The Devils (1971) (Ken Russell) Discussion Thread

[Demoncrat]

Revolution!!! up there with I Love Trouble for Hollywood's sheer magnitude for shooting itself in the foot, would watch it again only to see if it still retains its unbearable air of smugness that i felt wafting out of the screen at the time. Ahem.

The BD will surely make all that lovely dirt really brown, i'm sure.

[Michael Brooke]

Originally Posted by Demoncrat

Revolution!!! up there with I Love Trouble for Hollywood's sheer magnitude for shooting itself in the foot

Warner ended up with the rights, but it wasn't a 'Hollywood' production by any stretch of the imagination - it was shot in King's Lynn and Devon by a largely British crew.

In fact, if Al Pacino hadn't got involved, it might well have ended up as a much smaller-scale production - Hugh Hudson's original role model was Peter Watkins' famous 1964 BBC production Culloden.

[Demoncrat]

Originally Posted by Michael Brooke

Warner ended up with the rights, but it wasn't a 'Hollywood' production by any stretch of the imagination - it was shot in King's Lynn and Devon by a largely British crew.

In fact, if Al Pacino hadn't got involved, it might well have ended up as a much smaller-scale production - Hugh Hudson's original role model was Peter Watkins' famous 1964 BBC production Culloden.

Thats all very well, but twas Pacino's "involvement" i was refering to, as he sticks out like a sore thumb.
Some films leave impressions for various reasons, for example style, editing, dialogue, and sadly wrong-footedness (Absolute Beginners also springs to mind cough cough). Just my opinion....

[Michael Brooke]

DVD Beaver has the first framegrabs.

The anamorphic image looks magnificent - some of the most impressive visuals I have seen in the SD format. Detail and contrast are exemplary. BFI have this housed on a dual-layered PAL DVD and there is not even a pixel out of place.

[Vipp]

This is one of the best films i have watched in a few years now. I tried to get my partner to wacth it but she said no when i got to the 'jesus on the cross' scene. still for me it's a great film.

[Michael Brooke]

Copies arrived in the BFI offices this morning, and should start entering online retailers' supply chains later this week. Everything's on schedule for the discs to be sent out in time for the release date - which in practice means that they'll probably start arriving towards the end of next week.

[nekromantik]

I would have bought if it was uncut.
Movie like this needs to be bought uncut!

[hallo37]

Originally Posted by nekromantik

I would have bought if it was uncut.
Movie like this needs to be bought uncut!

Probably not going to happen for a looooong time, not at all if Warners have anything to do with it. I'm really looking forward to this release, I've held off buying these poor bootlegs for years so I can have this. I don't care if the Rape of Christ blah blah isn't in it, but that's my own view!

[nekromantik]

What dont make sense is, if Warner hate this movie so much why didnt they sell it off long ago!

[Michael Brooke]

You'll never see an uncut version of The Devils - or at least nothing representing precisely what Ken Russell intended to make. The BBFC and Warner Bros sat in on the post-production, and most of the footage that was removed at that stage is believed to have been destroyed.

So the 2004 version should more accurately be called an extended cut than "uncut" or "the director's cut" - it's a bit longer than the version on this DVD, but the differences between those two versions are much less than the differences between the version on this DVD and the butchered version released in the US (and on the Spanish DVD, the British iTunes download, at least one UK VHS release, etc.). The crucial point is that the version on this DVD is one of only two cuts that Ken Russell personally signed off on - whereas the US cut was altered without his permission.