The Devils (Ken Russell, 1971)

[Blutarsky]

Warner Clockwork teased on Twitter that there will be a special announcement this week on the heels of this weekend’s screenings. Could it be a Criterion announcement? (I did feel like January’s slate was weak, especially by January standards)

[Never Cursed]

Maybe they’d just put it out themselves?

[tenia]

Even the Executioner at the end tries to be sympathetic to Grandier in giving him a quick death, albeit thrawtedly so. I think in that moment with the mirror (and you could even extend this on a larger scale to the 'chorus' of nuns pressed to back up Sister Jeanne's 'possession') [...] The character played by Murray Melvin is the perhaps the most interesting one in this respect, because with his mid-level status he is caught between two worlds, seduced and appalled (but always damnedly fascinated) by events in turn.

I think the only one of Grandier's direct tormentors who doesn't show a glimpse of humanity is the exorcist, or "exorcist", a man whose zeal for righteousness carries on into gleeful rape and torture. He's also the only one whose motivation to be there is entirely religious, ie. not political or personal, and the only one of the bunch whom Grandier hadn't threatened or confronted in one way or another. The most craven of the bunch is the one whose motives are most pure, which is to say, most undiluted by doubt or contradictory impulses.

I'm not sure. He's written and played in such a way I had a very hard time believing he's believing in what he's doing, especially after the orgy and the king's ruse.
To me, he's also in on it, albeit heavily masquarading behind religious zeal.

Which makes the executioner ironically all the more down-to-earth : while all of this is a masquarade of power plays, an execution even the audience seems not to really care about, there's suddenly someone with some humane impulse... and it's the executioner !

[colinr0380]

In a sense the Baron (who casually dumps things off of the bronze mirrored tray to provide a mirror for Grandier to take a last look at himself through a glass, darkly) does that act because he is not a devout believer. He needs the walls to Loudon to be brought down along with its beloved 'hero Priest' (who ironically is just a corrupt womaniser whilst he is being celebrated; and only becomes truly heroic once his trappings of privilege have been removed from him - contrasting with the King who does this as well at certain points, but only to expose himself rather shallowly and obviously either as a representative of a God or just as your simple humble 'Common Man'. It is the difference between Grandier's sincere (re?)discovery of faith and the King's vainglorious playacting that is key in that contrast, along with the various audience's pandering or mocking reactions to the same), and if what it takes to do that is an accusation of possession and witchcraft, then so be it. Once Grandier is accused, the Baron does not particularly care whether or not Grandier's faith is fully destroyed, because the Baron himself does not believe in the afterlife, just the material world (which is why he is able to make the "Hell will hold no surprises for you" dig at Grandier). Even the other Cardinals and Priests - more concerned with upholding the regime than getting to the absolute truth of the matter - do not. The Exorcist, as the true zealot who has fully bought into the philosophy, does. Which is what makes his scenes with Sister Jeanne so upsetting, when she initially thinks they can just 'roleplay' together for their mutual benefit, but terrifyingly the Exorcist actually means everything he does to her.

That is really what makes The Devils such an important and devastating film to this day. It is extremely political, but not about the superficial political aspects that characterise most 'Political' films in the sense of dealing with current events and particular political movements. In that respect it makes the film a bit closer to something like Silence, in the sense that it is about the deeper and more fundamental aspects about the age old conflicts between faith and society, and how each influence, and potentially can corrupt, the other.

