DS Actors in BURNT OFFERINGS

[Brian]

MB, please move this to another thread as appropriate....but, what if DC had cast some or all of the roles in BURNT OFFERINGS with DS actors--and any number of those actors could have been effective in BO roles.  Here are my thoughts: 

David Selby would have played the Oliver Reed role;
Kathryn Leigh Scott in the Karen Black role;
Thayer David or Louis Edmonds in the Burgess Meredith role;
Joan Bennett in the Eileen Heckert role; and
Grayson Hall in the Bette Davis role.

Comments?

[David]

and James Storm as the ghost.
the actor looked like Storm!

David

[IluvBarnabas]

This topic has rekindled my interest in this film again.

I know I saw Burnt Offerings once many years ago, but I can't remember much about it. Only things I do remember are it was about a haunted house and the ending was a downer. I have always wanted to catch it again but somehow I just couldn't seem to find the time when it was on TV. Think maybe I'll go rent it.

[Nelson Collins]

I know I saw Burnt Offerings once many years ago, but I can't remember much about it. Only things I do remember are it was about a haunted house and the ending was a downer. I have always wanted to catch it again but somehow I just couldn't seem to find the time when it was on TV. Think maybe I'll go rent it.

Hmmm, so, it's not a cooking show then, eh?

[Mysterious Benefactor]

I know I saw Burnt Offerings once many years ago, but I can't remember much about it.

Consider yourself lucky that your memory of it is dim. 

Well, whatever you do, don't read the book beforehand. The movie is a travesty of the book. It's not without reason that in Variety's review they wrote: "'Burnt Offerings' is a trite, murkily plotted, and talky supernatural pic, which will probably move quickly to double bills [MB Note: meaning it will quickly drop out of the limelight as the primary film attraction and will slip to the secondary on a double bill back when it was customary for two movies to play together in a theater]. Lots of doors fly open and shut, actors behave strangely, and eventually three people die, but it's a long 116 minutes. Karen Back and Bette Davis supply some marquee interest for the United Artists release, but none comes off well in the heavy hands of producer-director Dan Curtis..." (And that's actually one of the film's "good" reviews.  ) And I doubt it's a coincidence that one of the reasons the film is such a travesty of the book is that DC collaborated on the screenplay adaptation. 


And as for casting DS stars in the roles, absolutely no offense to Brian because I know his intentions are good, but I wouldn't want to saddle any of them (not even the ones whose talents I'm less than fond of  ) with having to appear in the production.

[Mysterious Benefactor]

Hmmm, so, it's not a cooking show then, eh?

No, not quite - though that might have been an improvement. 

[Brian]

Well, whatever you do, don't read the book beforehand. . .
And as for casting DS stars in the roles, absolutely no offense to Brian because I know his intentions are good, but I wouldn't want to saddle any of them (not even the ones whose talents I'm less than fond of  ) with having to appear in the production.

Good point about the book, which actually makes some sense of the ending by describing what DC couldn't/wouldn't show on film (cost would have been quite high for the effects, I'm sure).

No offense taken--perhaps the film would have been better, though, with the DS talent and a script by Richard Matheson.  (But Bette Davis and Karen Black offer campy performances that are fun to watch in spite of the rest of the film.)

Brian

[Darren Gross]

Consider yourself lucky that your memory of it is dim. 

Well, whatever you do, don't read the book beforehand. The movie is a travesty of the book. It's not without reason that in Variety's review they wrote: "'Burnt Offerings' is a trite, murkily plotted, and talky supernatural pic, which will probably move quickly to double bills [MB Note: meaning it will quickly drop out of the limelight as the primary film attraction and will slip to the secondary on a double bill back when it was customary for two movies to play together in a theater]. Lots of doors fly open and shut, actors behave strangely, and eventually three people die, but it's a long 116 minutes. Karen Back and Bette Davis supply some marquee interest for the United Artists release, but none comes off well in the heavy hands of producer-director Dan Curtis..." (And that's actually one of the film's "good" reviews.  ) And I doubt it's a coincidence that one of the reasons the film is such a travesty of the book is that DC collaborated on the screenplay adaptation. 


And as for casting DS stars in the roles, absolutely no offense to Brian because I know his intentions are good, but I wouldn't want to saddle any of them (not even the ones whose talents I'm less than fond of  ) with having to appear in the production.

