The Devils (1 Viewer)

[Jon Hertzberg]

You're right. We recently got The Boy Friend from WAand The Music Lovers from MGM-MOD, so why not The Devils now?

SAVAGE MESSIAH via Warner Archive, as well.

 

[ahollis]

Originally Posted by Bill Huelbig
R.I.P. Ken Russell. OK, Warner Brothers, what better way to pay tribute to this one-of-a-kind filmmaker than to finally give us the opportunity to purchase "The Devils" in the US?

I don't see how his death will change the mind of the Executives and Owners of Warner Brothers. It might make it easier for the film to get lost deeper in the vault. It was good to have the article on the making of THE DEVILS printed in the latest issue of Cinema Retro where Mr. Russell was able to answer some questions on the film.

 

[Charles Smith]

Yeah, I was thinking this morning that nothing -- including the fact of Russell's death -- is likely to have any influence at all on WB's attitude toward this one single film -- an attitude that seems unique in history of film.

(If not "totally" unique. Hi, Disney.)

 

[Charles Smith]

Ken Russell and Vanessa Redgrave at the Walter Reade in NYC, July 2010:

http://home.comcast.net/~chasmith7/russell/russell.htm

 

[Ruz-El]

Warners really disgusts me with this. Yeah it's great they released a few of his titles on the shit archives label, but this is a film maker who deserves the respect that Kubrick got with his what, 4-5 boxset releases and re-releases on DVD and bluray over the year? To the common Joe six Pack, is Kubrick really all the more famous then Ken Russell? How about Harold Lloyd? Don't get me wrong, I'm glad to have those sets, I just don;t see why Ken Russell can't be included.


It seams that unless The Who are involved Russell is pretty much forgotten. A real shame. I'm never going to get to seem most of his work in a decent format.

 

[Radioman970]

Dang. That's a shame. I'd absolutely positively without question cross my finger sugar on top buy a bluray set with this man's works included (yes, including The Devils). Please release this for us and pay respects to this filmmaker.

 

[Jon Hertzberg]

Ken Russell and Vanessa Redgrave at the Walter Reade in NYC, July 2010: http://home.comcast.net/~chasmith7/russell/russell.htm

Nice, Chas. I was fortunate enough to be there that night, even if it was the U.S. R-rated cut that played and Russell was not in very good shape at all...the frustrating "Q & A" only confirmed this. Of course, by putting poor old Ken out on public display several nights a week during that series, FSLC sold plenty of tickets.

 

[Charles Smith]

Yes, that night sure had its highlights and lowlights, but there was plenty to treasure and I wouldn't trade it for the world.

 

[ReggieW]

I still can't think for the life of me why WHV is trying to bury this film. Is it really anymore/less violent or controversial than A Clockwork Orange and several other films released during this period? I had the pleasure of seeing Mr. Russell at a screening of The Music Lovers two years ago at the Aero theater in Santa Monica along with Richard Chamberlin. He sat several rows behind me with Richard and they both answered questions. Indeed, a very nice fellow. He'll be missed.

 

[Jon Hertzberg]

I still can't think for the life of me why WHV is trying to bury this film. Is it really anymore/less violent or controversial than A Clockwork Orange and several other films released during this period? I had the pleasure of seeing Mr. Russell at a screening of The Music Lovers two years ago at the Aero theater in Santa Monica along with Richard Chamberlin. He sat several rows behind me with Richard and they both answered questions. Indeed, a very nice fellow. He'll be missed.

Agreed, Reggie. I went into greater detail here.

 

[JoHud]

I pretty much agree with the notion that someone high on the chain of command at WHV has an irrational hate for this film and has been blocking its. Its quite a bit on the obscure side of of 70s films so I doubt public protest is keeping is keeping it from release, unless the Pope wrote a letter requesting they never release it

 

[GMpasqua]

Wow, didn't know Ken died yesterday. He will be missed.

JoHud, the Pope actually banned both Oliver Reed and Vanessa Redgrave from ever entering Italy when "The Devils" opened in 1971. If they entered they would be arrested on the spot.

 

[ahollis]

I looked back at some past issues of Box Office Magazine to see if I could get a clue at what Warner Brothers thought about THE DEVILS back in 1971 when they released it. The film was barely mentioned and the only industry ad was in an October 1970 fold-out on upcoming films. I was not going to post that since it is just a brief mention among several brief mentions, but this will give you an idea that Warner's, even at that time, was not happy about the film, also it is a pretty cool fold-out with titles that never got made, changed names and even changed stars. In all of 1971, THE DEVILS was only mentioned in box office standings in the larger cities and on the Warner release schedule. Nothing else written, almost as if the film did not exist.
https://static.hometheaterforum.com/imgrepo/
https://static.hometheaterforum.com/imgrepo/https://static.hometheaterforum.com/imgrepo/
https://static.hometheaterforum.com/imgrepo/
There are some titles on here that are more embarrassing than THE DEVILS.