That makes its fundamental messages continue to resonate to this day. Yes, there are parallels to be found that Booshman drew earlier to Trump politics (though as MichaelB pointed out years before Trump the issue of religion intertwining so thoroughly with politics, mostly through patronage and funding, has long been an issue, whatever the figurehead). But the events this weekend in France, particularly the burning down of Limoges Cathedral, makes for some powerful parallels as well ("How could the French people do this to France?", as Macron says, disingenuously because he knows how). Particularly the idea that the ruling classes of the society in some ways, and whilst of course officially decrying the actions as immoral and obscene, are party to encouraging the society to collapse to a certain extent. Because it is easier to remake society again the way they want it from the rubble of total devastation rather than just tinkering around the edges of a pre-existing society, which may actually have the temerity (and lack of humility) to actually refuse the changes mandated upon them. Particularly when city states are getting too self-confident with their fancy new walls and Priests getting to big for their britches, it all needs to be brought down, whatever suffering will be caused by doing so, before they have the chance to organise any outward rebellion directed against the heart of the regime, rather than waiting for random bands of marauding Protestants being sent at their walls to do the job for them.

(I mean, if you want a slightly less highbrow reference, that particular idea is what makes The Devils and Asterix pair well together!)

[tenia]

I forgot : I was able to ask Spencer Collantes, from Warner Clockwork, about possible upcoming physical home video releases.
The answer was "exciting announcements are coming" and when asked about a French release (since Warner's catalogue is locked for indie licencing here) "you should be happy".

the burning down of Limoges Cathedral

Limoges City Hall.

[colinr0380]

Ah, my mistake! It can be difficult to distinguish between church and state buildings in France!

[Mr Sausage]

Even the Executioner at the end tries to be sympathetic to Grandier in giving him a quick death, albeit thrawtedly so. I think in that moment with the mirror (and you could even extend this on a larger scale to the 'chorus' of nuns pressed to back up Sister Jeanne's 'possession') [...] The character played by Murray Melvin is the perhaps the most interesting one in this respect, because with his mid-level status he is caught between two worlds, seduced and appalled (but always damnedly fascinated) by events in turn.

I think the only one of Grandier's direct tormentors who doesn't show a glimpse of humanity is the exorcist, or "exorcist", a man whose zeal for righteousness carries on into gleeful rape and torture. He's also the only one whose motivation to be there is entirely religious, ie. not political or personal, and the only one of the bunch whom Grandier hadn't threatened or confronted in one way or another. The most craven of the bunch is the one whose motives are most pure, which is to say, most undiluted by doubt or contradictory impulses.

I'm not sure. He's written and played in such a way I had a very hard time believing he's believing in what he's doing, especially after the orgy and the king's ruse.
To me, he's also in on it, albeit heavily masquarading behind religious zeal.

Which makes the executioner ironically all the more down-to-earth : while all of this is a masquarade of power plays, an execution even the audience seems not to really care about, there's suddenly someone with some humane impulse... and it's the executioner !

You could be right, but the film never has him admit to political opportunism unlike the rest, and he doesn't stand to gain anything from it being political (he's an outsider to all this). He's a traditional figure of religious hypocrisy, wielding belief in the most venal fashion. Whether he personally, privately believes is likely beside the point. I only meant that he is at least the figure of the true believer, and therefore palpably the worst of the bunch.

[Roger Ryan]

I think the only one of Grandier's direct tormentors who doesn't show a glimpse of humanity is the exorcist, or "exorcist", a man whose zeal for righteousness carries on into gleeful rape and torture. He's also the only one whose motivation to be there is entirely religious, ie. not political or personal, and the only one of the bunch whom Grandier hadn't threatened or confronted in one way or another. The most craven of the bunch is the one whose motives are most pure, which is to say, most undiluted by doubt or contradictory impulses.

I'm not sure. He's written and played in such a way I had a very hard time believing he's believing in what he's doing, especially after the orgy and the king's ruse.
To me, he's also in on it, albeit heavily masquarading behind religious zeal.

Which makes the executioner ironically all the more down-to-earth : while all of this is a masquarade of power plays, an execution even the audience seems not to really care about, there's suddenly someone with some humane impulse... and it's the executioner !

You could be right, but the film never has him admit to political opportunism unlike the rest, and he doesn't stand to gain anything from it being political (he's an outsider to all this). He's a traditional figure of religious hypocrisy, wielding belief in the most venal fashion. Whether he personally, privately believes is likely beside the point. I only meant that he is at least the figure of the true believer, and therefore palpably the worst of the bunch.

