The Devils (1971) (Ken Russell) Discussion Thread

[Michael Brooke]

Originally Posted by Daemonia

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.

These are the three official versions, in order of release:

1. The original 111-minute British cinema version, the longest one ever passed for a commercial release. Although it was cut at the behest of both the BBFC and Warner Bros, the cuts were made by Russell and editor Michael Bradsell themselves, who signed off on the end result.

2. The 108-minute US cinema version, censored by Warner Bros without Russell's consent. Three minutes were removed, and several of the shots that were left were toned down by replacing them with more innocuous material - from what I hear (I've never been tempted to watch this version), virtually all the frontal nudity has gone, as has much of the violence.

3. The 113-minute (estimated) "director's cut", which is 98% identical to version (1), but it reincorporates the "rape of Christ" and the charred thighbone scene, both of which had long been believed lost, but which were found in Warner Bros' vaults. This version was unveiled in 2004, and has had sporadic cinema screenings (albeit projected from Digibeta) in 2004 and 2011, but has never had an official commercial release. Note that despite being dubbed a "director's cut", it's not necessarily an ideal version, as other material that Russell had to cut is genuinely believed lost.

The BFI wanted to release (3), but had to make do with (1). But (1) is one hell of a lot better than (2), which is the version that's out on iTunes, YouTube and the Spanish DVD - though the latter has apparently been cut still further.

And the reason that the BFI release is good news is that (1) has never been given a video release in the correct aspect ratio before - the last time, it was out on a cropped VHS, and British TV screenings have also been of this bastardised 16:9 version.

Does that clear things up?

[Nosferatu@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by Daemonia

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

That's okay -- these things happen quite frequently on message boards and forums as the emphasis on certain words and inflections don't come across very well.

Originally Posted by Daemonia

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.

I know the list of the various scenes which are changed/omitted between the two versions but, as I haven't seen them, it's hard to put them in any form of context and know how important a given scene is so the film as a whole, so I'd also like some form of detailed explanation.

Maybe that will be on the DVD release?

[Nosferatu@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by Michael Brooke

And the reason that the BFI release is good news is that (1) has never been given a video release in the correct aspect ratio before - the last time, it was out on a cropped VHS, and British TV screenings have also been of this bastardised 16:9 version.

Does that clear things up?

That's almost exactly what I wanted, but it would be ideal to have the 'director's cut' to see how important the two scenes you mentioned are to Russell's vision.

Anyway, sounds good and this is something I'll pre-order as soon as it's available.

[Michael Brooke]

I haven't read it myself, but I understand that the booklet will include an extremely detailed account of the censorship of the film, written by the BBFC's in-house historian Craig Lapper with reference to documents of the time.

From what I gather, the aim is to try to create a written impression of what the original version was like - i.e. the film that almost certainly can never be reassembled, because much of the footage that was cut is assumed to have been destroyed.

[Wes]

Michael, just a general thanks for taking the time to post in this thread - your posts have been fascinating and informative and made for great reading. Much appreciated !

[Daemonia]

Originally Posted by Michael Brooke

These are the three official versions, in order of release:

1. The original 111-minute British cinema version, the longest one ever passed for a commercial release. Although it was cut at the behest of both the BBFC and Warner Bros, the cuts were made by Russell and editor Michael Bradsell themselves, who signed off on the end result.

2. The 108-minute US cinema version, censored by Warner Bros without Russell's consent. Three minutes were removed, and several of the shots that were left were toned down by replacing them with more innocuous material - from what I hear (I've never been tempted to watch this version), virtually all the frontal nudity has gone, as has much of the violence.

3. The 113-minute (estimated) "director's cut", which is 98% identical to version (1), but it reincorporates the "rape of Christ" and the charred thighbone scene, both of which had long been believed lost, but which were found in Warner Bros' vaults. This version was unveiled in 2004, and has had sporadic cinema screenings (albeit projected from Digibeta) in 2004 and 2011, but has never had an official commercial release. Note that despite being dubbed a "director's cut", it's not necessarily an ideal version, as other material that Russell had to cut is genuinely believed lost.

