RETRO REVIEW: “Sorcerer” (1977)

by

Initially conceived as a small-scale endeavor, “Sorcerer” eventually became one of director William Friedkin’s finest works and an underappreciated gem of the 1970s. Released in 1977, “Sorcerer” served as Friedkin’s next feature film after the blockbuster hit, “The Exorcist”. In contrast to its predecessor, “Sorcerer” was a starkly different movie. With the immense success of “The Exorcist”, Friedkin enjoyed considerable creative freedom in his subsequent project.

With time, his ambition for a visually striking film expanded significantly, and so did the associated costs. Friedkin’s commitment to authenticity by shooting on location in dense jungles and adhering to documentary-like realism resulted in costly productions and prolonged delays. To pile on the difficulties, the movie was panned by critics. The situation worsened when it hit theaters alongside George Lucas’s revolutionary “Star Wars.” Consequently, “Sorcerer” failed to recoup more than half of its production costs.

What’s interesting is that Friedkin’s relentless drive took production to (and occasionally beyond) its threshold, and this very tenacity is what makes “Sorcerer” an exceptional film. His decision to shoot on location and his dedication to realism underpin the core of the movie, affecting aspects such as the stark visual style and unconventional narrative structure. As for its reception by critics, there has been a notable reevaluation in recent times, with the movie finally receiving the praise it merits.

As a devoted cinephile, I can’t help but share my excitement about “Sorcerer,” a screenplay penned by Walon Green, marking his return to scriptwriting since the iconic 1969 film, “The Wild Bunch.” Interestingly, this masterpiece is adapted from Georges Arnaud’s 1950 novel, “Le Salaire de la peur.”

It’s important to note that “Sorcerer” isn’t the first cinematic interpretation of Arnaud’s work. That distinction belongs to Henri-Georges Clouzot’s renowned 1953 thriller, “The Wages of Fear.” Often, “Sorcerer” is referred to as a remake of Clouzot’s film. However, director William Friedkin refutes this notion, emphasizing that his creative vision has always been rooted in Arnaud’s original narrative.

The film opens with a prologue that plays out through four vignettes. Each is dedicated to an unsavory criminal and the crime that put them on the run. In Mexico, an assassin named Nilo (Francisco Rabal) neatly executes an unsuspecting target. In Jerusalem, a terrorist named Kassem (Amidou) is the only member of his group to escape after detonating a bomb in the city. In Paris, a crooked businessman named Victor (Bruno Cremer) is about to be charged for fraud. And in New Jersey, an Irish gangster named Jackie (Roy Scheider) gets in hot water after his crew steals money that belongs to the Italian Mafia.

In “Sorcerer,” the movie explores the concept of fate’s unavoidable grip in a pessimistic manner. This idea becomes crystal clear when all four characters find themselves in the same destitute South American village called Porvenir. Friedkin and his cinematographer John M. Stephens, who replaced Dick Bush, create an incredibly realistic portrayal of this village. Every scene is rich with detail, and everything feels tangible – the sweat, the rust, the grime, the hopelessness.

In the desolate town of Porvenir, hope seems as distant as wealth, and peace is merely a dream. Here, four outlaws disguise themselves and blend into the crowd, toiling in low-paying jobs while keeping a low profile. But destiny calls when a massive oilfield explosion, overseen by an American oil tycoon named Corlette (played by Ramon Bieri), shakes our once quiet town.

To put out the fierce fire at Corlette’s oil well, he must seal it off. However, he requires dynamite to accomplish this task. Unfortunately, the only dynamite is situated in an old shed far away in the dense jungle. Things get trickier as the dynamite has been stored for almost a year and is leaking nitroglycerin, making it extremely unstable. Nevertheless, Corlette is determined. He embarks on a journey to Porvenir, hoping to recruit four skilled truck drivers willing to transport the volatile dynamite to the oilfield, in exchange for a substantial reward.

The proposal unites Jacki, Victor, Kassem, and Nilo, each of whom requires money in order to escape Porvenir. This scenario lays the groundwork for the tension-filled second half, as the quartet embarks on a journey, guiding two trucks loaded with three cases of dynamite apiece through 218 miles of rugged mountainous jungle terrain. Throughout their voyage, they encounter challenging muddy roads, hazardous bridges, and torrential downpours while transporting cargo that even the slightest jolt might detonate.

In this movie, Friedkin’s filmmaking skills peak as he consistently generates nail-biting tension with one suspenseful scene after another. Among these, the most nerve-wracking moments occur when they traverse a decaying suspension bridge while their vehicles are pummeled by fierce winds and torrential rains. The character development remains robust as the four destiny-bound individuals, who are initially strangers to each other, must collaborate if they hope to survive. Despite never forming friendships, their relationships feel authentic, making us deeply invested in their fates. Essentially, we root for these supposed ‘bad guys’ to make it through to the end.

In “Sorcerer”, director William Friedkin abandoned conventional narrative techniques on the big screen to create an exceptional timeless masterpiece. The movie’s universe is harsh and foreboding; its characters are imperfect and ordinary rather than glamorous; its plotline is somber and pessimistic. Yet, these aspects are far from being flaws. “Sorcerer” continues to stand as a cinematic gem and a definitive symbol of the ’70s, characterized by compelling narratives, powerful performances, and exceptional artistry. As contemporary reevaluations have demonstrated, such qualities never grow old.

Read More

2025-02-26 18:57