criterionforum.org

To continue the parade of adages, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

"Perfect" - in the sense of a reconstruction of the film that Ken Russell was trying to make before the BBFC and Warner Bros got involved - is unattainable anyway.

Honestly, I think all this outrage and energy could be better spent petitioning for more screenings of the uncut version (something the current Warner Bros. regime has proven willing to do). The more it gets seen, the more likely for it to be allowed.

Indeed, going on about how terrible it is this version is "cut" and trying to avoid this release is sort of against the point - the two restored snippets might as well have been destroyed or never put into the 2004 restoration at all. Of course they were, but as of now, a full theatrical version is all we can hope for until, maybe in three to five years, a full restoration will make its way to BD.

Youtube's a wonderful thing. Here's the heavily cut US version of The Devils in pretty good quality. And if you really want to see the Rape of Christ scene...

I'm certainly not advocating censorship, but I felt the movie worked fine with all the excessive stuff cut out as it moved the story along in a quick and focused manner. I found it to be a pretty intense experience and an almost appallingly well-made movie. I've read that the uncut ending has a little something extra that would have improved the overall effect, though once you go to Wikipedia and read what it was, you'll be pretty satisfied. You can kind of infer what's going to happen in the US cut version if you've been mentally engaged with the film anyway...and if you're a pervert like Russell is (and I suppose I am). Hint:

Spoiler

it involves a bone and an insane, horny, and bereft nun (Vanessa Redgrave)

Aspect wrote:Youtube's a wonderful thing. Here's the heavily cut US version of The Devils in pretty good quality. And if you really want to see the Rape of Christ scene...

That was it? I guess there are still some Mary Whitehouses out there, and sadly in positions where they can still tarnish art with illogical censorship. I'm sure some people [myself] have only become interested in this release because of the controversy over the missing scene, whereas I would have barely looked at it had the film been uncut and there was no disgruntlement.

I wouldn't have been buying the film either way but I've now watched this scene just because I wasn't supposed to be able to. Streisand effect: when will these companies learn?

As far as I'm aware, the coda with the bone is still being included in the Hell on Earth documentary featured on the BFI DVD, but it hasn't been cut back into the film - probably a sensible decision given that there are quite enough versions of this film out there already.

Incidentally, the Wikipedia description makes it sound much more graphic than it actually is.

Bone Scene

I'm uncertain whether or not the scene goes on a bit longer or not.

Cold Bishop wrote:Bone Scene

I'm uncertain whether or not the scene goes on a bit longer or not.

If I remember rightly from the screening of the 2004 cut I attended, it might go on slightly longer, but certainly not to the extent implied by the Wikipedia description. I doubt I'd have forgotten anything like that!

I have huge amounts of money. I buy things that I fancy like a gleckit child at a fun fair, rosy-cheeked and irresponsible. Since 1996. If Ken Russell films are on their way down the digital pike, I hook them up and experience them with my silly cerebellum-cum-everythingelse. Via Amazon. Free delivery next day by the postman.

Then it is mine.

Mine!

But seriously... it is the ultimate British film, twinned with Sir Lean's 65mm miracle, yes? If we buy the 576p, we will do no harm to shitting on any future 1080p visualisation! There's nothing to lose! Except Christ-rape-imbued-dream-drenched-sleep! I hate a sweaty sleep.

Them words was a bit overwrought on reflection, but the more we gives the mores we will gets. More is more. So decide amongst yersels...

Amazon listing - March 19th street date...

For mad fun, order it with The Gospel According to Matthew. Now there's a double bill.

The BBFC has confirmed that the running time of the BFI DVD is 106 mins 42 secs - or 107 mins rounded up.

Which at theatrical speed would be 111 mins 8 secs - or 111 mins rounded down. The version that played in British cinemas in 1971 was 9,990 feet, or 111 minutes exactly - but I suspect the eight second discrepancy is down to something as trivial as differing distributor logos.

Which is exactly what I'd have expected, and confirms that this version is indeed three minutes longer than the iTunes and Spanish DVD editions.

Interesting departure, maybe a first recent DVD/BR where the title words are not in the BFI house style typeface...

CORRECTION: The Tati's also did so....

And so did Institute Benjamenta - the Quays were rather insistent on this.

MichaelB wrote:The version that played in British cinemas in 1971 was 9,990 feet, or 111 minutes exactly - but I suspect the eight second discrepancy is down to something as trivial as differing distributor logos.

Will the BFI disc utilize the '71-era WB logo originally used for the film? I sure hope so. Or, did WB insist on the studio's current, historically inaccurate--in the case of this film--logo?

The logo will be whatever Warner Bros choose to put on the master - it's entirely their decision.

Maybe they'll do a Disney and have no logo. Actually I wouldn't mind for them to do basically that if they are going to continue disowning the film.

MichaelB wrote:The logo will be whatever Warner Bros choose to put on the master - it's entirely their decision.

Ah, yes, I figured. So, most likely it will be the current antiseptic logo, keeping it consistent with the most up-to-date corporate alignment...Time Warner as opposed to Warner Communications, etc. ](*,)

kneelzod wrote:

MichaelB wrote:The logo will be whatever Warner Bros choose to put on the master - it's entirely their decision.

Ah, yes, I figured. So, most likely it will be the current antiseptic logo, keeping it consistent with the most up-to-date corporate alignment...Time Warner as opposed to Warner Communications, etc. ](*,)

Beyond wanting the presentation to be historically accurate right down to the studio logo to appease my OCD tendencies, there is symbolic value in retaining the age-appropriate logo, as well, as the John Calley-led Warner Bros. of the '70s (when it was "A Warner Communications Company") continuously championed edgy, envelope-pushing films, unlike the current iteration, which appears to be ashamed of the film. For all the talk of Warner Bros. always hating THE DEVILS, there must have been affinity for the film and the filmmaker in some quarters there, as the studio also released Russell's LISZTOMANIA and ALTERED STATES under Calley's watch.

Ken Russell was something like the 27th choice to helm Altered States - they certainly didn't set out to create "un film de Ken Russell".

MichaelB wrote:Ken Russell was something like the 27th choice to helm Altered States - they certainly didn't set out to create "un film de Ken Russell".

27th? It still went out as a film directed by Ken Russell under the aegis of Warner Bros., as did LISZTOMANIA. Point is, the WB output in the '70s is robust in terms of auteur-driven, mainstream and non-mainstream product, a group that includes THE DEVILS, LISZTOMANIA, and ALTERED STATES, before the studio was beholden to a conglomerate with too many interests to properly assess and manage all of its cinema holdings, and it shouldn't be forgotten just because said behemoth treats some of these jewels like Canal Street trinkets.

This release has been soiled more by the Mark Kermode quote being put on the front cover than by the omission of any controversial scenes.