The BFI wanted to release (3), but had to make do with (1). But (1) is one hell of a lot better than (2), which is the version that's out on iTunes, YouTube and the Spanish DVD - though the latter has apparently been cut still further.

And the reason that the BFI release is good news is that (1) has never been given a video release in the correct aspect ratio before - the last time, it was out on a cropped VHS, and British TV screenings have also been of this bastardised 16:9 version.

Does that clear things up?

Yes, that's perfectly clear, thanks, Michael. As I said, it's not a film I'm overly familiar with and I'm not aware of its censorship history.

Was the 'Rape of Christ' scene pre-cut before its BBFC submission or was this a scene that the BBFC asked to be removed?

I really don't get Warners attitude to this film. Surely someone at WB read the script before greenlighting finance for the project? During this period Warners seemed to take exception to some films they themselves had financed, which is rather silly. William Friedkin tells the story of the Warner Bros execs being shown The Exorcist and they were horrified and Friedkin replied with something along the lines of 'Well, sorry, but this is the film you asked me to make.'

There's no accounting for Hollywood, I guess.

[Gojirosan]

I can't help but think that I like Ken Russell himself more than his films. I've liked many of his films but nowhere near as much as many of you seem to do!

At the risk of aerial bombardment I don't think The Devils is the classic many make out. It's pretty good, but I don't think it's an all-timer or anything.

And I still don't see the problem with BFI's covers!

[Michael Brooke]

Originally Posted by Daemonia

Was the 'Rape of Christ' scene pre-cut before its BBFC submission or was this a scene that the BBFC asked to be removed?

As I understand the situation, John Trevelyan of the BBFC saw a rough cut and advised Russell that while he personally liked the film, there was no way that the "rape of Christ" scene would get past his colleagues. So Russell reluctantly removed it prior to formal BBFC submission, in exchange for Trevelyan promising to defend other problematic scenes.

I really don't get Warners attitude to this film. Surely someone at WB read the script before greenlighting finance for the project?

Russell says that Warner Bros claimed that he hadn't delivered the film that they were expecting, to which he replied that he'd stuck more closely to the script than with any other project he'd ever made. Granted, a script doesn't tell the full story, and couldn't possibly convey the sheer visceral impact of Russell's direction, the performances, Derek Jarman's sets and Peter Maxwell Davies' shrieking score - but Russell was hardly an unknown quantity. Obviously, he wasn't as well known in America, but he'd recently helmed an Oscar-winning film that had its own controversies attached.

During this period Warners seemed to take exception to some films they themselves had financed, which is rather silly.

Another famous example is Performance, which Warners seriously thought was going to be similar to A Hard Day's Night or Catch Us If You Can, only with Mick Jagger.

Though in this case we can be grateful to them for hating the first cut, because this is a rare example of a film where the second, supposedly more studio-friendly cut, was in fact considerably more radical and experimental - the jagged, time-fragmented cutting that Donald Cammell conceived with Frank Mazzola (uncredited on the print, though a major creative contributor) was designed to answer Warners' criticisms that Jagger didn't appear early enough. By the time that cut had been completed, Warners were obviously so sick and tired of the film that they released it as it had ended up.

[hallo37]

I think that by 1971 with the raising of the age of the 'X' cert to 18 from 16 the BBFC had more leeway - but I guess at the time the Blasphemy Laws were still being imposed (re The Rape of Christ scene) and I think that the scene with the burnt thigh bone was still too much for the censor.

[Wes]

I'm at work now so I don't have it on hand, but there's a lot of good stuff about filming The Devils in Derek Jarman's memoir Dancing Ledge, much more so than Russell's own autobiography... Even if Warners had seen a threatment for the Rape of Christ sequence, nothing quite prepares you for the way Russell shot the sequence - hyper is probably the best word for it...