The Devils (not yet)

[Lino]

DVDActive has a bigger artwork. If this indeed turns out to be a barebones release, I think it might be due to Russell himself. He has been very vocally active about his disappointment with Warner about them not releasing The Devils in any form whatsoever since he screened his final cut a few years back, even though a Warner representative claimed that it would come out on DVD "soon".

[Fletch F. Fletch]

Tim Lucas thinks this release may be a hoax:

First of all, there's a rumor going around the Internet -- complete with the cover art shown at left -- that Warner Home Video is preparing a DVD release of Ken Russell's THE DEVILS for May. I have ignored this rumor till now for several reasons: first of all, experience has taught me that I shouldn't believe any such rumor until I receive an announcement from the company itself; secondly, the artwork at left looks phony as the "hell that holds no surprises for them." There's an onlooker to the right of Vanessa Redgrave who looks like casting more appropriate to JESUS OF NAZARETH, the spear wound in Reed's abdomen is on the wrong side, the image is highly inflammatory not only as a religious metaphor but as a cunnilingual one, and I've never known Warner or any other major company to trumpet the word "Unrated" in the lower front corner of their DVD packaging. This is an uncommercial word they prefer to insert in the tiniest possible box on the back cover, if at all. But where I really smell a rat is in the accompanying promotional text, which appears on the DVDActive site here:

"Originally rated X, this film combines historical, comedic, and surrealistic elements to tell a tale of politics and witchcraft. In order to take over pre-rennaisance France, Cardinal Richelieu and his power-hungry followers will have to eliminate Father Grandier. Grandier controls the one town that keeps Richelieu from having total control of the region. The plan is to convince the townspeople that Grandier is a warlock and that all of his nuns are possessed by devils. The accusations are heard at a public trial - whose results may surprise you."

"Originally rated X" is nothing Warner would openly cop to about this vintage release, the word "comedic" is highly misplaced (at least without the adjective "darkly" attached), the movie has nothing remotely to do with witchcraft, and there's nothing at all surprising about the results of the trial. It's all a matter of historical record. While it's true there are strong political undercurrents in the film, it is exceedingly bizarre for any synopsis of the film to overlook the matter of Sister Jeanne's nymphomaniacal obsession with Father Grandier. If you were planning to sell this movie, would you opt for anti-Catholic intrigue over sex? Finally, the complete absence of extras seems highly suspect. So, while the release could conceivably turn out to be real, the reason I haven't reported it earlier is that I think I smell a rat. And, if it does turn out to be authentic (it's skedded, to use an old VARIETY term, for May 20, the rumor mongers say), the absence of any supplementary materials is nothing less than an outrage.

[jaredsap]

I've never known Warner or any other major company to trumpet the word "Unrated" in the lower front corner of their DVD packaging. This is an uncommercial word they prefer to insert in the tiniest possible box on the back cover, if at all.

He's kidding, right? Etc. etc. etc.

[ranaing83]

From Tim Lucas:

the image is highly inflammatory not only as a religious metaphor but as a cunnilingual one

Hmm, unless Oliver Reed has a secret vagina that no one knows about, I wouldn't exactly describe the image on the cover as "cunnilingual".

[Lino]

This just in from a poster on the DVDTalk Forum:

According to Warner Home Video executive publicity director Ronnee Sass, there are no plans to release The Devils on dvd in 2008, despite the appearance of the title on WHV's website, which was "a mistake".

So, I guess that the cover is bona fide but they're still holding it up, regardless of all the clamoring for it. Fuck you, Warner.

[Belmondo]

This just in from a poster on the DVDTalk Forum:

According to Warner Home Video executive publicity director Ronnee Sass, there are no plans to release The Devils on dvd in 2008, despite the appearance of the title on WHV's website, which was "a mistake".

So, I guess that the cover is bona fide but they're still holding it up, regardless of all the clamoring for it. Fuck you, Warner.

Coitus interruptus from the cunning linguists at Warner.

[justeleblanc]

This just in from a poster on the DVDTalk Forum:

According to Warner Home Video executive publicity director Ronnee Sass, there are no plans to release The Devils on dvd in 2008, despite the appearance of the title on WHV's website, which was "a mistake".

So, I guess that the cover is bona fide but they're still holding it up, regardless of all the clamoring for it. Fuck you, Warner.

Shrewd move by fans of the movie.

[luridedith]

This is fucking ridiculous. We were so close, we had cover, release date and now its in limbo again. What the hell is going on at Warners?

[patrick]

Does anybody else think that cover looks a bit "out of character" for Warner Brothers' classic line (especially the "uncut" in the corner)? There's also no WB logo in the bottom left corner.

