criterionforum.org

Big Ben wrote: Tue May 05, 2026 10:15 pm I'm genuinely shocked they finally decided to let this come out and uncut. I quite literally told a friend a few weeks ago I would eat my shoe in the vein of Herzog if they ever did release it properly in any form. I wonder what changed?

ryannichols7 wrote: Tue May 05, 2026 9:54 pm I personally also see Warner themselves releasing it, if nothing else due to the clearly endless internal back and forth over whether the film should ever see the light of day again or not. I'm sure Feltenstein will be really pleased to say he finally pulled it off

Spoiler

I for one personally am not interested in this film or a release of it in the slightest, but I'm over the moon that I'll hopefully stop seeing people spam every single boutique label asking them to release it. the biggest win of all.

beamish14 wrote:post-Mike De Luca and Pamela Abdy

beamish14 wrote: Wed May 06, 2026 1:40 am Releasing it on their own gives WB more cachet as an artist-friendly studio post-Mike De Luca and Pamela Abdy

Lowry_Sam wrote: Wed May 06, 2026 5:28 pm Ken Russell passed in 2011, so it's a bit late for that (ie. releasing a work so that the artist's participation is possible). And speaking of that, was Criterion working with Russell on The Devil's in any way before his passing to get it released (ie. had they done any interviews or commentary in his last few years in preparation for a possible release or recovering lost footage)?

Finch wrote: Wed May 06, 2026 4:40 pm Wasn't there even more footage from Ken Russell's original cut though, beyond the two scenes that appear to have been reinserted? I appreciate that they restored everything they were able to find and that the rest of the material appears lost or destroyed but I wonder if the claim that this is Russell's complete version is a bit disingenuous. Yes, the most important scene, the rape of Christ, has been put back in and it's what Russell most agonised over losing, but didn't his original cut run a little longer still than the 114 mins cut premiering in Cannes this month?

MichaelB wrote: Wed May 06, 2026 5:40 pm

Finch wrote: Wed May 06, 2026 4:40 pm Wasn't there even more footage from Ken Russell's original cut though, beyond the two scenes that appear to have been reinserted? I appreciate that they restored everything they were able to find and that the rest of the material appears lost or destroyed but I wonder if the claim that this is Russell's complete version is a bit disingenuous. Yes, the most important scene, the rape of Christ, has been put back in and it's what Russell most agonised over losing, but didn't his original cut run a little longer still than the 114 mins cut premiering in Cannes this month?

As far as I'm aware, there were essentially five versions.

1. The absolutely complete, unexpurgated version

This was shown privately to BBFC Secretary John Trevelyan—a big fan of Russell, to the extent of passing Women in Love uncut despite its then unprecedented prolonged full-frontal male nudity, and so Russell thought it was a good idea to seek his advice independently. Trevelyan said that the "rape of Christ" scene and the exchange over the charred thigh-bone were probably going too far, but if Russell removed them he was confident he could get the rest through the BBFC.

2. The version submitted to the BBFC

Unfortunately, Trevelyan was wrong. He calculated correctly that his boss Lord Harlech would take his side, as Harlech was a Catholic and open to persuasion that the film was entirely serious about Catholicism (Trevelyan's argument was that the scenes of demonic possession and subsequent torture had to be extreme, because otherwise the core theme of people abandoning their faith—or, in Father Grandier's case, refusing to—would be diluted). However, he reckoned without the strong opposition of other BBFC examiners and, even more surprisingly, Warner Bros themselves, who had their own list of cuts (which were often different from what the BBFC wanted to remove; Craig Lapper goes into some seven pages of detail about the censorship process in the booklet accompanying the BFI DVD).

3. The version released theatrically in the UK

This is, to date, the longest version ever given a proper commercial release, and was personally overseen and signed off by Ken Russell. For more than three decades this was the version définitive, and it's the one on the BFI DVD.

4. The version released theatrically in the US

Following its UK release, Warner Bros absolutely butchered the film for the US, very much without Russell's involvement or approval. The similar running times are deceptive, because Warners also replaced contentious material with milder alternative takes. I understand that this version was also released in quite a few other countries, some of which applied their own localised censorship.

5. The 2004 semi-restoration

Following Mark Kermode's discovery that the footage snipped by Russell between versions 1 and 2 still miraculously survived, Russell and editor Michael Bradsell reinstated it into a standard definition video version (there was no budget for a proper restoration), which was screened at BFI Southbank in 2004, prior to a planned UK DVD release by Warner Bros, which never happened—although some of the extras that ended up on the BFI DVD were created for that aborted version (the commentary, for instance).

My understanding is that the footage cut from the original negative by the BBFC and Warner Bros between versions 2 and 3 was junked—although I can't tell you how much I'd love to be wrong about this. But until someone confirms this, it's a safe working assumption that this new 4K restoration will either perfectly match or strongly resemble version 5.

MichaelB wrote: Wed May 06, 2026 5:40 pm 1. The absolutely complete, unexpurgated version

This was shown privately to BBFC Secretary John Trevelyan—a big fan of Russell, to the extent of passing Women in Love uncut despite its then unprecedented prolonged full-frontal male nudity, and so Russell thought it was a good idea to seek his advice independently. Trevelyan said that the "rape of Christ" scene and the exchange over the charred thigh-bone were probably going too far, but if Russell removed them he was confident he could get the rest through the BBFC.

MichaelB wrote: Wed May 06, 2026 6:48 pm That’s specifically what was removed.

For the material removed between versions two and three, Craig Lapper goes into exhaustive detail in the BFI booklet, an essay that’s all but certain to be reprinted when the BFI reissues it.

MichaelB wrote: Wed May 06, 2026 6:28 pm Nothing, and of course that would be amazing.

But my assumption for now is that the only excised footage that survives is what was removed and separately shelved prior to the official BBFC submission—based on the fact that when Russell and original editor Michael Bradsell put together the 2004 version, that was all that they were able to add.

jtarvainen wrote: Wed May 06, 2026 7:28 pm Nothing, but further cuts were made between versions 2 and 3, and those trims are now assumed to be lost. The 2004 restoration used as its basis version 3 and added back the two scenes that were cut between versions 1 and 2 (with some additional sound work to make the reinstated footage more seamless).

Zot! wrote: Wed May 06, 2026 7:15 pm I apologize if I'm missing your point, but if there was only one all-inclusive version preceding the BBFC submission, then what are we then missing? What is the OTHER missing footage between 1 and 2 besides the two well known cuts?