The Devils

[swo17]

This controlled release is designed to balance anti-censorship/financial worries with religious concerns.

Kind of like the time I refused on moral grounds to cheat on my wife with a prostitute until she agreed to cut her rate in half.

[John Edmond]

Remember, what happens in Britain stays in Britain.

[Person]

In an age of being able to see literally anything on the internet, the notion of seeing obviously-simulated sex by actors playing nuns, someone jacking off to such activity, even within a Catholic context, is surely not something that those of a less-than-fearless nature will notice. My local HMV doesn't stock most pre-1990 Blu-rays. We live in a new culture in Britain. The Mary Whitehouses are dying out - even realising their cock-hating folly.

Back in 1970, John Marco Allegro, a world-renowned Biblical scholar who was one of the original Dead Sea Scroll scholars, authored a study of magic mushroom use among Jewish tribes where the avatar of Jesus was revealed as a cosmic penis-metaphor for the Yahwehistic mushroom. The book was recently republished in America to ZERO controversy. The times of Christian outrage vs movies is over. The real evils of our age are clear to the Christian warriors. Movies are not on their battle plan. Islamic propaganda is of greater concern. But once controversy has been stirred up in the British media, is never dies out completely. But fuck that shit, the BFI should release Ken's version in 1080p and be damned. I'll pre-order at £60...

[MichaelB]

But fuck that shit, the BFI should release Ken's version in 1080p and be damned. I'll pre-order at £60...

I suspect this is tongue-in-cheek, but it's impossible for three reasons.

Firstly, the BFI's entire business model, particularly the operation of the BFI National Archive (its single most important activity), depends on maintaining good relationships with rightsholders. So breaching Warner's copyright is simply not an option - quite aside from the fact that Warner would almost certainly take legal action (bearing in mind that the BFI is a far juicier target than the people behind the bootleg release), the long-term consequences for the BFI would be far more serious. Especially if other major rightsholders got wind of this, which they obviously would do.

Secondly, if you want access to decent materials, you have to apply to Warner, which means drawing up a contractual agreement with them in advance. Although the BFI can often supply an alternative, this may well not be true in this case. As it happens, I've seen the 35mm viewing copy held by the Archive, and in no way is it suitable for anything other than Steenbeck viewing - it's riddled with scratches and splices, and would look hideous. I daresay the master copy looks better, but it's also probably not pristine: Warner's materials will definitely be superior. Also, stating the obvious, the Archive's own prints are of the 1971 British theatrical version.

Thirdly, the 2004 version only exists as an SD Digibeta, so a genuine 1080p release isn't possible without a fresh HD transfer of the original 35mm materials... which are held by Warner. So even if you decided to defy Warner on the subject of copyright, you'd have to physically break into their vaults in order to pull this off.

[John Edmond]

The 2004 version exists only as an SD Digibeta? How depressing. I know in the previous Devils thread the 2004 projection was described as clearly not 2K, but I'd hoped/presumed this meant it was merely HDCAM.

[MichaelB]

The 2004 version exists only as an SD Digibeta? How depressing. I know in the previous Devils thread the 2004 projection was described as clearly not 2K, but I'd hoped/presumed this meant it was merely HDCAM.

It looked surprisingly good on the big NFT screen, but it was definitely video - and the fact that there were plenty of telltale jaggies around the sharper lines of Derek Jarman's sets suggests that it was almost certainly SD video at that.

Basically, the "restoration" seems to have been done on a budget of next to nothing - and it would require a fair bit more investment to create something that would look good in 1080p.

[the_limey]

Major news for me is this, as The Devils is one of my faves. Seriously looking forward to this release in the correct aspect ratio and jammed packed with extras to boot.

[colinr0380]

A poster called Wes on the Cult Lab forums has discovered a fun 1973 Parkinson interview with Reed, which discusses Women In Love and The Devils in its third section. (The other guests on that show include Mickey Spillane and his wife Sherri!)

Back in 1970, John Marco Allegro, a world-renowned Biblical scholar who was one of the original Dead Sea Scroll scholars, authored a study of magic mushroom use among Jewish tribes where the avatar of Jesus was revealed as a cosmic penis-metaphor for the Yahwehistic mushroom. The book was recently republished in America to ZERO controversy.

Doesn't that whole area turn up during one of the trip sequences in Altered States? (There's a great interview with Russell from the BBC's Mondo Rosso show in 1995 where he talks about being introduced to mushrooms after someone on the set of Altered States apparently left a small bag of them in Russell's car for him to try! I seem to remember him saying in the interview something to the effect that the experience was interesting but he didn't really need the artificial stimulation to come up with the images in the film!)

[MichaelB]

Official press release:

BFI to bring Ken Russell’s controversial masterpiece The Devils to DVD for the first time

The BFI is thrilled to announce that it will be releasing one of the ‘most-wanted’ British films of all time, Ken Russell’s bold and brilliant religious drama The Devils (1971), on DVD for the first time.

