A Time for BAMFs

As Footloose taught the world, there is a time for everything. I spend most of my time here deconstructing movies in one way or another in an effort to continually better my understanding of them and, as a result, watch movies with a sharper, more discerning eye than I ever did in my cinematic infancy. But sometimes I just don't have time for that 'cause I'm too busy thinking, "That is one badass mutha fucka!" So alert Kevin Bacon, because it's October and that means it's time for some shout-outs to my favorite BAMFs of horror and sci-fi!

Now this won't be a list per se, more a haphazard collection of thoughts on some of my favorite BAMFs in the horror/sci-fi universe that kind of, sort of forms a list-like thing. Plus, there's no rules. Sometimes it's a character, played by multiple actors, sometimes it's a particular actor playing a particular character. Sometimes it's lead, sometimes supporting. I guess the only thing I'm going to purposely avoid are the characters that are written as badasses, you know, the Vin Diesel or Arnold Schwarzenegger types or what Ripley became to the Alien series. Ah, hell, let's just get started?

- The BAMF that got me thinking up this whole thing in the first place is Peter Cushing as Doctor Van Helsing. Now this is a perfect example of what I'm talking about because Van Helsing's been played a million times, from Edward Van Sloan's unflappable Nosferatu obsessive in the original adaptation of the stage play of Dracula (1931) to Anthony Hopkin's rather loud and excitable vampire hunter in Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992). But nobody, and I mean nobody, got Van Helsing as undead-on right as Peter Cushing.

When you watch Cushing at work in Horror of Dracula or Brides of Dracula, you see an actor at the top of his form, yes, but also an actor who understands the character he's playing better than anyone else before or since. When it comes to playing Van Helsing, Cushing really is the smartest guy in the room. He's got the analytical side, the blood-vengeance side and, above all, the cool-in-the-face of terror side that makes his Van Helsing the best there is to offer. Take away his hammer, stake and crucifix and this mutha will grab a pair of candlesticks, construct a makeshift cross and bring the curtains down, literally, to do away with your sorry blood-sucking ass. Bite him on the neck and leave him for undead and guess what? He's going to whip out some holy water and a hot iron and burn your filthy disease right out of his body while another couple of vampires look on in stunned amazement. When all's said and done, there's no doubt about it: Peter Cushing's Van Helsing in one Bad Ass Mutha Fucka!

- Now for a character from a series of movies I usually give a pretty hard time here at Cinema Styles: Obi-Wan Kenobi in the Star Wars Saga. Now, it's true, I got my problems with the saga overall but there's no questioning old Ben Kenobi's official BAMF status. And for the purposes of this inclusion please understand, I'm not talking expanded universe, I'm talking about the movies that were released. So I don't really care if there's some bigger bad-ass in Jedi Exile: The Journey to Malachor V or if something that happens in the movies is explained away in The Great Sith Encasement, Episode 17. Really, it's not possible for me to give even two shits less than I already do on that front. But Kenobi in the movies is number one, unquestionably.

When Darth Maul takes down everyone who stands in his way, including Kenobi's own mentor Qui-Gon Jinn, Kenobi leaps up from a prone position, grabs his saber in mid-air and slices the Sith shitheel in half. Anakin Skywalker, darkside Jedi at the height of his powers? Ha, ha, that's funny, because while Anakin can kick everyone's ass, from Count Dooku to an entire village of sand people, he can't do shit to Obi-Wan. In fact, when Anakin attempts a leap-in-the-air-from-prone-position finisher like Obi-Wan did with Darth Maul, he gets the legs cut out from under him, literally, and an arm too, just for good measure. Years later, an old Obi-Wan doesn't even break a sweat holding off Anakin, now Darth Vader. It takes Luke giving in to his anger to defeat Vader in Return of the Jedi but Obi-Wan? Sheeee-it, he not only dies of his own choosing but - and think about this - has the situation so under control he can actually take the time to look over at Luke, and mull it over first(!), while in the middle of a lightsaber duel with Vader! Obi-Wan Kenobi - Bad Ass Mutha Fucka!