Seeing this on a big screen (and it looks and sounds amazing - never recognized before just how brilliantly effective the score is), I noticed that Russell always shows Father Barre (the Exorcist) as disinterested in the goings-on unless he is the center of attention. While others are focused intently during the inquisition scenes, Barre is usually seen in the background or side of the frame thumbing through a book (Bible?). It's seems clear he has no conviction in the matter of possession; he's biding his time until he can put on another performance.

[Mr Sausage]

Well spotted! Tho' is he waiting merely to put on a performance, or waiting to be the centre of attention? It's obvious the guy's passions are ego-centric, that he enjoys getting attention, and especially enjoys rape and torture, and his position affords him that and more. I think what I'm trying and failing to describe is the righteousness that these kind of flattened, unreflective people show. I got a lack of self-awareness from this character, that he genuinely believes in his own performances, or at least that the truth or fiction of them never enters his head. He doesn't come across as cynical like the other tormentors; he comes across as the self-righteous, hypocritical buffoon who believes intensely in his mission only because his mission is totally ego-centric, and to undermine the righteousness of god is in a way to undermine his own very self. I took him to be religious authority at its most passionate and fervent, and therefore most selfish and destructive, but without the cynicism of his more intelligent colleagues. So it's interesting that Russell gives him no moment of humanity.

[tenia]

You could be right, but the film never has him admit to political opportunism unlike the rest, and he doesn't stand to gain anything from it being political (he's an outsider to all this). He's a traditional figure of religious hypocrisy, wielding belief in the most venal fashion. Whether he personally, privately believes is likely beside the point. I only meant that he is at least the figure of the true believer, and therefore palpably the worst of the bunch.

Barré is played as some kind of over-the-top John Lennon, and it's so excessive that it's easy to think it's consciously on purpose. Unlike the nuns who do feel possessed by their faith, he never did to me, instead looking very theatrical.
I also think that if he was a true believer instead of in on it, the king's trick with the relic should have disgusted him. But instead, it doesn't have any longstanding effect to him. He might be an outsider, but he might also simply be playing the facilitating role he's been asked to play several times, even if he doesn't have the details about what all this is. Some kind of enabling pawn.
I also don't think he has nothing to gain : it's a stature, a position coming with some prestige and influence, and doing what he's told to do allows him to keep this, unlike Mignon.

But you're right : to some extent, who cares whether he believes or not. This being written, I do think making him an actor or making him an actual true believer isn't the same character.

Seeing this on a big screen (and it looks and sounds amazing - never recognized before just how brilliantly effective the score is), I noticed that Russell always shows Father Barre (the Exorcist) as disinterested in the goings-on unless he is the center of attention. While others are focused intently during the inquisition scenes, Barre is usually seen in the background or side of the frame thumbing through a book (Bible?). It's seems clear he has no conviction in the matter of possession; he's biding his time until he can put on another performance.

I also thought he was very happy about participating in the orgy, so maybe there's also that to gain.

[Mr Sausage]

I also think that if he was a true believer instead of in on it, the king's trick with the relic should have disgusted him. But instead, it doesn't have any longstanding effect to him. He might be an outsider, but he might also simply be playing the facilitating role he's been asked to play several times, even if he doesn't have the details about what all this is. Some kind of enabling pawn.

This is a bit too either/or. He's a true believer, but he's also a total egotist, so God's will and his will are the same. If he were merely cynical, his reaction to the ruse would be deflation; if he were a truly righteous man, it would be disgust and horror; but if he were both (self-)righteous and yet consumed with self-interest, he'd do what he does in the movie: reestablish the basis of his identity through an even greater pitch of performance, as if to shout down the destabilization through sheer energy.

