feeling that the lack of a genuine marquee name further cemented the fate of a film that was probably doomed either way, thanks to Star Wars and the tough, grim, and grimy subject matter.
Unfortunately, we can't go back in time and to do the McQueen-for-Scheider experiment and analyze its effects. I think we can at least agree that it's not a quantifiable or resolvable issue. But make no mistake, I'm not impugning Scheider's performance in any way whatsoever. Put yourself in Friedkin's shoes. Box office return was certainly more important to him than cinefiles like us. His career was irreparably damaged after this film and money was at the root of it. -
pullgees — 12 years ago(August 08, 2013 12:51 AM)
I take your point, although there are many key factors that a film needs to stand a greater chance of success beside headline stars.
I'm not sure Stars Wars had any bearing at all as it was released six months after Sorcerer if my reading of IMDB is correct. -
ccr1633 — 12 years ago(August 08, 2013 10:57 PM)
Friedkin talks about Star Wars in his recent autobiography. Sorcerer opened at Grauman's Chinese Theatre, following Star Wars I believe. Sorcerer bombed and they brought Star Wars back again. If I read Friedkin right, he thinks the dreary tone of Sorcerer was no longer in step with the times, and Star Wars signaled a new zeitgeist toward a more chipper vibe. There's probably no cause and effect at work here. Sorcerer would've bombed regardless. Star Wars just accelerated Sorcerer's departure from the important Grauman's run. See this page:
http://www.in70mm.com/news/2003/star_wars/ -
ccr1633 — 12 years ago(August 25, 2013 05:24 PM)
pullgees wrote:
Could be that audiences wanted a more upbeat style and the fashion for nihilism had run its course. Yet I'm audience and I loved it then as I do now. Mind you I'm an eternal noir fan anyway.
Yes, I am also. These things go in cycles, and Sorcerer is now getting its due, at least among the film hipsters. I suspect that many filmgoing youngsters these days see a certain shallow slickness in today's "gritty" films, and see Sorcerer as an example of the genuine article. Has a dirtier, grimier, sweatier, more unshaven, and relentlessly tense film ever been made? -
BigWhiskey — 12 years ago(December 28, 2013 04:31 PM)
Scheider was awesome in this. He always brought the 'everyman' appeal to nearly every role he had, but he brought a lot of nuances to each character he played and nailed the emotions to the people he played. Very unshowy actor, full of self-conflict and natural rugged realism every bloke can relate to.
My favourite scene of his is the scene in Jaws, where he is at the dining room table, solemn, drinking whiskey and quietly contemplating how beep he is that he was pressured in leaving the beaches open. That scene with him and his kid, just beautiful.
My second is the zoom-out of his face at the end of Sorcerer. Haunted and ghostly, he knows he's beep
One of the great actors.
A man who runs behind a car gets exhausted. -
a_l_i_e_n — 12 years ago(January 07, 2014 02:35 PM)
I can see how maybe Sean Connery or Clint Eastwood could bring something more in the way of movie star presence to that role, but I doubt the film's lack of success was due to Scheider's casting. It just wasn't what the studio ad campaign made you think you were getting. It is a good movie, but it's pretty grim, too.
-
Edward_de_Vere — 12 years ago(February 22, 2014 09:54 AM)
Although he felt Scheider is a good actor who did a great job he is only interesting in a film as a "second or third banana, he's not a star." Though i love and respect Friedkins ability and cannon of work, i think that this is a real point of contention
I remember reading that Friedkin got along fine with Scheider during the filming of
The French Connection
, but that he felt that Scheider became something of a prima dona after
Jaws
made him famous.
Most likely, Friedkin was just venting his anger and frustrating with Scheider as a person when he called him "second banana" material, since it's clear from his many lead roles that Roy Scheider can more than carry a film on his own. -
Slattermill — 12 years ago(March 14, 2014 07:32 PM)
Nah, Scheider was great as usual.
Considering the ending and Friedkin's comments, I get the impression that he had grandiose ideas about turning this into a franchise to some degree. He should have been happy he ended up merely with such an epic film.
I don't think we're in CONUS anymore, Toto
-
Edward_de_Vere — 12 years ago(March 15, 2014 12:28 PM)
I get the impression that he had grandiose ideas about turning this into a franchise to some degree.
I'm glad that didn't happen, first because the open-ended closing scene makes the film more interesting than a resolution would have, second, because (with rare exceptions) sequels to great films are almost always a disappointment.
With film franchises, what starts as art becomes a business which then becomes a racket. -
DonQuichotte — 11 years ago(January 19, 2015 03:17 PM)
Also somewhere in the trivia it is mentioned, that Friedkin didn't want to make it obvious, which character is the star of the movie. Most of the actors, that are mentioned as preferred cast for the role (especially McQueen at that time), would somehow spoil the outcome.
Roy Scheider fits perfectly and at no point he was acting like being the center of attention.