Please elaborate--what are your specific issues with the film?
Most of it is a nearly scene-to-scene filming of the book...

[Mysterious Benefactor]

Honestly not to cop-out, but I've succeeded quite successfully in forgetting the details of the film. But I do remember that back in '75 after both a friend and I had read the book and loved it, we were thrilled to learn that DC was doing a film adaptation. However, when we finally saw it, both of us were depressed and disappointed with the outcome. And this was before either of us had read any of the reviews. When we finally did so, it came as no surprise to us whatsoever that the film was almost universally panned.

That being said, though - I'll try to find the time to reread the book and then rewatch the movie to see what I think now. Perhaps after more than 30 years my opinion will change. However, I can say that my friend rented the DVD (as the free selection in one of Hollywood Videos' rent one get one free promotions) soon after it was released and his opinion was that it was worse than he'd remembered. He said both he and his wife sat through most of it rolling their eyes and even as the free selection it was a waste. But like the film, I'll try very hard to forget that was their reaction. 

[Gerard]

To me what was disappointing was that it was a film that had so much potential.  A stellar cast, a renowned author penning the script, and DC's ability to create atmosphere.  There seemed to be possible moments, but then somehow they became lost.  I can't put my finger on just what went wrong, but it went wrong in a big way.  Ironically, I discovered that if you describe the film to those who have not seen it, it does sound scary to them.  Why that ability to describe did not translate to celluloid, I just don't know.  Maybe somebody can figure it out.

Gerard

[Nancy]

Gerard, you cited what I feel is a major flaw in most of DC's work.  There is a marvelous concept, it gets off the ground and somewhere starts to crumble.  That's what happened with HODS, IMO, and with several other DC films.  I remember Oliver Reed being described in this film by a critic as being "the poor man's Jonathan Frid" which I certainly don't agree with.  I haven't see the film in many years but I remember being disappointed with it.

Nancy

To me what was disappointing was that it was a film that had so much potential.  A stellar cast, a renowned author penning the script, and DC's ability to create atmosphere.  There seemed to be possible moments, but then somehow they became lost.  I can't put my finger on just what went wrong, but it went wrong in a big way.  Ironically, I discovered that if you describe the film to those who have not seen it, it does sound scary to them.  Why that ability to describe did not translate to celluloid, I just don't know.  Maybe somebody can figure it out.

[Nelson Collins]

Ironically, I discovered that if you describe the film to those who have not seen it, it does sound scary to them.  Why that ability to describe did not translate to celluloid, I just don't know.  Maybe somebody can figure it out.

I've not seen the film, but perhaps it's just a matter of editing?   If you go to YouTube and do a search for "Scary Mary" you will find a hilarious (and creepy) fanmade "trailer" for Mary Poppins! 

[Nancy]

I must check that out. I know one or two scary mary's in real life! 

Nancy

If you go to YouTube and do a search for "Scary Mary" you will find a hilarious (and creepy) D

[Darren Gross]

I'd recommend revisiting the film. Its a bit over the top in parts, and a bit overacted in bits, but its got a tangible atmosphere, and some excellent, effective sequences, among them the visions of the undertaker, the house regenerating itself, the greenhouse coming to life, the attempt to escape and the wonderfully camp and loopy interplay between Meredith, Heckert, and Dub Taylor.

It's a bit pokey at times, but I think its a suspenseful effective picture. As an adaptation it's one of the closest to the original source, barring some excisions and a punched up ending.

It also plays as an interesting reversal of Curtis's NODS, this time with the wife being possessed by the house and its past, so to speak, and the husband who's the victim...

I've never seen it noted as such, but its quite clear to me that NODS and BURNT OFFERINGS were both crucial influences on King's THE SHINING...

In my opinion, the main issues with HODS are the rushed nature of the storytelling and the lack of development on almost every character after a certain point. Most of this I blame on the poor choice made to not film a couple of scenes and to edit out a raft of others that would have made the film less haphazard, and would have made it a more involving film with a more polished story.

(And someone could have given Frid a shorter haircut and a trimmer look. His unkempt, overlong hair makes him look sloppy and less attractive than he was capable of looking.)

[Nancy]

Darren, you've convinced me to re-revisit Burnt Offerings.
 
Nancy