criterionforum.org

Posted: **Fri Apr 06, 2012 8:57 am**

Well memory maybe playing tricks on me regarding Cinerama. I think I saw the dreadful Krakatoa East of Java there in Cinerama. It did have a very large auditorium and one of those curved screens and I saw The Devils one matinee afternoon along with two OAP ladies who sat through the whole film without moving. It also had a habit of showing non mainstream films . I remember seeing Bergman's 'Cries and Whispers' at the Odeon Merrion. Leeds was pretty good at one time for rather nice screens. But it certainly was a great place to watch 'The Devils".

Posted: **Mon Jul 02, 2012 9:38 am**

The Devils has just jointly won Best Special Features at this year's Cinema Ritrovato awards, specifically for its documentation of the various controversies surrounding the film.

Posted: **Sat Sep 01, 2012 7:25 am**

MichaelB wrote:
kneelzod wrote:
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.

kneelzod wrote: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.

For anyone who doesn't have the disc yet, Warners did an interesting thing with the logo. The distinctive era logo "A Kinney Company" is gone from the beginning (but is still there in some form during the end credit sequence), while the newer WB logo isn't the latest moving one but the still frame from a slightly earlier era, seemingly around the early 90s:

So it looks as if WB split the difference in wanting "A Time Warner Company" on there but not wanting the very latest logo on the front of the film.

On the film itself, it looks absolutely stunning on DVD finally in its correct aspect ratio. Something that I had missed on previous viewings was the wonderful kaleidoscopic light playing across many of the characters from the stained glass windows in the church, which had not really come through on my VHS tape before.

Posted: **Tue Sep 04, 2012 2:31 pm**

colinr0380 wrote:So it looks as if WB split the difference in wanting "A Time Warner Company" on there but not wanting the very latest logo on the front of the film.

Or perhaps the master was completed some time ago and WB has been sitting on it?

Posted: **Sat Sep 15, 2012 9:34 am**

jedgeco wrote:
colinr0380 wrote:So it looks as if WB split the difference in wanting "A Time Warner Company" on there but not wanting the very latest logo on the front of the film.
Or perhaps the master was completed some time ago and WB has been sitting on it?

I would say the latter. Though, that logo has been displaced by newer ones since '01-'02 and I would expect (or hope) that the master was completed some time more recently than that.

http://www.closinglogos.com/page/Warner+Bros.+Pictures

Posted: **Sat Sep 15, 2012 9:49 am**

When I saw the semi-restored version on the big screen in 2004, the quality of the SD master was so good that I assumed it was HD before I found out for certain. So it may well be the case that the master was created when the "rape of Christ" footage came to light (i.e. around 2002-3).

The age of a master doesn't necessarily say anything helpful about its technical merits.

Posted: **Thu Sep 27, 2012 4:57 pm**

Thought I'd share this with everyone. There's a new book recently released entitled, Raising Hell Ken Russell and the Unmaking of The Devils. The author of the book also recently conducted a lengthy, 40 minutes interview with Guillermo Del Toro where he expresses his admiration for the film.

Posted: **Fri Oct 12, 2012 6:01 pm**

Looks as if the BFI will be screening the director's cut of The Devils as part of their upcoming "Uncut" series of banned and censored films...

Posted: **Sat Oct 13, 2012 3:43 am**

I prefer the term "semi-restoration". The true director's cut is almost certainly irretrievably lost.

Posted: **Sat Oct 13, 2012 10:28 am**

MichaelB wrote:I prefer the term "semi-restoration". The true director's cut is almost certainly irretrievably lost.

Well, I completely agree with that sentiment. But, unfortunately it seems as if the official term dubbed to this version is "Director's Cut". By calling it such, it seems as if it has only added to the confusion about the different versions, with many thinking the "Director's Cut" is the version Russell first presented to the BBFC, which is of course inaccurate. I personally would've preferred "2004 Reconstruction".

BTW, I found it interesting that WB not only let the BFI allow this version to be shown once, but twice as part of this upcoming series. Maybe they are finally starting to loosen up with the film, and maybe here in the States we'll be able to see a release similar to that of the BFI from a company like Criterion. (Not that I don't already own the BFI release, just that I hope those without region free players will be able to witness Russell's magnum opus.)

Posted: **Sat Oct 13, 2012 11:21 am**

criterion10 wrote:BTW, I found it interesting that WB not only let the BFI allow this version to be shown once, but twice as part of this upcoming series.

They've authorised several screenings over the last eight years - I saw it myself in November 2004, and that certainly wasn't its only outing. It played at last year's East End Film Festival, and again in March to tie in with the DVD release.

Maybe they are finally starting to loosen up with the film, and maybe here in the States we'll be able to see a release similar to that of the BFI from a company like Criterion.