 

[Brian McP]

Frank Sinatra as Dirty Harry (with the briefcase) -- beautiful Great foldout Allen -- and yes, if this movie was re-released in any format in the US, Warners would not hear the end of it. The only way to probably get away with it would be in a boxset of other Ken Russell movies, like with the Kubrick set, a mix of MGM and Warners titles in the same box (can they work out a deal with Sony to include "Tommy" perhaps?) -- this way, those who would normally be offended by "The Devils" would also see "Women In Love", "The Music Lovers", "Savage Messiah" and the rest in the set and put it all into context (these movies as 1970s features and to some, as 'exploitation' features for intellectuals) and just let it -- and the rest of them -- go. If the feature was released by itself, it will certainly stand out, in the worst possible way -- one wonders if "The Exorcist" was out of circulation for years and brought back like this, how would it fare today? I've seen both movies and to me, "The Exorcist" is the most severe of the two -- still, Ken Russell knew how to direct a movie and "The Devils" certainly is one of his most visceral and some aspects would be laughably silly to some of today's audiences -- but I'm certain that the majority will be as freaked out as those who saw it on it's original release.

 

[moviepas]

Those forthcoming films are interesting and I have only seen two of them to my recollection, Summer of '42 in a US theater when it was new & I have the DVD and Mortadella with Sophia Loren which I saw on TV way back when and not since. Flap I have but not seen. No I have not seen Klute or Deliverance but probably have in the collection.

I used to correspond, in the 1970s, with a friend of Ken Russell. This very old man had had a stroke which gave him another 10 years of live. He knew Russell from the British Film Institute were both had worked and Russell called around to my friend's London flat from time to time.

 

[Jon Hertzberg]

Frank Sinatra as Dirty Harry (with the briefcase) -- beautiful Great foldout Allen -- and yes, if this movie was re-released in any format in the US, Warners would not hear the end of it. The only way to probably get away with it would be in a boxset of other Ken Russell movies, like with the Kubrick set, a mix of MGM and Warners titles in the same box (can they work out a deal with Sony to include "Tommy" perhaps?) -- this way, those who would normally be offended by "The Devils" would also see "Women In Love", "The Music Lovers", "Savage Messiah" and the rest in the set and put it all into context (these movies as 1970s features and to some, as 'exploitation' features for intellectuals) and just let it -- and the rest of them -- go. If the feature was released by itself, it will certainly stand out, in the worst possible way -- one wonders if "The Exorcist" was out of circulation for years and brought back like this, how would it fare today? I've seen both movies and to me, "The Exorcist" is the most severe of the two -- still, Ken Russell knew how to direct a movie and "The Devils" certainly is one of his most visceral and some aspects would be laughably silly to some of today's audiences -- but I'm certain that the majority will be as freaked out as those who saw it on it's original release.

You really think so? How many people, beyond the cinephiles and readers of forums like this one, would even be aware of THE DEVILS being released on DVD or Blu-ray? The idea that the general public would really give a hoot about this or a Ken Russell box set seems highly implausible to me. Most people would never even know about it. When does a catalog release--if it's not called GODFATHER, STAR WARS, WIZARD OF OZ, etc.--garner any significant mainstream press? The pathetic sales numbers for catalog DVDs and Blu-rays, in general, and the corresponding dip in deep catalog releases from the majors ought to tell you that most people just don't care that much about old movies like THE DEVILS, so to say that "Warners would not hear the end of it" if they released THE DEVILS is a pretty big leap. It's clear now that there are folks high up the chain at Time Warner who don't like the film, but that's different than the studio not releasing the film because they fear a public backlash. When THE DEVILS was playing with the complete Ken Russell oeuvre at Lincoln Center last year to very big crowds, with Russell in attendance, where were the angry mobs outside of the theater, protesting the heavily promoted--for a repertory series--screenings of THE DEVILS? They were non-existent. Why? Because the film and the director are not anywhere near the radar of the demographic that gets offended by films. If this were a new film or a television series with all the marketing muscle that a movie studio or television network can put behind it to build up public awareness, then, yes, I'd imagine the hackles of the religious right would be raised. But, we are talking about a 40 year-old film that, as far as I can tell, didn't provoke much protest in the U.S. the first time around.