[manicsounds]

apparently, now it's gone from Warners site.

[Lino]

Does anybody else think that cover looks a bit "out of character" for Warner Brothers' classic line (especially the "uncut" in the corner)? There's also no WB logo in the bottom left corner.

Regardless of your point, the fact that Warner itself admitted that the release date was a mistake, makes it legit enough for me. Mind, they never at one point said that this was a hoax on the part of the fans or something of that sort. They simply stated that this was not coming out on May, 20 and added that it eventually will come out down the line.

For me, the big mystery is not if the cover artwork is somewhat misleading of Warner's treatment of its classic movies (personally, I love it) but rather why did it show up on the retail/press site in the first place.

BTW, are we not getting a Warner chat this year? You could easily guess what the first question would be, couldn't you?

[MichaelB]

At the NFT screening in November 2004, there was a Warner Bros representative in the audience who assured us that a DVD was imminent - though I suspect he was Warner Bros UK and got overruled by his bosses on the other side of the Atlantic.

But I really don't understand why, even if Warner US has cold feet about this film, they don't just release it in Britain. First of all, it's a British film. Secondly, the religious problems won't be an issue (there might be minor protests from the likes of Christian Voice, but they're utterly irrelevant in the wider scheme of things). Thirdly, it can be released with an 18 certificate (equivalent to NC-17 but without the accompanying commercial stigma) - a BBFC spokesman confirmed that the unexpurgated version would be passed without any problems. Fourthly, superb extras are already available - even if it was just Mark Kermode's documentary and the commentary that Russell apparently recorded shortly after the screening, who's seriously going to complain?

So why not test the water in Russell's native country?

[Lino]

I really hope that Warner is taking notice of the amount of internet buzz a simple "mistake" on their retail/press site generated. This is a hot title. Enough anticipation has been generated already. Just release the damn thing!

If you haven't sign the petition, please do now.

[colinr0380]

First of all, it's a British film. Secondly, the religious problems won't be an issue (there might be minor protests from the likes of Christian Voice, but they're utterly irrelevant in the wider scheme of things). Thirdly, it can be released with an 18 certificate (equivalent to NC-17 but without the accompanying commercial stigma) - a BBFC spokesman confirmed that the unexpurgated version would be passed without any problems. Fourthly, superb extras are already available - even if it was just Mark Kermode's documentary and the commentary that Russell apparently recorded shortly after the screening, who's seriously going to complain?

So why not test the water in Russell's native country?

I heartily second all of this and would even suggest that its lack of availability currently works in favour of its detractors, allowing them to twist the subject matter in a similar manner to the way White Dog supposedly condones racism. I get the impression that it most definitely is not a blasphemous film - instead it is a scathing attack on organised religion and the way everyone is manipulating supposedly sacred texts for their own purposes.

(Though of course it could be argued when you don't believe in God that really all that is there are organised religious bodies predicated around various interpretations of a fictional piece of work! )

It also cannot be stressed enough that nowhere does the film suggest anything spiritual working through Jeanne or the other nuns (in fact there seems to be a suggestion that the people who invoke God's name most often are the least likely to have any kind of spiritual connection!) Jeanne at least is confusing sexual feelings with religious ones (perhaps suggesting sexuality and religion shouldn't be so brutally separated - that one feeling can inform and give deeper understanding of the other. Or at least if suppressed it can end up expressing itself in unhealthy and unfortunate ways) and even in that 'wound licking' scene linked to previously there seems to be time taken to show a different actor initially as 'Jesus' before Grandier takes over as Jeanne falls into her sexual fantasy.

It is also the Russell film in which the excesses are most appropriate to the subject matter - the naughty naked nuns showing their susceptibility to groupthink as well as an understandable fearing for their lives if they don't pretend to be insane which takes precedence over their previously chaste lives (probably because they were placed in the nunnery by their families rather than actually choosing a religious life for themselves - perhaps shown by the early scenes of them flocking to the windows to fawn over Father Grandier, making them seem less like novices and more like horny man-hungry boarding school girls!) They certainly prove they have had lascivious thoughts before just by the range and variety of antics they are able to think of to do in order to prove their 'insanity'!

The supposed purity of the girls descending into acceptable supposed insanity provides a very good contrast with Reed's Grandier as a respected figurehead of his church and community who ironically only redeems himself once his reputation is destroyed and he is facing torture, trial and death.

The film also shows the dangers of mixing politics and religion along with the way a high ranking position of respect can create a professional reputation, allowing for the rules to be bent to overlook certain behaviours while also fostering personal grudges that may one day come home to roost in your hour of need.