As I understand it, the problem is that Warner UK and Warner US have very different attitudes towards the film. Warner UK was all set to release the 2004 semi-reconstruction on DVD in 2005, which was when Russell & co. recorded the commentary that ended up on the BFI disc. It never appeared, and rumours that Warner US pulled the plug are probably true.

Warner US has always hated the film, from the day they first saw it. They cut it to ribbons in the US without Russell's authorisation, and that version's the only one that's ever been officially available over there - even a release of the UK cinema cut (i.e. the one on the BFI DVD) would be a huge leap forward.

Posted: **Sat Oct 13, 2012 11:48 am**

MichaelB wrote:They've authorised several screenings over the last eight years - I saw it myself in November 2004, and that certainly wasn't its only outing. It played at last year's East End Film Festival, and again in March to tie in with the DVD release.

What I was trying to say is that while a few screenings have occurred, they have been over a really long period of time. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I believe in addition to the 2004 screening, the only other screening was at the East End Film Festival, until this year, when the BFI was allowed to show the film on the same release date as their DVD. Now, they are allowed to show the film again on two other separate dates. My point is simply that being able to show the film three times over the span of a few months is rather surprising, given how much WB hates the film.

And yeah, it doesn't surprise me at all that it's Warner US that has the problem with the film. That's the one problem that's going to make it much more difficult for a US-based company like Criterion to release the film.

It's a shame that the film has been surrounded by such controversy. People really need to see this film, and its message has become more relevant today than it was in 1971.

Posted: **Fri Nov 02, 2012 4:18 pm**

Playing tonight at Lincoln Center in NYC. Says the format is digibeta and runtime 111 minutes, so unless WB cops out at the last moment like they have on other occassions, it seems as if Lincoln Center will be playing the UK theatrical cut. I strongly urge all those in the area to check out this film, as this not only is a great opportunity to see the film on the big screen, but also to see a much longer version of the film. (I know the BFI released this same version, but for those without region free players this is a rare opportunity.)

Posted: **Sat Nov 03, 2012 4:05 pm**

some more screening of the Director's Cut happening this month in London too as part of the BFI Uncut season

Posted: **Sat Nov 03, 2012 4:45 pm**

As with many of their titles, Warners' North America distribution arm has retired their 35mm prints of THE DEVILS, which is a huge shame for those
who haven't seen it in celluloid.

Posted: **Sat Nov 03, 2012 4:50 pm**

beamish13 wrote:As with many of their titles, Warners' North America distribution arm has retired their 35mm prints of THE DEVILS, which is a huge shame for those
who haven't seen it in celluloid.

Pardon my ignorance on the subject, but does this mean that there simply are no longer any 35mm prints to publicly screen at festivals, special screenings, etc.? What I mean is that let's say a miracle happens and WB decides they want to put the film out on Blu-Ray, it would be necessary to go back to the original 35mm print to restore it. Does WB, and other studios in general, still keep an archival print for means such as this?

Posted: **Sat Nov 03, 2012 5:11 pm**

criterion10 wrote:Pardon my ignorance on the subject, but does this mean that there simply are no longer any 35mm prints to publicly screen at festivals, special screenings, etc.? What I mean is that let's say a miracle happens and WB decides they want to put the film out on Blu-Ray, it would be necessary to go back to the original 35mm print to restore it. Does WB, and other studios in general, still keep an archival print for means such as this?

I assume they still have archival materials - after all, the print that formed the basis of the 2004 semi-restoration and the BFI DVD was either absolutely pristine to begin with or didn't need much digital cleaning.

But as far as I'm aware an HD master doesn't currently exist, so they'd need to scan it from 35mm again - and if by some miracle they decided to put out the 2004 version on Blu-ray they'd need to dig out the additional 35mm footage, scan it to HD and cut it into the rest of the film, because Russell and editor Michael Bradsell only ever assembled it on SD video.

Posted: **Sat Nov 03, 2012 5:23 pm**

criterion10 wrote:
beamish13 wrote:As with many of their titles, Warners' North America distribution arm has retired their 35mm prints of THE DEVILS, which is a huge shame for those
who haven't seen it in celluloid.
Pardon my ignorance on the subject, but does this mean that there simply are no longer any 35mm prints to publicly screen at festivals, special screenings, etc.? What I mean is that let's say a miracle happens and WB decides they want to put the film out on Blu-Ray, it would be necessary to go back to the original 35mm print to restore it. Does WB, and other studios in general, still keep an archival print for means such as this?

Oh, the prints are still there. I saw one about 3 years ago. The problem is that they simply don't want to ship them out anymore, so they've been relegated to their archives indefinitely.

Posted: **Sat Nov 03, 2012 5:32 pm**

MichaelB wrote: I assume they still have archival materials - after all, the print that formed the basis of the 2004 semi-restoration and the BFI DVD was either absolutely pristine to begin with or didn't need much digital cleaning.