-Next up, Rosemary Woodhouse from Rosemary's Baby. Yeah, yeah, I know, you're thinking, "Don't you mean Sarah Connor from The Terminator or Ripley from Alien?" No, I don't. See, they're like the Diesel/Schwarzenegger characters, as in, prepackaged badasses, even if theirs were quite a bit better rendered than any Diesel or Schwarzeneggar characters ever were. Besides, you know how every now and then you stumble upon (usually by, in fact, using StumbleUpon) some list of the top ten this or that in the movies and the lists always suck because their choices are SO FUCKING OBVIOUS! That's because they're written by and for idiots who have no real connection to the movies or understanding of dramatic conflict. Well, guess what? Those guys would put Ripley and Connor on their list of badasses and for Star Wars, they'd list Vader, not Obi-Wan. Whew... so, back to Rosemary.

Rosemary's a badass because, in the end, she takes control and doesn't look back. Her husband, her doctor and seemingly every member of the AARP do their level best to marginalize her out of existence but when it comes time to walk the walk, Rosemary does a full-on strut! Keep in mind, this is a woman who was roofied by Satan and had her baby stolen by the Beelzebub Chapter of the Boynton Beach Club and she still has enough guts to 1) yell at everybody for what they did to her baby, 2) shove Roman's lies right back in his face ("Shut up. You're in Dubrovnik, I can't hear you.") and 3) in the middle of listening to a bunch of old witches bitch about how she's unfit, pick that baby right up and say, "Fuck it! It's here, it's mine and I'm taking care of it." She owns the situation and everyone present. Only one thing left to say: Bad Ass Mutha Fucka!

- And speaking of mothers, how about Diane Freeling in Poltergeist? Seriously, think about how much she does in that movie. First, she handles the loss of a pet with aplomb. Second, she's naturally curious, not scared, of the strange phenonemon taking place in her house. And on top of that, she never looks exhausted and worn out like hubby Steve Freeling does even though she's handling much more. When her daughter gets taken she bucks up, brings in people to explain the options and stands at the fore (remember when the ghosts start descending the stairway and she's right there, ready to go up those stairs to meet them?). When someone has to go into the void to get their daughter, Steve says he'll do it but she gives him some malarkey about how they need him to hold the rope and yadda, yadda, yadda. We all know the real reason is because he'd fail. Here's why (and I say this in all seriousness): Once, at work, I heard two people talking, one of them complaining about a seemingly impossible series of tasks that would have required either several people or one person with eight arms. That's when the other one said, "A mother could do it." She was, of course, a mother. That was before I was with my wife and our children but now that I am let me just say, "Yup."

So anyway, she goes in, gets her daughter and comes back out. Later, the gates to hell relocate to the closet in the kids' bedroom and Diane is thrown against the floor, walls and ceiling of her bedroom to prevent her from reaching her kids. She gets out. Then, the hallway elongates to the point where running gets her nowhere. But she keeps running anyway and eventually, she gets out of that one too. Then, when she swings the door open to the kids' room she damn near gets sucked in to a full-fledged vortex. But she doesn't. Know what she does? With one arm on the door frame and one arm holding onto her kids against 200 mile-per-hour sucking winds, she pulls those goddamn kids out, that's what she does. And I didn't even mention the monster in the hall, the corpses in the pool or the completely useless idiot neighbor. Diane Freeling gets everybody out to safety, no exceptions. After doing all the dirty work all hubby Steve has to do is get everyone in the car and drive them to a motel. Lucky for him his wife is one Bad Ass Mutha Fucka!

