William Friedkin: Films of Aberration, Obsession and Reality [Library Binding]

If you're considering buying this then it's probably because you've been reading Peter Biskind's book "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls". If not then I recommend that book before moving on to this. It's more gossipy with it's stories of his abusive personality.

There's nothing new here about The Exorcist that you probably haven't already learned by watching the Mark Kermode documentary on the DVD, or by reading Biskind's book. Same goes for French Connection.

Where this book does get interesting is when it deals with his more obscure movies. The Guardian, To Live and Die in LA, Jade, Cruising and Sorcerer all get long detailed two part chapters. The first half is about the plot and the more pretentious stuff like themes and artistic intentions. The second, longer half of the chapter, is more concerned with how the movie was made.

The book isn't particularly pretentious and it doesn't pull its punches. If a film is bad the author will be first in line to point out how and why it's bad. The Guardian and Jade get slaughtered in great detail over many, many pages.

The best thing about the book is the long chapter on Cruising, an obscure Al Pacino gay serial killer film. If you've seen it you'll know how frustrating it is as it makes no sense after the first half. And the ending is just a total mess. The book explains why it makes no sense and explains as best it can what actually does happen in the movie - the ending is deliberately ambiguous. Friedkin himself doesn't know the answers to the questions you ask at the end. Whatever you think happened is the right answer. And there's multiple murderers who all have the same voice for (misjudged) artistic reasons.

A definite problem it finds with Friedkin is that he likes his movies to be as ambiguous as possible. Unfortunately it never works out like David Lynch who ends up making mysterious films. Friedkin's films just end up being confusing when they should be intriguing. His grip on story telling is pretty weak because of this. Even a straight forward cop film like To Live and Die in LA is made confusing in places were it shouldn't be.

He also keeps pretentiously talking about his induced-documentary style. Which basically means he researches everything to death. And then when he films it, he points a hand-held camera at the actors who haven't rehearsed with the camera so the scene isn't blocked out too nice and clean.

If he stopped spending so much time applying (incorrect?) film theory, doing pointless research and went out his way to tell his stories in a simple audience friendly way, then he might make a competent movie again - Exorcist in 1973 was the last decent movie he's made, believe it or not. You can like, maybe even enjoy, some of his later films but none of them are, at best, above average.

In a book by Ryan Gilbey called "It Don't Worry Me" he gives a reason why he hasn't written an essay about Friedkin for his book. He said that there's no lightness of touch, no joy in the simple act of making a movie. Instead the hassles and creative arguments, the early mornings and the pain of hauling the equipment out the trucks is what you feel when you watch one of his movies. "It feels too much like hard work to just watch one of his films", said Gilbey.