Jump to content

Scott Derrickson

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Scott Derrickson

  1. I have not looked at the Doctor Strange thread here, and thought today would be a good day to read it. This is what happens when you call me an Evangelical on the eve of a Presidential election Steven. I hope you've learned your lesson and this doesn't happen again in 2020.
  2. FYI Y'all, I've gotten to know James Gray because our boys are on the same baseball team. I sent him this thread, which he read in its entirety and very much enjoyed. Specifically, he was glad to see someone talk about the spiritual significance of the film with regards to the characters themselves, and he said he was very surprised that the critical community at large chose to completely ignore this subject as if it were taboo.
  3. This thread inspired me to watch this last night. What an astonishing film. I normally care nothing about awards season, but this year I so hope this has a second life because of the MANY awards it should win. I would say more about it, but Jeremy's review says pretty much all that needs to be said.
  4. Scott, I would love to hear more about what you admire in The Warriors. You, too, Jason. I struggled with the film, in part because I didn't expect the 1970s outfits to be so of-their-time. Don't ask me why I thought that, but I wasn't expecting a movie about gang members to remind me of the Village People the entirety of its running time. The leads were flat, I thought; I liked the hissing, one-note villain best, simply because I wanted to see him get punched -- an effective performance! But those are some soft-looking gangbangers in the movie. I'm not sure if I saw the Director's Cut. I don't remember much comic-book imagery. What I did like was the deejay, only seen via shots of her lips, as she comments on the action. The color in those scenes, mainly just a red light, was more striking than much of the film's other imagery, I thought. The outfits weren't of-their-time - they were over-the-top zany for NYC gang members. For me, that's the comic-book quality, along with the gang-reporting DJ broadcasting tips on who the Warriors are battling. And yes, they are soft looking by modern standards, but the whole thing is so highly elevated, you just have to sink into the imaginary world, and then it's pretty fantastic. It's one of the most intentionally unrealistic yet realistic movies I've seen - the tone isn't quite like anything else. And for it's time, the fighting is very stylish. And I think the baseball furies are still some of the coolest movie villains I've ever seen.
  5. Italian. in real life and in the movie. I saw the video recordings that the real Ralph Sarchie made with the family members that the scene was based on - those people weren't lying, weren't trying to get attention, and were absolutely terrified of their own house. Chilling to watch.
  6. Thanks very much Tucker (and Attica). I found the story deeply frightening, but more so, I found it perplexing, profoundly mysterious, heart-wrenching. So it's always rewarding to hear someone say that's it's more than just a scary movie.
  7. It's essentially the first dark comic/graphic novel movie - the directors cut literally has comic images spliced throughout. There is nothing quite like it. One of my favorite films.
  8. The character of Ralph Sarchie is spot on, as is his family drama, etc... but the main storyline about the soldiers is pure fiction with the scarier scenes inspired/taken from his book. Emily Rose sticks VERY close to written accounts of what happened to Anneliese Michel, with some embellishments, and the trial outcome is accurate - but Laura Linney's character is pure fiction. And there were two priests on trial not one. Overall, I'd say Deliver us from Evil is more fictionalized.
  9. Roger Ebert was an agnostic with zero antagonism toward spiritual/religious content in movies. This current Chicago SunTimes reviewer is the opposite extreme. I don't mind a bad review, but this feels more like a hit piece/snarky outing on my faith than a review. Am I being too sensitive? http://www.suntimes.com/entertainment/movies/28406705-421/deliver-us-from-evil-devil-must-have-made-director-concoct-these-routine-frights.html#.U7sLz7HrzYQ
  10. But surely at some point Sarchie stops denying his spiritual gifts and uses them for good? Of course I noticed you never actually showed that, but I thought it was implied. Not to say there might not be more drama and character development (perhaps in a hypothetical sequel?) before he becomes Sarchie the demon hunter, but I assume that's his trajectory. If he never becomes a demon hunter (or investigator of the demonic, or "demonologist" as the real-life Sarchie calls himself), you'd have essentially jettisoned the central theme of Beware the Night. That would be … odd, it seems to me. Am I right in remembering the renouncing of Satan as a baptism scene? If so, you might not show Sarchie making a profession of faith, but assuming Fr. Mendoza follows the baptismal liturgy, "Do you reject Satan?" will be shortly followed by "Do you believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth? Do you believe in Jesus Christ, [etc.]?" The prescribed answer is "I do." Come to think of it, I thought I read you describing the film as an origin story, somewhere, after I saw it. Am I making that up? The baptism scene is certainly a kind of confession of faith, no doubt. I've never thought of the movie as an origin story but it's definitely about Sarchie's arc from skeptic to believer - but my earlier point is that he's not a full believer until the very end of the movie at best. During the exorcism, he has enough faith in Mendoza's beliefs to hand control over to him and participate - and after what he sees there, he's certainly going to be a kind of believer. But I never thought of the movie as being about the origin of a demon hunter. The April date may have been on the zoo camera footage - I don't recall. Sarchie was mentored by two priest - Bishop McKenna (an exorcist) in NYC and Father Malachi Martin (who wrote Hostage to the Devil, the scariest book I've ever read). His Jesuit background and Latin American ethnicity was added, along with some aspects of his backstory - but some of that backstory was drawn from Father Martin. The whole movie is a very heavy truth/fiction mashup. The real Ralph Sarchie worked cases with the Warrens by the way. Small circle of folks who do this I guess.
  11. Even I don't know how you got April 2013 - where did you get April? I couldn't have told you that. Regardless, your statement about the end title cards telling us what "the characters have been doing in the years since the story ended" is incorrect. Nothing in the title card says or implies "years". It just says that after the birth of his new daughter, Sarchie retired and continues to work with Mendoza.
  12. SPOLIER: But Sarchie never becomes a demon-hunter at all in the film. He is only chasing a perp and denying his spiritual gifts. When he realizes that his brute force against Santino is useless, he hands him off to Santino. He never makes a profession of faith either - only a renouncing of evil at the end. That was intentional.
  13. Scott Derrickson