- Let's top out our first five with Father Damien Karras in The Exorcist. Karras is different kind of badass because everything that makes him a badass comes as the final culmination of taking one flying turd in the face after another. Damien Karras is a priest the world has decided to shit on, daily. He's stressed out and broke, has to go to New York weekly, from Washington, D.C., to take care of his ailing mother, then deal with her being in a horrible nursing home until she dies alone and depressed while he's 300 miles away. If that weren't bad enough, he's brought into a bad situation with a demon-possessed girl who insists on vomiting on him when he asks her to back up what she's saying about his dead mother. And through it all, he follows the rules. He does his duty, to a fault. He psychoanalyzes and when that doesn't work he goes to the church and asks for special permission to conduct an exorcism. When he's told "No, but you can assist this old bastard we know who'll run the show," he doesn't complain. When he tries to fill the old guy in on what they're about to walk into ("The demon seems to have three distinct personalities") he's rudely cut off ("There is only one!"). While most of us would respond with, "Hey, fuck you, I'm just trying to help," old Damien keeps quiet. When he walks in the room and the demon looks like mom and he yells "You're not my mother!" and starts crying and the old guy says to leave, he does.

But then, when he comes back in and the old guy's dead and the demon possessed girl is on the bed, giggling, brother, he's done! He's tried talk. He's tried following church procedure. He's tried doing what the old guy says. And now, finally, Karras' true badass self emerges as he quietly says in his head, "Man, fuck it, it's clobbering time!" What follows must surely be the only time in cinematic history that the sight of a grown man viciously pummelling the face of a 12 year old girl is not only welcome, but encouraged. But that wouldn't make Karras a badass of the Mutha Fucka variety. No, you know what it is that does that, right? It's when he makes his whole goddamn life worthwhile in one single instant by saying to the demon, "Come into me! Take me!" He's saving the girl and sacrificing himself at the same moment. People, that's not just a hero, that's a Bad Ass Mutha Fucka!

And that's it for now. Sure there are millions more I could have done but I'm hoping these were the less obvious choices than, say, Taylor from Planet of the Apes (although I in no way deny his status as a fully licensed BAMF). Also, another non-obvious runner-up: Dave Bowman from 2001: A Space Odyssey. HAL kills everyone on board and then tells a stranded Dave that he isn't going to open that pod bay door and that Dave is screwed because he doesn't have his helmet so he can't come in manually. And you know what Dave does? He comes in manually anyway, without a helmet, and takes HAL apart! After that he follows his own destiny to beyond the infinite and becomes the star child who will provide the next step in our intellectual evolution. Awww, fuck yeah!

And so I leave you with dreams of your own favorite BAMFS of sci-fi and horror. To paraphrase the immortal words of Mr. Bacon, there is a time to laugh and a time to weep, a time to mourn and there is a time for BAMFs. Everybody dance!

When Horror Doesn't Scare You

There's a phrase that I find particularly frustrating when applied to a good horror movie, especially one I happen to like: "It's not even that scary!" My reaction, usually, but not always, spoken silently to myself is, "Oh, shut up."

I know this will sound strange to some, yet obvious to others, but horror doesn't have to be scary to be good. It's basic quality of goodness or badness has, in fact, little to do with how scary it is and more to do, as with all art, with how effectively it conveys its meaning. If that means an overall sense of dread rather than a lot of scares, so be it. Hell, I like an overall sense of dread in horror.


On Facebook recently I posted a status update alluding to The Exorcist and Larry Aydlette chimed in to say he never found the movie scary. He was not, as some do, posing this as a criticism, merely an observation. Rod Heath did the same, carefully adding, "but that's not a fault, just a personal reaction." Marilyn, on the other hand, wrote, "I was terrified the first time I saw The Exorcist. The audience was freaking out all around me, people running up the aisle screaming. It was a happening." Sounds like it. My first experience with The Exorcist was quite different.