Like, he's not a good Christian in any sense; he's a venal, grotesque man. But there's a lack of self-awareness here that makes cynicism unlikely. He's high on his own supply, basically. He's giving a performance, but he's also gotten to the point he believes it, too.

I also don't think he has nothing to gain : it's a stature, a position coming with some prestige and influence, and doing what he's told to do allows him to keep this, unlike Mignon.

I didn't say he had nothing to gain, just nothing to gain from the specific politics of the situation. If everyone else were perfectly sincere, his position would be unchanged.

[tenia]

He's giving a performance, but he's also gotten to the point he believes it, too.

It might be where we disagree. You might be perfectly right, but I felt it was too theatrical not to be pure conscious acting and close to no belief.

[TechnicolorAcid]

So it's interesting that Russell gives him no moment of humanity.

I agree that there’s no outright moment of sympathy or empathy for Father Barre compared to the rest of the investigative committee but I do think Russell does offer him a moment of humanity when he realizes the king’s ruse because it breaks the facade of Barre as a cruel force of nature and reveals a pathetic fool underneath, swallowed by his own performers into the orgy he orchestrated

[Mr Sausage]

He's giving a performance, but he's also gotten to the point he believes it, too.

It might be where we disagree. You might be perfectly right, but I felt it was too theatrical not to be pure conscious acting and close to no belief.

If the movie as a whole weren’t so theatrical I’d agree with you. But I took the exaggerated performative depiction as satirical comment rather than psychological revelation. That plus the fact it never shows the other shoe drop, as it does with every other character who plays a role in a cynical way.

That was my thinking anyway. But I’m not opposed to your reading.

[BoosterShane]

Saw it Thursday night and going back tomorrow. On the way back from opening night I bought tickets for this Thursday cause I can’t get enough! Don’t want to regret not seeing it for a final time.

Was absolutely in awe watching it. It was probably my fourth viewing of The Devil’s, so I’m familiar with the film. It is a top 100 film and Russell a top 15 director for me, but this version dwarfs the original. The rape of Christ intercut with the communion scene was more powerful than I could imagine. Seeing it verses just reading about it was no comparison. As Russell described, its exclusion changes the power and the message in the film.

I was curious about that scene. Reading through this thread, a few commenters mentioned watching the original Russell “directors cut” 20 years ago when it was reassembled by Ken and editor Michael Bradsell. I noticed in the re-release I watched, Grandier prays and splits the bread open twice. The first is before the rape of Christ in its usual spot I’ve always seen it in (I own the Spain released bluray). The second is when it’s added to the rape of Christ sequence. (I will rewatch my version after this week so I can thoroughly compare the two versions, but) I was curious if that was how Russell intended it? Or was that the best they could do 30 years after rediscovering original footage? Or did Ken just want to add back the full rape of Christ sequence and didn’t want to touch the previous scenes even if he had recycled footage in the edit?

Just curious what some of your thoughts for those who saw it? And for anyone who saw the scene originally in 2002 or whenever, if it’s what you remember? And if it had the repeating bread shots?

[Roger Ryan]

... Just curious what some of your thoughts for those who saw it? And for anyone who saw the scene originally in 2002 or whenever, if it’s what you remember? And if it had the repeating bread shots?

I noticed that as well when watching the film this past Sunday. It feels like the result of Russell and Bradsell quickly inserting the previously-lost footage into an already completed and mixed master without trying to tinker about removing or moving individual shots that were in the theatrical edit. Then, in order to honor that choice made back when Russell was still alive, it was replicated for this restoration. Given the editing style of this film, and that sequence in particular, I don't think it hurts or distracts to have that action/footage repeated, but that is the kind of thing that would have forum members demanding a recall/replacement if it showed up anew on a home video release!

[JamesF]

The bread-breaking is indeed repeated in the 2002 standard-def director's cut too, the first time (playing uninterrupted prior to the Rape of Christ) it plays with Reed's voiceover, the second a few minutes later (when it's intercut with the Rape of Christ) without voiceover.