    My single favorite film of the past 25 years.
  14. Locke never wanted or intended to tell his family in the manner that he did - he was forced to do it by the early birth of the baby. The moral significance is two-fold for me: 1) The amount of devastation that a single mistake can make in ones life, and 2) The level to which Locke is willing to pay for that mistake...specifically, that he was choosing from the day of its birth to make the child a supreme priority.
  15. This is a remarkable film, though perhaps closer to a stage play than a film given that the entire thing is one guy in a car. The story is complex and brimming with moral significance. But the for me, the great takeaway is that Tom Hardy is probably the best young actor in the world.
  16. This is the new restored print? The one I saw in Brooklyn with Friedkin was in bad shape.
  17. Last fall in Brooklyn, just before I started shooting DELIVER US FROM EVIL, i took Eric Bana and Edgar Ramirez to see this with Friedkin introducing it. It is a truly astonishing film. Never seen anything like it. The set piece on the bridge is one of the greatest scenes ever filmed. Also, In the 2012 Sight & Sound directors' poll, Tarantino listed it his top 12 films of all time: Apocalypse Now, The Bad News Bears, Carrie, Dazed and Confused, The Great Escape,His Girl Friday, Jaws, Pretty Maids All in a Row, Rolling Thunder, Sorcerer, and Taxi Driver, with The Good, the Bad and the Ugly being his favorite.
  18. @David_Lynch @JRichardKelly @JasonReitman are all pretty good.
  19. Huh. I know all of those Twitter accounts, and none of them are that interesting. I'm not the best filmmaker in the world, but I may have the best filmmaker Twitter feed. This is very exciting.
  20. Well said. That is precisely the experience I've had with Martyrs.
  21. It really was an act of bravery for him to make it. He was deeply depressed at the time, and was reaching out for something profound in his own suffering. He said he sometimes hates himself for making it, because he knows what an ugly and nightmarish experience it is for the viewer...but in the end he believes (rightly) that nothing but the extreme horror of the film could effectively lead to the important insights, thoughts, and questions that it offers.
  22. I wouldn't blame anyone for hating Martyrs. As for your three questions, I can only say that holding on the carnage is meant to repel, not to titilate - I'm sure of this because I've recently spoken at length with the director about the film. The other two things you mention seem inconsequential in the context of the film, and I find that fact you find them significant (and not the theme of transcendence through suffering) quite odd.
  23. I don't believe at all that sadism is essential to viewing pleasure for horror, and that's certainly not the case with Martyrs. A midnight audience hard-wired to have fun with a horror film is going to react to any and all violence the same - but that's just not typical. Anyone who authentically derives pleasure from Martyrs is indeed a sadist - but most horror fans I know feel the same way about it that I do, that it's one of the most unpleasant films ever made. It's not popular for this very reason. It's not torture porn. I don't defend the SAW franchise, or HOSTEL - but this just isn't that. As a rule, if the violence of the film is intended to make the audience feel fear and empathy for the victims of violence, then it has worthwhile ambitions. Anytime horror deliberately aims to make audience vicariously enjoy the acts of violence by identifying with the perpetrator, well, that's unlikely to be noble. I will say this though, if I saw Martyrs in a theater and people cheered, I would leave immediately. Hearing about that is very depressing.
  • Create New...