I saw it on an early cable showing in the seventies (it may have been HBO but I can't remember) with my sister, mother and father. Yes, I was around ten and my parents watched it with me. They were never the hysterical type, worried that if we were exposed to something with violence or language we would turn to a life of crime or insanity. And my father, and this is important, was a true believer, still is. He left college after his parents died to enter the monastery but left before taking his vows, deciding that marriage was the sacrament for him. His sister, on the other hand, stuck with it and became a nun who became Mother Superior of an order in Massachusetts. Finally, in our house, along the second bookshelf in the den, was and is the entire set of the Encyclopedia of Catholicism. So The Exorcist was a movie he had to see and, what the hell, might as well watch it with the kids.

My sister was decidedly scared and freaked out through most of it and I, while more fascinated than upset, was a little creeped out by things like the desecrated statue of Mary and the death mask flashing on the screen. By the time Merrin and Karras were doing battle with Regan in the bedroom at the end of the hall my father was more bemused than anything else. Bemused with my sister's reaction and the movie itself. He assured my sister there was nothing scary in the movie. It was a girl under the control of a demon, a demon that would be driven out by the faithful. No harm would come to her and, aside from exploiting an old man's weak heart, she could bring no harm to anyone else (Burke Dennings notwithstanding). Besides, he noted, this stuff doesn't even really happen like this. Yes, my dad's one of those types of movie viewers, the ones that too often let reality get in the way of a good story. But here's the thing: I agreed with him (on the "not scary" part, not the other stuff). I thought it was an excellent movie, but I couldn't be sure what everyone found scary about it. I mean, it's a girl. On a bed. Tied down, no less.

When I got older I realized that, while some people may be scared by it, what I felt was a sense of dread. A pall of death and familial collapse hangs over the house throughout the movie. Very, very little, if anything, in the movie actually feels good. And that is what makes it a great horror movie. To me, it's not meant to scare, it's meant to disturb, and those are two very different things. The Exorcist is disturbing, as in it disturbs our view of a normal mother/daughter relationship. It disturbs our view of faith, in ourselves and, if we choose, God as well. Most of all, it disturbs our view of what is right and wrong and good and bad. It is, in fact, one of the most disturbing movies I have ever seen. So whether I'm scared by it or not hardly even matters. The feeling's the thing, and the feeling is one of dread, a dreading of what's coming and how much worse it can still get.

I've had that feeling with several movies and some movies I consider the very best of the genre I would never consider scary, The Wicker Man for instance. I think it's brilliant but not because it's scary, rather, because it feeds on uneasy feelings of isolation, "us and them" belief systems and societal dysfunction. That it's not scary doesn't affect its quality one iota. It's brilliant, as is The Exorcist, in taking a feeling and building a whole movie around it. Sometimes people get the wrong idea about horror, even if they're a fan. They think it's about jump scares and gore and evil creatures and, actually, it is! It is about those things but it's also about so much more and whether or not it frightens isn't always the end-all, be-all of whether or not it succeeds. Sometimes, the best thing a horror movie can do is fill you with a vague, creeping sense of discomfort. Disquiet. Disorder. And when it's done right, it can be downright scary.

Here, There and Everywhere... At the Same Time!

The world is littered with stories of new technologies, ideologies and innovations getting snuffed out of existence by the competition before they even have a chance to make a go of it. The funny thing with history is, eventually, the new technology takes over one way or another because as time progresses, the old ways start to feel, well, old. In the mid to late seventies, laser discs came on the scene, as seen in the 1977 cover of Popular Mechanics to the right (click to enlarge). But they were expensive, hard to market and you had to flip the disc over like a vinyl LP to see the whole movie, part two of which was on the other side. Video tapes with their ease of use and much lower cost won the market by 1982 as video stores began to dot the suburban landscape and VCR sales headed north (and even within the VCR market there was a battle staged between VHS and Beta with VHS emerging the victor). Videotapes didn't have the proper aspect ratio, wore down quickly, had to be physically rewound or fast-forwarded to watch a specific scene which had to be located via the 'stop and watch every 10 seconds to see if you're there yet' method and on top of all of that, the visual quality left much to be desired (although the average VCR owner didn't seem to care a whole hell of a lot in that area).

