The 70’s were considered one of the golden periods of cinema in Hollywood, with many proclaiming it the high water mark of the art form, the greatest decade ever. In fact though, there was an extreme dichotomy going on, and this movie fell victim to two competing cinematic trends, falling squarely between the cracks. A box office bomb at the time it was released back in 1977, it has in recent years undergone a resurgence in reputation, with luminaries such as Tarantino and Stephen King listing it in their favourite movies. William Friedkin (pictured below), the director, himself considered this his greatest movie, leading to the restoration from original prints that took place in in 2013, which in turn led to the first release in 4K for home theatre in 2025.
The 70’s deserve their own essay to explain what was going on, but in short, through the thirties, forties and to some extent the fifties the studio system that meant studios could churn out movies like a factory and have full control over their distribution and screenings broke down. Up until 1948, studios owned the movie theatre chains for distribution as well as being the studios making the movies, but a US Supreme Court ruling found the major Hollywood Studios guilty of monopolising the film industry and forced the sell-off of the cinema chains. This had a significant effect on the studios profits, and their business model needed restructured. In short, the big studios were struggling, with growing TV ownership seen as an existential threat. So how then did 20 of the greatest top 100 movies of all time (AFI 100) get made during this difficult time? A new generation of filmmakers were coming up who were coming out of the Vietnam era – they were experimenters, and churned out an astonishing variety of genres and styles – and the studios let them do it, often giving them full creative control. The studios were as keen as the directors to figure out what was going to work both critically and financially. And so, we got classics such as The Godfather, Raging Bull, Apocalypse Now, Alien, and many others. This was the movement that birthed William Friedkin as a significant director. His calling card was a thriller called “The French Connection” (1971), which was a critical and commercial success. Many scenes were filmed live with real crowds and on real streets for a cinema verité feel. This gritty, no nonsense guerilla style film-making epitomized this new generation, and he was then given free reign to try a different genre, and made what some consider one of the greatest horror movies of all time, “The Exorcist” (1973), which in turn gave him the freedom to go on and make “Sorceror” in 1977.
Meanwhile, in a movie theatre not far away, a small sci-fi movie was being released which in turn epitomized the other big competing cinematic trend of the 70’s.. The blockbuster. That sci-fi movie was of course, Star Wars. It wasn’t the first blockbuster, Steven Spielberg had arguably got there first with “Jaws” (1975), but it was a milestone turning point in cinema attendance and associated merchandise link-ins. Friedkin’s bleak, experimental and at times even hallucinogenic movie didn’t stand a chance. The zeitgeist was against him – people went to see Star Wars in their millions, and stayed away from Sorceror. In Friedkin’s own words, his movie was “An existential action film about futility”, and that just wasn’t what audiences wanted, not then, and not for a long time to come. Film editor Bud Smith described his reaction to seeing Star Wars, “When our trailer [for Sorcerer] faded to black, the curtains closed and opened again, and they kept opening and opening, and you started feeling this huge thing coming over your shoulder overwhelming you, and heard this noise, and you went right off into space. It made our film look like this little, amateurish piece of shit. I told Billy [Friedkin], 'We're freaking being blown off the screen. You gotta go see this.'.
For Friedkin though, Sorceror was seen as a logical step forward from The Exorcist – after a movie which was about faith, this was to be the opposite, a movie about fate. Seen as impossible to make by the studios, that only made him want to make the movie more, especially with his contemporary Francis Ford Coppola planning his own ‘impossible to make’ movie set in a jungle, ‘Apocalypse Now’. With locations in Dominican Republic and Mexico primarily for the jungle scenes, and also Paris, New Jersey and Jerusalem for the backstory vignettes, the budget was a not-insignificant $15 million, and this only spiraled to $22 million when difficulties started to mount. This was significant enough that two studios had to share the cost and risk to get the movie released (Paramount and Universal). It was estimated it would have to gross around $45 to 50 million to break even .. in the end it made just $9 million, worldwide. Friedkin (and others) attributed this to two things – coming out just two weeks after Star Wars, and the unfortunate choice for the name of the movie. The movie had nothing to do with evil magic as the name might conjure up in your mind (despite its hallucinogenic final moments..) but had two meanings – the literal one being that it is the name of one of the trucks, and the figurative one being that fate itself is a sorcerer. In this story, men can run away and try to hide from fate but “..life is filled with betrayal, and fate is waiting around the corner to kick you in the ass.” As Friedkin said. However, given this was the movie from the director of The Exorcist, it was unsurprising that audiences assumed a name like Sorceror meant something more literally supernatural.