But as far as I'm aware an HD master doesn't currently exist, so they'd need to scan it from 35mm again - and if by some miracle they decided to put out the 2004 version on Blu-ray they'd need to dig out the additional 35mm footage, scan it to HD and cut it into the rest of the film, because Russell and editor Michael Bradsell only ever assembled it on SD video.

It's a shame that an HD master doesn't exist in any form, only because I highly doubt WB would ever want to invest in it at this point. At least all of the necessary footage to go about creating one still does, however. I guess our only hope would be for a third party like Criterion or the BFI to do all of the dirty work, which is still unlikely with WB's position on the film.

Posted: **Thu Nov 08, 2012 3:43 pm**

criterion10 wrote:
beamish13 wrote:As with many of their titles, Warners' North America distribution arm has retired their 35mm prints of THE DEVILS, which is a huge shame for those
who haven't seen it in celluloid.
Pardon my ignorance on the subject, but does this mean that there simply are no longer any 35mm prints to publicly screen at festivals, special screenings, etc.? What I mean is that let's say a miracle happens and WB decides they want to put the film out on Blu-Ray, it would be necessary to go back to the original 35mm print to restore it. Does WB, and other studios in general, still keep an archival print for means such as this?

Essentially, WB no longer rents out 35mm prints of their catalog titles, unless it's connected to a special event type screening such as the Warner Archive-affiliated screenings you sometimes see at places such as the Cinefamily or when there is a guest appearance scheduled, related to the film being screened.

Additionally, they have substantially raised the rental / licensing fees for repertory programmers in the last couple years, as a further deterrent.

Posted: **Sun Jun 01, 2014 10:08 pm**

Sun, Jul 20, 2014 5:30pm @ Aero Theater in Santa Monica

WORLDS BUILT TO ORDER: ART DIRECTORS GUILD FILM SOCIETY SERIES 2014
Panel Discussion On Production Design!
THE DEVILS
Presented by the American Cinematheque and the Art Directors Guild Film Society. Sponsored by The Hollywood Reporter.

A historical drama based on real events, THE DEVILS (1971) was assailed as scandalous, censored and banned upon its first release and to this day it is still not permitted to be screened in its original form. Directed by Ken Russell and starring Oliver Reed and Vanessa Redgrave, it remains a tour de force of superior design and dramatic visual storytelling, largely due to the imaginative contributions of its production designer Derek Jarman. Artist, scenic designer, screenwriter, film director, cinematographer, gay-rights and AIDS activist, and consummate gardener, Jarman was truly the Renaissance artist of his generation. Rarely exhibited, this screening of THE DEVILS allows the ADG Film Society to explore and celebrate many of Jarman’s arresting visual creations for works as diverse as CARAVAGGIO (1986), WAR REQUIEM (1989), EDWARD II (1991), all part of his legacy as a total filmmaker; reminding us that the most important contributions of great designers is not just in their sets, but the depth of their concepts, curiosities and collaborations with their creative colleagues.
THE DEVILS
1971, Warner Bros., 108 min, UK, Dir: Ken Russell

Director Ken Russell’s adaptation of Aldous Huxley’s The Devils of Loudun remains one of the most disturbingly memorable films of the early 1970s. In 17th-century France, Cardinal Richelieu’s minions use the womanizing of activist priest Urban Grandier (Oliver Reed) as an excuse to investigate his "diabolic possession" of the local nuns, including the demented, hunchbacked Mother Superior Sister Jeanne (an unforgettable Vanessa Redgrave).
Trailer

So is this the US theatrical release (at 108 minutes)? Not sure that that warrants a trip to LA. Would be nice if it indicates that WB US is loosening its grip.

Posted: **Sun Jun 01, 2014 10:13 pm**

Looks like it's the US truncated version. I'm not sure if the UK version has ever even had a special screening in the US (the ones at Lincoln Center a few years back were all of the US version).

Posted: **Sun Jun 01, 2014 10:20 pm**

Also playing in Boston this summer, also on 35mm: http://www.coolidge.org/content/devils" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Posted: **Sun Nov 30, 2014 1:49 am**

Apparently, WB has blocked the North American release of Ken Russell's The Devils and Guillermo del Toro shames them for it.

Posted: **Fri Dec 05, 2014 1:00 pm**

Mark Kermode calls on Warner Brothers to release the 2004 Reconstruction of The Devils in his latest video blog

criterionforum.org

The Devils

Re: The Devils

Re: The Devils

Re: The Devils

Re: The Devils

Re: The Devils

Re: The Devils

Re: The Devils

Re: The Devils

Re: The Devils

Re: The Devils

Re: The Devils

Re: The Devils

Re: The Devils

Re: The Devils

Re: The Devils

Re: The Devils

Re: The Devils

Re: The Devils

Re: The Devils

Re: The Devils

Re: The Devils

Re: The Devils

Re: The Devils

Re: The Devils

Re: The Devils