The Devils (1971) (Ken Russell) Discussion Thread

[Demdike@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by Reaper@Cult Labs

Now that is nice.
As you said Stephen,much better than the usual.

The cover reminds me of an old paperback rather than a dvd.

Thats not a complaint by the way.

[James Morton]

Originally Posted by Nosferatu@Cult Labs

It looks really good when it says 'This work was passed with no cuts made' but there a slightly disappointing bit when it then says 'This is the cut UK cinema version, classified 'X' by the BBFC in 1971', showing not much has changed in the last 40 years.

Oh, for the day when the BBFC website says 'This is for longer, previously unclassified version'!

what the BBFC should say is OKAY, HERE'S THE COMPLETE UNCUT VERSION, SATISFIED NOW? !!!

[Daemonia]

Originally Posted by Nosferatu@Cult Labs

It looks really good when it says 'This work was passed with no cuts made' but there a slightly disappointing bit when it then says 'This is the cut UK cinema version, classified 'X' by the BBFC in 1971', showing not much has changed in the last 40 years.

Oh, for the day when the BBFC website says 'This is for longer, previously unclassified version'!

To be fair, Nos, that's not a reflection on the BBFC. If the version submitted is the same as the previously cut X version, then that's not really their fault. If a longer print had been submitted, then they would say 'this is for a longer previously unclassified version'. But since they can only classify what's submitted, then the ball is firmly in the distributor's court.

[Michael Brooke]

Originally Posted by Daemonia

To be fair, Nos, that's not a reflection on the BBFC. If the version submitted is the same as the previously cut X version, then that's not really their fault. If a longer print had been submitted, then they would say 'this is for a longer previously unclassified version'. But since they can only classify what's submitted, then the ball is firmly in the distributor's court.

Yes, absolutely. In fact, James Ferman once told the distributors of a cut video version of Videodrome that he'd gladly pass the uncut version - but they couldn't be arsed to resubmit, probably because it would have cost them more money to obtain an uncut master.

And when I attended the Q&A following the 2004 version of The Devils, a BBFC spokesman assured us that there would be no problem passing it uncut with an 18. Blasphemy isn't a legal issue any more (and in this case the context would provide justification), and there are no other issues that would cause problems under current guidelines.

[The Reaper Man@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by Demdike

The cover reminds me of an old paperback rather than a dvd.

Thats not a complaint by the way.

It's been lingering so long,it's probably dog-eared like an old paperback mate!

[The Reaper Man@Cult Labs]

Damn,I wish to hell Santa was bringing this.....

[mark meakin]

Originally Posted by Reaper@Cult Labs

Damn,I wish to hell Santa was bringing this.....

Think the Easter Bunny gets this order !.

[The Reaper Man@Cult Labs]

Yeah,more healthier than an Easter egg Mark!

[Nosferatu@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by Daemonia

To be fair, Nos, that's not a reflection on the BBFC. If the version submitted is the same as the previously cut X version, then that's not really their fault. If a longer print had been submitted, then they would say 'this is for a longer previously unclassified version'. But since they can only classify what's submitted, then the ball is firmly in the distributor's court.

I didn't mean it was the BBFC's fault, only I was looking forward to the day when the extended (director's) cut was put before the BBFC and passed uncut with an 18 certificate. Hopefully, sooner rather than later!

[Daemonia]

Originally Posted by Nosferatu@Cult Labs

I didn't mean it was the BBFC's fault, only I was looking forward to the day when the extended (director's) cut was put before the BBFC and passed uncut with an 18 certificate. Hopefully, sooner rather than later!

I see what you mean, sorry, I misunderstood your post.

Can someone then clarify exactly what version is being released and what's absent from this release? I'm not really a clued-up Devils fan and so with all the debate that's gone on in this thread I'm kind of lost as to what we'll actually be getting with this DVD release.