After a couple of decades of domination though, videotape fell to digital laser video. It was no longer the bulky laser disc but a smaller compact version, a video sister of the audio compact disc. It was the DVD and it didn't take long for the average VCR owner to suddenly want what they finally realized they had been missing, that is, clear picture, proper aspect ratio and special features. And that's often how it happens: Resistance, which forces the new technology to hone itself, edit itself and make itself more appealing and more needful in the eye of the consumer, followed by acceptance. Business models usually work this way too.

Starting in the early days of Hollywood and going through the seventies, movies slowly opened across the nation, sometimes taking as long as six months to make their way to every state. The average movie would get a two week release date in several big cities and eventually get two week release dates in progressively smaller cities and towns along the way. If the movie proved popular, it would be "held over," meaning it would be booked for longer than its initial two week run. Moviegoers in their forties and up probably remember seeing marquees announcing "Held over for the 17th week!" or "20th week!" or "35th week!" depending on the popularity of the movie. I remember seeing such a marquee for The Godfather in my childhood with the held over number being somewhere in the upper forties.

It was a sound business model based on decades of tried and true practices. There were, however, studios and producers who broke the model, notably Walt Disney, who tried to get his movies into as many theatres as possible as quickly as possible. Somehow, Disney's success didn't clue in the other studios to what he had. It was assumed that this was something that would work well for kids movies but not other movies. After all, Disney was trying to sell toys and albums and games along with the movie (he really was the father of the modern movie marketing campaign model, wasn't he?) while grown-up movies needed "word of mouth" advertising to get the adults into the theatre. Then, in 1973, William Friedkin had it written into his contract that he would have approval over how The Exorcist was released, which he wanted because he believed the slow release model would fail for The Exorcist. He didn't want "word of mouth," that which the slow release depends upon, ruining the shock of the film for most moviegoers. He wanted it shown to as many people as possible as soon as possible. The studio agreed and on December 26, 1973, The Exorcist opened on multiple screens all across the nation. It was a hit and slowly, the old model started to break down. In 1977, with Star Wars opening on some 400 screens across the nation (a paltry number by today's standards) the slow release model was all but dead. By 1979, the success of such non-kiddie fare as Kramer vs. Kramer and An Unmarried Woman, both given wide-release shortly after their premiere dates and both enjoying great success, set the new model in stone. Wide release was the way to go. Slow release was dead.

In part, it died because the technology improved for producing prints at lower costs to theatre owners, partly because theatres expanded beyond single screen palaces and partly because both theatre owners and movie studios realized there was one hell of a lot of money to be made in wide release. Today, movie viewing technology is at the point that many cinephiles and average moviegoers are expecting, but not yet demanding, that the model change once again. The new model is called Simultaneous Release*, and it's only been tried with a few low-profile pictures, to very limited success. Basically, it goes like this: With the quality of home movie entertainment systems and the remarkable ability in the modern world to get the movie of your choice into your home without ever leaving it, why not release a new movie in the theatres, on DVD and on instant streaming all on the same day?!. Or, at the very least, release it in the theatres by itself for its big "Premiere Week" and then, the following weekend, release it to DVD and instant streaming. Currently, the model followed is oddly reminiscent of the old slow release model for movies in the seventies and before, only except being a slow release around the country, it's a slow release around the different types of media.

Not everyone agrees this a good idea, most notably, and understandably, cinema owners who fear they'll lose money. But I submit, circumstantially mind you, based solely on being a parent of teenagers, that the core audiences for multiplexes will not change. My kids don't want to watch movies at home, they want to go out, with their friends. My adult friends, on the other hand, want to stay in and see that new movie everyone is talking about without having to get a babysitter for the youngest, pay for parking, etc. And guess what? If they don't have a choice, they're still not going to see it. I can count on two fingers the number of friends I know that have been to a multiplex in the last year. "I'll watch it on DVD" is the mantra of the new age.

