In the trivia it says that he thinks that Roy Scheider was wrong for his role as Scanlon, saying; "Roy Scheider in the l
-
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. -
cultfilmfreaksdotcom — 9 years ago(October 03, 2016 08:15 PM)
I did a writeup on the movie and used the IMDB quote or whatever, trivia about Friedkin knocking Schieder's performance, or rather, more like, his presence lacking whatever it is to make a movie make money, which SORCERER, despite its strong cult following through the years, failed to do, unlike FRENCH CONN and EXORCIST, which were, as we know, not only "hits" but classics, even then
I do think Steve McQueen would bring something fresh to the role since he always does. He's not as good an actor as Roy but he just has that "something" but This movie is an ensemble piece. The French guy and the Arab are far more sympathetic characters (the latter through expressions, not his terrorism backstory; the first through the fact he had a loving wife, and didn't kill anyone not like he was an angel)
Anyhow, I cannot see this movie starring McQueen because it would then be a "Steve McQueen Movie" and that's that, end of story Scheider, though, was perfect because he didn't need to compete with the others, who were almost equal to the main player Everyone stood their own practically equal ground.
Anyhow, I put it all here:
http://www.cultfilmfreaks.com/2016/10/Sorcerer.html
All Movie Reviews
www.cultfilmfreaks.com