The making of the movie is a saga in itself, worthy of its own movie. The cast were led by Roy Scheider, with whom Friedkin had already worked, in The French Connection, but otherwise was made up of an eclectic mixture of international actors, who were not well known in Hollywood. Scheider wasn’t the first choice however, that was Steve McQueen. McQueen loved the script, but was unwilling to leave his wife Ali MacGraw behind for filming, and insisted a role be found for her. Friedkin balked, and so lost his first choice for the role. Clint Eastwood, Jack Nicholson, and Warren Oates also were considered before Scheider.
After filming the first opening vignette, the crew moved to Jerusalem. While filming their mock movie explosion (which was big enough to blow out the mayors window, and injure the stuntman setting it off), another actual bomb went off – allowing some second unit filming to capture some additional footage lending an air of authenticity and chaos to the scene. After filming the next scene in New Jersey, work began on building the bridge for the key suspense set piece in the movie. Although requiring $1 million to complete, the crew then faced a shortage of rainfall – the river became completely dry. Locations in Mexico were scouted and an alternative location found on the Papaloapan River – the bridge was rebuilt again at a cost of an additional $1 million. Workers were found, but additional security was needed due to threats of sabotage from the villagers who were reluctant to have a movie called ‘Sorceror’ by the director of ‘The Exorcist’ film in their locale. Unfortunately, one of the workers was an undercover narcotics agent, who let Friedkin know that several key members of the film crew were in the possession of drugs – the crew were rushed to the airport and had to be replaced at short notice. The filming curse continued, and the local area faced an unexpected drought – in the end, massive pumps and sprinklers had to complete the scene to make it work. Several trucks tipped over into the river during filming, adding to the significant cost of just that scene alone. No rear projection or visual effects were used – to keep the scene as real as possible. This meant Roy Scheider had to actually learn how to maneuver the massive truck – an experience he described as ‘rehearsing to stay alive’, leading him to quip that working on this movie made shooting ‘Jaws’ look like a picnic.
Most of the movie was shot in Dominican Republic, for the jungle scenes, although some scenes (including the bridge and one of the opening vignettes) used Mexico, and the surreal final scenes where Roy Scheider’s character struggles to retain his sanity, used Bisti / De-Na-Zin Wilderness in New Mexico. Those jungle scenes took their toll.. the movie shoot was beset by injury or illness – around 50 people reportedly left with either injury or gangrene. Friedkin himself caught malaria, and lost 23kg (Fifty pounds).
The sound of the music was unique – not only did sound design get the only Oscar nomination for the movie (which it understandably lost to Star Wars), the movie was scored by German electronic synth pop band Tangerine Dream (Picture right). The music they provided pre-empted the filming of the scenes, and some scenes ended up being shot to the music rather than the music being adapted to the scene. The score is either brilliantly original and a satisfyingly unsettling atmosphere piece which suits the movie, or an anachronistic curiosity which has dated more than the film it accompanies, depending on your point of view.
On release, the movie performed poorly. Audiences were confused about what to expect, because of the title – and when they started watching, the first 16 minutes are all in foreign languages, which caused walkouts as people thought they were watching a foreign film. Critics at the time were unkind – Roger Ebert supported the movie, but others such as John Simon said wrote about how Friedkin 'spent twenty-one million dollars to perpetrate a film that could be usefully studied in courses on how not to make movies’.
Released two weeks after Star Wars, when the movie failed to attract an audience, it was quickly shuffled out of the screen to bring back more Star Wars. It was soon relegated to second feature accompanying “The Spy Who Loved Me”.
Times change. Some of those early critics apologized and issued a reappraisal. As well as the themes, the innovative narrative structure and authenticity of the muddy sweaty jungle scenes were praised. Daniel Cruse describes it as a fatalistic masterwork, a movie about roads – the roads we take in life, how they dictate our futures, and eventually how they dictate our ends. The re-appraisal grew sufficient momentum to allow Friedkin to announce in 2014 a new digitally remastered version of the movie was being released, and in 2025 it received at last a 4K Criterion Collection release.
The end result of all this is a fascinating slice of uniquely 70’s moviemaking. It is considered to have led in part to the demise of auteur film making of the 70’s, and yet has belatedly grown cult status and committed afficionados. So were audiences right to write it off? Or are the new generation of movie afficionados correct to highlight it as a missing classic?
Either way, it is worth (re)watching as that 70’s film you forgot about, or maybe even never knew about, it’s an important slice of cinema history. So turn out the lights, put on that 4K disc and put your feet up, and make up your own mind!
© Stephen's Movie Guide
Inverurie Website Design