I venture out into the theatre fairly often myself but mainly to the AFI to see older films on the big screen with wonderfully appreciative audiences and can tell you, as a result, that I am a full convert to the notion that seeing a classic film on the big screen can redefine it for you. A recent example would be La Dolce Vita, which my wife and I saw at the AFI last month and which was an extraordinary experience. Before, I had liked the movie, after, I was absolutely floored by it. I realize the power of the big screen so I'm not cavalierly suggesting we should do away with the experience altogether. Simply saying that in this day of modern digital conveniences it may be time to switch to a simultaneous release model to get more people in on the action. How many more older movie lovers would give a look to the new blockbuster everyone is talking about if they could, easily and conveniently, right from their home? But they can, you say, when the DVD is released. True, but the excitement is gone. Let me explain.

Often I find myself curious about some blockbuster in the theatres. Is it really as bad as everyone says it is? Is it really as good? Is it a fun popcorn movie or an overblown noisemaker? In the biggest success stories, like an Avatar, I plop down my money and go see it. More often than not, I don't. And even more often than not, when it's released on DVD I've already read everyone's reaction and no longer care and never bother seeing it. If simultaneous release were in play that wouldn't be the case. I believe the cinema owners would make the same money they're making now and the distributors would make even more as simultaneously released movies would rake in far more than delayed release DVDs do now.

I believe the time has come for simultaneous release to become the standard model, giving every movie, especially adult fare, the chance to have a wider audience. We're almost there. I've already noticed what I call the "Netflix Instant Effect" more and more on the movie blogs. That is, when a new movie or classic movie becomes available on Netflix Instant, suddenly there are a lot of blogs writing it up. We all want to be a part of the same conversation and simultaneous release would allow more of us, especially us cinephiles, to enjoy the feeling of seeing the same movie together, no matter how far apart we are.

______________________

*click on the link to read a rather hyperbolic reaction to simultaneous release from M. Night Shyamalan. It's funny because I can't think of a director who would benefit from it more.

Alternate Dream Sequence fromThe ExorcistWhat Might Have Been

The dream sequence from The Exorcist has become legendary: Father Karras trying to make contact with his mother, she turning away and that mask, the death mask that is Pazuzu. Most horror fans know it frame by frame. But what if the original version had made it into the film as seen in this newly discovered rough cut with it's unmatched lighting between the shots of Karras and his mother? Two famous actors were used for the mother and Pazuzu roles but later the shots were scrapped in favor of unknowns. The footage would never die however. A few years later Sidney Pollack would become intrigued with the footage shot of the famous actor as the mother and build a whole film around it, even using this original footage in that film. But what if William Friedkin, director of The Exorcist, had left it in? What might have been.

The Joy of Demonic Discovery

Anyone who's seen The Exorcist has probably at one point or another looked up, or asked someone who knows, what Regan and Father Karras are saying to each other in the bedroom when she speaks Latin and French. I know I did. And when I did I found it not only interesting, but invaluable in assessing the character of Regan and/or Pazuzu, the demononic spirit that possesses her. Here's the dialogue:

Regan: Mirabile dictu, don’t you agree? Here she's saying that it's "miraculous to speak of" or "talk about" or "discuss," having an exorcism that is.

Karras is curious about her speaking Latin, asks if she does speak it and she says, "Ego te absolvo" which you could probably easily figure out on your own means "I absolve you" (duh) or more roughly, "I forgive you," that is, you're absolved of your sins.

Karras then asks, "Quod nomen mihi est?” or basically "tell me what my name is?"

Regan responds, "Bon Jour" which we all know means "Good Day" in French. Karras repeats his question in Latin and then Regan says, again in French, "La plume de ma tante,” which means, "The quill of my aunt." The quill there referring to the kind of pen dipped in an ink well.