 

[Radioman970]

So Omega Man was origially going to be called I Am Legend. Interesting... Yeah, Sinatra as Dirty Harry! Is there any way to jump dimensions and see that happen on a different plane of existence? (love the foldout, btw)

 

[ahollis]

Originally Posted by Jon Hertzberg
When THE DEVILS was playing with the complete Ken Russell oeuvre at Lincoln Center last year to very big crowds, with Russell in attendance, where were the angry mobs outside of the theater, protesting the heavily promoted--for a repertory series--screenings of THE DEVILS? They were non-existent. Why? Because the film and the director are not anywhere near the radar of the demographic that gets offended by films. If this were a new film or a television series with all the marketing muscle that a movie studio or television network can put behind it to build up public awareness, then, yes, I'd imagine the hackles of the religious right would be raised. But, we are talking about a 40 year-old film that, as far as I can tell, didn't provoke much protest in the U.S. the first time around.

I'm with you on this, I don't think there would any kind of a backlash if the film was released on DVD or Blu-ray. It would be just another film in the pipeline. Reviewers in the newspapers would mention it and a Lou Lumenick or a Dave Kehr will give the title an outstanding write up as they do, good or bad, for classic films released to DVD, but protesters and marchers that would protest the release would not see any information on it or just pass over it as old news. Being in the exhibition industry for a few years, I got the wrath of protesters for Oh. God! (How can a film portray God?), Nasty Habits (Nuns picketed theatre) The Life Of Brian, The Last Temptation of Christ, Teaching Miss Tingle (violence in school), Stigmata, and Fahrenheit 9/11 (how dare you play this film/Why are you not playing this film). Each and every film got played and each and every film was released to DVD and the world still revolves. The reason The Devils is not on DVD is because there is someone or some people that do not want it released for whatever reason. The release of The Devils on DVD would not affect the stock price of Time Warner one bit. This is personal.

 

[Jon Hertzberg]

I'm with you on this, I don't think there would any kind of a backlash if the film was released on DVD or Blu-ray.  It would be just another film in the pipeline.  Reviewers in the newspapers would mention it and a Lou Lumenick or a Dave Kehr will give the title an outstanding write up as they do, good or bad, for classic films released to DVD, but protesters and marchers that would protest the release would not see any information on it or just pass over it as old news.  Being in the exhibition industry for a few years, I got the wrath of protesters for Oh. God! (How can a film portray God?),Nasty Habits (Nuns picketed theatre) The Life Of Brian, The Last Temptation of Christ, Teaching Miss Tingle (violence in school), Stigmata, and Fahrenheit 9/11 (how dare you play this film/Why are you not playing this film).  Each and every film got played and each and every film was released to DVD and the world still revolves.

Agreed, Allen, right down to the obligatory Lumenick and Kehr mentions. It strikes me that CRUISING was another of these "hot potato" titles for years and there was an assumption that the film would never come out on DVD because of all the backlash that Warner Bros. was sure to endure from gay rights groups, the Christian right, etc...did anything of the sort happen? Not at all. The people who were looking for the film found it and those who didn't know about it continued to live in ignorance of Al Pacino's days wearing leather, hankies, and eye make-up.

The reason The Devils is not on DVD is because there is someone or some people that do not want it released for whatever reason.  The release of The Devils on DVD would not affect the stock price of Time Warner one bit.  This is personal. 

More than ever, it's definitely looking that way.

 

[ahollis]

Originally Posted by Jon Hertzberg
Agreed, Allen, right down to the obligatory Lumenick and Kehr mentions. It strikes me that CRUISING was another of these "hot potato" titles for years and there was an assumption that the film would never come out on DVD because of all the backlash that Warner Bros. was sure to endure from gay rights groups, the Christian right, etc...did anything of the sort happen? Not at all. The people who were looking for the film found it and those who didn't know about it continued to live in ignorance of Al Pacino's days wearing leather, hankies, and eye make-up.
More than ever, it's definitely looking that way.

I had forgotten about the Cruising problems. That is another on my list of backlash from over zealous people. I have to commend Warner Bros for releasing that title the way they did. They looked at for what it was a murder mystery and worked to stifle any complaints with yeah it does come off bad, but that is not the way it was meant to and is a good film by a great film maker and deserves to be seen. Gee, maybe they should do it that way with The Devils. Honestly, I was surprised when Warner Bros released The Damned on DVD. That film created some controversy when it was released and is still a bit of a shocker to the unsuspecting. But then The Damned and Cruising are neither a story of religion.
Again, you have not lived until you have seen 60 nuns in habit holding protest signs in front of the Sena Mall Theatre in New Orleans picketing Nasty Habits. What a sight. Or be called a Satan worshiper and soul less because they think you are going to play The Last Temptation of Christ. Or that I am personally going to cause another Columbine because one of the theatres is playing Teaching Mrs.Tingle.