Interview: Roy Scheider, December 1977.

article-0-00D3431900000190-208_638x883Jim Shoffner interviewed Roy Scheider on location for Jaws 2 (1978). He shared his thoughts on Sorcerer.

Roy Scheider: It was exciting as an adventure piece, but the way it was edited didn’t allow the audience to participate in the adventure, and they never felt that they had a personal interest in these guys… In any film that you do, it makes no difference whether your audience loves the characters or hates them, but they’re gotta care about them one way or the other. Well, the way this picture was set up, there was no way they could care about them at all. They came out of the theatre without a fulfilling experience, and consequently they didn’t recommend to their friends to see it.

About Toby

I'm a writer. And a dad. And a husband. And a record collector. And a movie geek (if the movies are old). And I really wish I had a hot rod.
This entry was posted in Interviews, Roy Scheider. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Interview: Roy Scheider, December 1977.

  1. Tom says:

    I have to wonder, is he referring to the non-Friedkin edited version?

  2. amamansa says:

    That was the stake for having a special movie based on stunning as well as mesmerising and hallucinatory action sequences. A visionary symphony of a terrific score where the furious nature is one ot the underhand, invisible although ruling character in the film. In some way it could be interpreted as a horror movie, but it isn’t. Anyway you have to sacrifice all that is not related to the pure desperate actions of those men who are facing numerous trial that were shot in a tour de force that probably will never be repeated by no one else. That is why I agree the way it was directed, cause the result is still remarkable in terms of vision. Paganini non ripete. Enjoy it, is not for simple audience.

  3. There are films in which actions are centerpiece. There are films that have locations as the centerpiece. There are films in which the entire focus is on the characters and not much else. There are also films which have dialogues as the driving force. I also know some films that have not much of a plot at all, but are thoroughly exciting (hell, you don’t even have to look any further than Friedkin’s own French Connection!). There is no point in expecting all films to operate on the same mechanical level as greatness can manifest itself in all those aforementioned types.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s