[Roger Ryan]

The bread-breaking is indeed repeated in the 2002 standard-def director's cut too, the first time (playing uninterrupted prior to the Rape of Christ) it plays with Reed's voiceover, the second a few minutes later (when it's intercut with the Rape of Christ) without voiceover.

That voice-over distinction is crucial as it indicates that it was likely the only way to keep all of Reed's lines intact (as edited for the initial theatrical version when it was known the full sequence would not be allowed to be shown), and still have the "Rape of Christ" sequence play in full, would be to duplicate the bread-breaking shots since there would have been no other footage available in 2002 to substitute for the repeated footage. In other words, it's likely the bread-breaking shots were only going to be used in the full "Rape of Christ" sequence, but were important enough that Russell shifted the shots to be included under Reed's voice-over section for the initial theatrical edit. By 2002, however, whatever footage was initially considered for use under Reed's voice-over was no longer available so repeating the shots was the only solution.

Having more time to think about this, I regret using the phrase "quickly inserting" in my previous post since I believe Russell and Bradsell were restricted in how they could restore the cut footage.

[Finch]

Clockwork teased a special announcement this last Sunday for this week. Hoping for a physical media announcement but dreading some idiotic merchandise.

[Matt]

Poster designer Drusilla Adeline (Sister Hyde) posted an official-looking t-shirt on her Instagram story that said "Fuck it, let's release The Devils" that was pretty funny. But maybe that was made just for people who worked on the re-release and not intended for sale.

[Never Cursed]

Saw the restoration and came away feeling pretty much the same as I had previously: it is wildly entertaining from moment to moment, but also too overamped, self-impressed, and willing to throw jokes into what are supposed to be harrowing sequences of torture to deliver a coherent message. Not objecting morally, if for no other reason than that I've never lived in the moral universe of Christianity the film inhabits. But I must note that my ability to believe that the film is a cry against the abuses of cynical political persecution is kind of circumscribed by things like Georgina Hale yelling "oh, shut up" in the manner of a Mel Blanc character during a sequence of rape-by-object. Russell is a talented, witty, impulsive filmmaker, but I think his very impulsivity and willingness to go for the throat mars him as much as it helps him, makes the film as wacky as it is transgressive. It's not even as though wacky transgressive filmmaking can't be politically righteous - fellow NC-17 Pink Flamingos, a quite contemporaneous counterpart to Russell's film, certainly has a strong "point" to it - but I see little evidence for the claim that Russell is saying anything systemic with this.

As for the restoration itself, it looks great, though it does not incorporate any excised footage outside of the stuff included in the Kermode version, and additional work was clearly performed to make the excised section of the orgy cut more smoothly into the material before and after it (there's proper sound editing between the final shot of the orgy and the sacrament, for instance). Speaking of sound, did anyone else find the restoration to be unconscionably LOUD LOUD LOUD at all times? The previous version I saw was far from a quiet film, but I found the sequences with loud music to be almost unbearable on the print.

[TechnicolorAcid]

Saw the restoration and came away feeling pretty much the same as I had previously: it is wildly entertaining from moment to moment, but also too overamped, self-impressed, and willing to throw jokes into what are supposed to be harrowing sequences of torture to deliver a coherent message. Not objecting morally, if for no other reason than that I've never lived in the moral universe of Christianity the film inhabits. But I must note that my ability to believe that the film is a cry against the abuses of cynical political persecution is kind of circumscribed by things like Georgina Hale yelling "oh, shut up" in the manner of a Mel Blanc character during a sequence of rape-by-object. Russell is a talented, witty, impulsive filmmaker, but I think his very impulsivity and willingness to go for the throat mars him as much as it helps him, makes the film as wacky as it is transgressive. It's not even as though wacky transgressive filmmaking can't be politically righteous - fellow NC-17 Pink Flamingos, a quite contemporaneous counterpart to Russell's film, certainly has a strong "point" to it - but I see little evidence for the claim that Russell is saying anything systemic with this.