When I looked up that phrase many moons ago, I discovered it is a common phrase in basic French textbooks. It is usually written as "la plume de ma tante est sur le bureau de mon oncle" or "the quill of my aunt in on the desk of my uncle."

Okay, so what? Why do I consider this invaluable? Because early on in the movie there is an open question as to whether Regan is truly possessed by a demonic spirit or simply schizophrenic. And this adds to those early layers of ambiguity. The spirit possessing Regan claims to be the Devil and yet can only muster up "good day" and "the quill of my aunt" in conversation because that's all Regan has studied, or remembered, in French class. It gives the viewer early on two possibilities: Either she really is schizophrenic or this is some minor pissant demon. And Karras doesn't appear to be buying it for a second. His question is perfectly constructed. He's saying, "Okay smartass, if you speak Latin, you'll say 'Karras' in response to this question." But Regan doesn't. She says "Bon Jour" because chances are, she doesn't know what Karras just asked her. It's brilliant and reveals an amateur in Regan, facing a superior opponent in Karras. She's fooled everyone else, but not our man Karras. And this adds another level of ambiguity and doubt for Karras himself, now believing even less that she is truly possessed.

Unfortunately, for me (though I know it's not with many fans of the movie), once she's levitated and twisted her head around the argument is settled, it's Pazuzu. A part of me has always wished William Blatty and William Friedkin hadn't put in the levitation, the head turn or the backwards talking because it removes all ambiguity. Even Karras seeing his mother on the bed, feeling Pazuzu enter into him at the end and hearing the homeless man from the subway in Regan's bedroom could arguably all be Karras. He's under emotional duress and none of that would be out of the question. But the physical act of levitation removes all doubt.

I'm not saying I don't want there to be demonic possession, just that I sometimes wish Blatty and Friedkin had offered nothing solid in the way of evidence, right up to the closing credits. Because honestly, I don't care if she's actually possessed. Whether she is or not does not diminish any of the anguish of Karras, especially given that he believes by the end. His belief in her possession is what matters, not the viewers. But that's a minor "what if" quibble for this classic and emotionally painful tale. And the bedroom scene adds another layer to the Regan/Karras confrontation near the end, knowing where they started and how Karras initially had the upper hand.

And now I bid you adieu to ponder their relationship further while I seek out the quill of my aunt, which, if I am not mistaken, is on the desk of my uncle. Bon jour.

Favorite Moments: The Exorcist

I should probably save this Favorite Moment for October but I feel like putting it up now so that's what I'm going to do. It's from The Exorcist and it's probably the scene I like best in the whole movie. While I admire many aspects of the film what has always stood out for me is the power of Jason Miller's performance. Throughout the film he holds everything in a tight coil always looking as though he is mere inches away from a complete nervous breakdown. This moment represents the first time in the film where he finally let's his emotions take over. It's necessary or the climax would make little sense as his emotional overload is what draws the film to its conclusion. This scene sets it up and his ability at letting go only momentarily and then immediately drawing it back in is one of the feats that makes this, for me at least, the best performance of 1973, with all due respect to the other great performances that year, lead or supporting. Everyone is impressive in the film but Miller's performance carries a power and weight to it that never fails to move me.

*****ARCHIVED HALOSCAN COMMENTS FOR THIS POST HERE*****

Cinema Still Life: The Exorcist

Jason Miller as Father Damien Karras walks with Lee J. Cobb as Detective Kinderman on location at Georgetown University for the filming of The Exorcist. Jason Miller went to that other Catholic University in town, The Catholic University of America where he earned a degree in theatre. Working for years in regional theatre as an actor and writer, 1973 turned out to be a banner year for Miller. He got his first movie role as Father Karras for which he would earn a well-deserved nomination for Best Supporting Actor and he won the Pulitzer Prize for his play, That Championship Season. It is safe to say he never had another year like this again. A quick glance at his bio on IMDB and Wikipedia confirms that yes, it is very safe to say that indeed.

As always, click picture to enlarge.