Forty years ago, The Devils caused outrage amongst audiences and critics after one of the longest-running battles with the BBFC was resolved, and the film was finally seen in cinemas. Now recognised as a landmark in British cinema history the film will at long last get its DVD premiere on 19 March 2012, in the original UK ‘X’ certificate version.

Oliver Reed and Vanessa Redgrave give magnificent performances in what remains Ken Russell’s most dazzling and controversial film – for which he won the prize for Best Director, Foreign Film at the Venice Film Festival. Based on John Whiting’s stage-play and Aldous Huxley’s novel, the film charts the seventeenth-century events that took place in the French city of Loudun. Reed plays priest Urbain Grandier, and Redgrave is Sister Jeanne, whose erotic obsession with him fuels the hysterical fervour that sweeps through the convent.

Derek Jarman designed the striking, highly memorable sets and Sir Peter Maxwell Davies composed a supremely well-matched score for Russell’s arresting depiction of the breakdown of civilisation.

Film critic and expert Mark Kermode, who has written and broadcast extensively about The Devils, will be contributing to the special features. He comments:

‘Ken Russell is one of Britain's greatest living filmmakers and The Devils remains his most incendiary work – an extraordinary and impassioned depiction of the unholy marriage of church and state which is as relevant today as it was when the film was first released.’

Sam Dunn, Head of BFI Video Publishing says:

‘We are absolutely delighted to be able to announce the DVD premiere release of this extraordinary film. The Devils is one of the greatest British productions of all time, and our special edition will not only feature the longest version of the film ever to have been released on DVD, but will also include a host of new and exciting extra features.’

An announcement detailing the full list of extras and technical specifications will be made nearer to the release date.

[MichaelB]

The story has hit the mainstream media: BBC News and The Hollywood Reporter.

[GaryC]

Just for the record, we showed The Devils at Southampton University in 35mm in 1985. This was, of course, a British release print with a BBFC X certificate at the start - but it ran short by approximately ten minutes. There was print damage as you might expect, but I wouldn't all have accounted for that discrepancy. The theory we had was that it may have been edited to be reissued on a double bill. I can't remember what was missing.

It might also have been a projectionist "borrowing" some of the footage for his private collection, though ten minutes sounds like a lot.

I suspect not, as IIRC most of the contentious footage that the BBFC did pass was still in the version I saw. (And we certainly did sometimes see prints which projectionists had taken "souvenirs" from - e.g. if..., some shots in the shower scene which are full-frontal when viewed full-frame but not when viewed in the OAR of 1.66:1. But I digress...) The IMDB "Alternate Versions" backs me up on shortening for double-bill reissue - and I'm pretty certain I didn't add that bit to the database!

Another question - what are the sound specs on this release? The film was apparently blown up to 70mm with a six-track stereo soundtrack (five front channels and a mono surround) so I'm wondering if that soundtrack mix still survives.

[broadwayrock]

Mark Kermode on The Devils.

[MichaelB]

Mark Kermode on The Devils.

Thanks for that - that was well worth a watch.

Basically, Kermode is singing from exactly the same hymn sheet as most of the rest of us ("the rest of us" very much including Ken Russell himself, who's been plugging this new DVD like crazy on his Facebook page). Yes, it's disappointing that it isn't the extended 2004 cut, but this absolutely shouldn't dampen the euphoria about this being the first ever DVD release of the original X-certificate version.

Incidentally, he seems to answer GaryC's point above - which is that copies of the butchered US version apparently did indeed find their way into circulation in Britain. I'm pretty certain that the version I caught at the Scala in the mid-1980s was the original British cinema version, because I vividly remember quite a bit of full-frontal nudity that was apparently removed from the US cut in its entirety, but if it really is the case that some people even in Britain might only have seen a mutilated version, this makes the new BFI release even more essential.

At the very least, it establishes what Russell actually signed off on back in 1971 - in other words, it annuls all the mutilation that happened to the film since then. What it doesn't do is turn the clock back to the version that he created before he signed off on the UK cinema version after protracted negotiations with the BBFC and Warner Bros, which the 2004 cut only partially addresses - but it's still a huge leap forward.

[Perkins Cobb]

Well ... Russell has also been "liking" Facebook posts calling for a boycott of the BFI edition, so it might be more accurate to characterize him as neutral/ambivalent on the issue. You can also choose to focus on either the "exciting" or the "disappointed" from Kermode's video.

You guys have talked back from the ledge a little bit with the argument that comment surrounding the incomplete BFI release may leverage Warners into relenting down the road a bit (I mean, nothing else seems to be working). I'm still of the viewpoint that the Rape of Christ-less edition belongs in the kermode (sorry, been waiting a decade to use that one), but I get why many of you are fine with accepting the X-rated cut as legitimate enough.

[MichaelB]

Well ... Russell has also been "liking" Facebook posts calling for a boycott of the BFI edition, so it might be more accurate to characterize him as neutral/ambivalent on the issue.

As far as I can see, he's been "liking" pretty much anything that so much as acknowledges the existence of the BFI DVD of 'The Devils', regardless of the actual sentiment. Incidentally, I can't see anything on his own Facebook page that involves him "liking" a specific call for a boycott, so do you have an example?