As for the restoration itself, it looks great, though it does not incorporate any excised footage outside of the stuff included in the Kermode version, and additional work was clearly performed to make the excised section of the orgy cut more smoothly into the material before and after it (there's proper sound editing between the final shot of the orgy and the sacrament, for instance). Speaking of sound, did anyone else find the restoration to be unconscionably LOUD LOUD LOUD at all times? The previous version I saw was far from a quiet film, but I found the sequences with loud music to be almost unbearable on the print.

I agree that the moments of dark comedy do cut down a bit on a couple of the more distressing moments in the film but I think that is an intentional detail done to show the cruelty of the people in power by having them make witty comments by the side or treat the entire process as a joke. It’s interesting that you mention the Georgia Hale moment specifically because I do think that is perhaps one of the more obvious examples of said cruelty by having her focus less on the horror of the rape in the film and more on telling someone to shut up like you would to someone talking loudly on their phone during a screening. And of course there’s the public execution at the end of the film that wraps up the connection between the dark comedy and the cruelty of the persecutors by having them loudly laughing along at the sight of Grandeur burning, essentially treating Grandeur’s otherwise very serious journey into spiritual awakening and redemption into a farce and highlighting just how little they care about the feelings of the people involved as much as whether or not their desired outcomes are met. I would also note how despite Grandeur having some of the film’s funniest moments at the start, when he’s at his most corrupted and flawed, as he continues along his journey those moments of humor slowly get replaced by sincere warmth and emotions brought about from his marriage.

Also re: the restoration, does any cut footage of The Devils outside of the footage in Kermode’s version survive? My understanding was simply that the Rape of Christ and the Bone Masturbation sequences from the initial cut were the only pieces of lost footage that resurfaced while everything that was removed before that was believed to have been destroyed permanently.

[Finch]

The dark comedy also helps make the moments of cruelty a bit more palatable, to me, anyway. I guess it's more about how the comedy is delivered that's problematic for some of you.

And by the way, it's Grandier, not Grandeur.

[Never Cursed]

Father Grandeur is...well, fitting

[colinr0380]

The other aspect of The Devils that is fascinating as well is what it does with Russell's usual theme of 'Celebrity', which was a major preoccupation throughout his work (and probably the reason why Russell himself went onto one series of Celebrity Big Brother!)

Generally Russell is fascinated by the big figures who fully embody their lustful ambitions - the great Authors (D.H. Lawrence); the great Composers; the great Lovers (Valentino), etc. And that aspect features here in the figure of Father Grandier. But he is mostly seen from a remove through Sister Jeanne's eyes, as a kind of lustfully adoring proto-groupie watching the rock star strutting his stuff on stage from a distance, fantasising about being noticed by him above everyone else in the crowd, and just what she would do if she got the chance to just be close to him in private for just one time. Unfortunately their singular meeting IRL (as in so many cases) cannot be one that is entirely free of baggage of the circumstances of the situation that surrounds them - the groupie got their moment in the rock star's presence, but as a victim making accusations for the purposes of Higher Powers. The rock star resents her for being the catalyst for the entire situation, and is most definitely not of the notion to pick Sister Jeanne off of her feet and whisk her away passionately, even if he was in any position to be able to do so himself (in that sense the Exorcist is the other member of the group who intervenes and violates the groupies who have been attracted by Grandier's magnetic central figure). Not least of which is that he got married in the interim. All she gets for her fantasies is a bone thrown to placate her.

All of that would reach its best expression in Russell's astonishing rock opera with The Who, Tommy, a few years later, which is perhaps the ultimate satire of the cult of celebrity and how the "deaf, dumb and blind kind who can sure play a mean pinball" is the perfect empty vessel to elevate into Messiah status (Ann-Margaret in Tommy is kind of in the equivalent role of Vanessa Redgrave in The Devils, made even more Oedipally perverse by also being the main character's mother!)