It really is a fantastic film, arguably the high point of many of the participant's careers, and desperately needs to be more widely available.

(At the very least I would settle for a regular television airing each Easter to counterbalance what seems to be becoming a tradition of showing that Mel Gibson flick!)

[Serris]

Has anybody heard any news?

[Macintosh]

So i was just checking the Anthology Film Archives schedule and it appears that The Devils will be part of a special midnight screening on Halloween with Ken Russell in person to introduce it!

[Cold Bishop]

Does it appear to be anything other than the butchered U.S. cut?

[Macintosh]

I can't imagine why Ken Russell would want to introduce a botched version of his own film. His endorsement to appear makes me believe that it's the un-cut, original version. Not positive tho, will call the theater to make sure.

[MichaelB]

I can't imagine why Ken Russell would want to introduce a botched version of his own film. His endorsement to appear makes me believe that it's the un-cut, original version. Not positive tho, will call the theater to make sure.

Well, when he introduced the unexpurgated version in London in 2004 he spent a fair bit of time denouncing what Warner Bros did to the film in the US, so your reasoning is entirely sound.

But yes, I'd definitely check.

[Lino]

Well, on the Anthology Film Archives website, the running time seems to be 103 minutes, which makes it the cut version, that is, sans the Rape of Christ scene.

Edit: Mark Kermode confirms Warners cold feet in releasing The Devils on DVD in his BBC blog, while at the same time urging them to get it out. NOW!

[THX1378]

The Castro screened both Rosemary's Baby and The Devils on a double bill on October 4th. I had to work that day but a friend of mine made the trek up just to see the new 35mm print of Rosemary's that was screened. As far as he knew, and he had never seen The Devils before, it was the cut version that was shown. Had he know anything about the film, he would have asked what version they were screening when he got to the box office. I also think that if they would have screened the uncut version, The Castro would have had it up on the webpage in big bold letters that the print was the uncut version. They also didn't point out that the film still isn't on dvd. Their pretty good to point that stuff out because from what I hear, it draws a large crowd if you can't go out and buy or rent the film.

[Cold Bishop]

Anthology also lists a 35mm print, and if I recall, no prints have been struck of the uncut version, and so far its only available on HD.

Like mentioned above, both The Castro and the American Cinematheque, not exactly small cinemas as far as connections go, showed the US cuts.

However, with Russell in attendance, this may be a surprise showing of the uncut, as if I recall a similar thing happened when it premiered in London, being announced only before the film. If that was the case, it would be a breakthrough in getting the film widely available, if only theatrically.

[MichaelB]

Well, on the Anthology Film Archives website, the running time seems to be 103 minutes, which makes it the cut version, that is, sans the Rape of Christ scene.

If that running time is accurate, it's been cut a lot more drastically than that!

The original British cut was missing the 'rape of Christ' scene, but still managed to run 111 minutes - that was the longest version available until the 2004 restoration.

I never saw the US cut (thankfully), but from what I hear Warner basically gouged out anything they disapproved of, including all the frontal nudity. Which must have rendered the later parts of the film all but incomprehensible at times.

UPDATE: On the other hand, if '103' is a typo for '113', that's a lot more interesting, since the unexpurgated version probably does run something like 113 minutes...

However, with Russell in attendance, this may be a surprise showing of the uncut, as if I recall a similar thing happened when it premiered in London, being announced only before the film. If that was the case, it would be a breakthrough in getting the film widely available, if only theatrically.

The NFT screening was definitely pre-advertised as the uncut version, though I think it had a surprise sneak preview somewhere else beforehand.

(Actually, "uncut" should read "restored director's cut", since the 'rape of Christ' scene was removed by Russell himself in the final stages of editing on advice that it certainly wouldn't get past the censors - which is why editor Michael Bradsell had to improvise a soundtrack from bits of the rest of the film, as the final mix was only created after the scene had been removed. Fortunately, it has no spoken content and one scene of shrieking nuns sounds much like another, so you'd never know when actually watching it)

[Cold Bishop]

I heard a few more rumors of it being the uncut. Is anyone in New York going (or did go) to the screening that could confirm it? What did Russell have to say on the matter?

EDIT: It was in fact the "R" rated American edit. Russell says that Warner Bros. got cold feet on the DVD release earlier this year due to change in management. They still refuse to let the digitally restored version be screened even theatrically.

[Lino]

Wankers. And for me, this is even more evidence that the current Cruising version we have access too - i. e, the current DVD - is also cut to conform with Warner's no balls policy and not the lost scenes scenario we've been made to believe. Wankers.