You can also choose to focus on either the "exciting" or the "disappointed" from Kermode's video.

He makes it very clear that he's both excited and disappointed, which is by far the most rational reaction, and one that I share, along with the BFI production team behind this release. I suspect Ken Russell feels the same way.

You guys have talked back from the ledge a little bit with the argument that comment surrounding the incomplete BFI release may leverage Warners into relenting down the road a bit (I mean, nothing else seems to be working). I'm still of the viewpoint that the Rape of Christ-less edition belongs in the kermode (sorry, been waiting a decade to use that one), but I get why many of you are fine with accepting the X-rated cut as legitimate enough.

It's more than "legitimate enough", it's a major breakthrough. Consider: this is the first time in the history of home video, anywhere in the world, that the original British release version of The Devils is being released in a good transfer and the correct aspect ratio, never mind the truckload of extras. I can understand why people are obsessing over the absence of the "rape of Christ" scene, but it really shouldn't cloud their judgement about the virtues of everything else.

[Perkins Cobb]

Almost, horseshoes, hand grenades, etc.

As for Facebook, as of this writing, the top two posts on the Devils Special Edition page are calls to lobby the BFI for the uncut version (both "liked" by Unkle Ken), with one of the posters explicitly urging "do not buy" in the comments under his post. A little bit further down there are several posts calling for a Blu edition. I would call this a coherent minority opinion of "close, but not good enough."

Again, though, I say buy it if it's good enough for you.

[perkizitore]

Lobbying the BFI is stupid, our best chance is to lobby Warner for a blu, since it is not likely for them to fund a director's cut restoration.

[MichaelB]

As for Facebook, as of this writing, the top two posts on the Devils Special Edition page are calls to lobby the BFI for the uncut version (both "liked" by Unkle Ken), with one of the posters explicitly urging "do not buy" in the comments under his post. A little bit further down there are several posts calling for a Blu edition. I would call this a coherent minority opinion of "close, but not good enough."

After quite a few false starts (there seem to be a number of Facebook pages devoted to this film), I think I've found the one you're talking about. Assuming it's this one, it seems that there's just one person who's really aggressively calling for a boycott, with most of the other participants being sensibly pragmatic.

Which is pretty much in line with every other online discussion I've seen regarding this release.

And yes, to echo Perkizitore, there is no point whatsoever lobbying the BFI over this.

[Perkins Cobb]

And yes, to echo Perkizitore, there is no point whatsoever lobbying the BFI over this.

Yeah, I'm sure that's true, alas.

[swo17]

I would have thought BFI had earned enough credit at this point that it would be a given that if they had their druthers, this would be coming out uncut and in HD, that Warners obviously offered them this or nothing, and that they took what they could get. I could maybe see an argument that BFI would prefer to put out the theatrical cut over the 2004 restoration given the former's historical relevance to the UK (see also how Russian films are presented in the Soviet Influence series) but even then, surely they would have preferred not to make cuts to the Hell on Earth documentary.

[perkizitore]

This needs a MAJOR restoration, so our only hope that Warner will fund the creation of a truly 'Uncut' version is for this BFI DVD to sell extremely well.

[MichaelB]

I would have thought BFI had earned enough credit at this point that it would be a given that if they had their druthers, this would be coming out uncut and in HD, that Warners obviously offered them this or nothing, and that they took what they could get. I could maybe see an argument that BFI would prefer to put out the theatrical cut over the 2004 restoration given the former's historical relevance to the UK (see also how Russian films are presented in the Soviet Influence series) but even then, surely they would have preferred not to make cuts to the Hell on Earth documentary.

I think there's very little doubt that if the BFI had a truly free hand in this, they'd be bringing out a dual-format version with the Blu-ray featuring both the 1971 British cinema cut and the 2004 restoration via seamless branching (the two cuts being 98% identical, after all).

Quite a few Flipside releases, such as Man of Violence, The Pleasure Girls, The Party's Over and Here We Go Round the Mulberry Bush, make a point of presenting what was released in cinemas alongside alternative cuts, the latter often made for export - though one of the ironies with The Devils is that it's the non-British cuts that were usually more heavily censored!

[Perkins Cobb]

I'd even be happy with the X-rated version as the only complete cut on the DVD, since the 2004 elements aren't up to snuff. It's the removal of the Rape of Christ from even the extras that's the sticking point for me. Clear-cut instance of corporate censorship -- unsupportable with my dollars, even though I would like a peek at the film after all these years.

[willoneill]

The Devils can't catch a break, can it? You have people who would boycott it for its content, and people who want to boycott it because that content isn't complete, or in a high enough resolution.

I've never seen any version of this, but I'm glad its getting released and I plan on pre-ordering it. Is it perfect? No, but what is? I really think this is a 'pick your battles" situation.

[knives]

Ditto, in fact pre-ordered it this morning. I don't see why anyone would argue for no disc at all versus a director approved version, but I guess this is basically just the case of the man with the donkey.