The Devils (1971) (1 Viewer)

[DVBRD]

Warners needs to step-up and restore and release this classic on Blu-ray. Just put the usual trigger warnings on the front of the film and release it and stop worrying about offending the always offended Christian right.

WB's says they're against "cancel culture" in relation to Gone with the Wind but they've "cancelled" The Devils. The hypocrisy baffles me.

 

[bujaki]

Going back to that screening in Puerto Rico, my future wife (of now 50 years) saw it with a group of college girlfriends. When a nun took a crucifix and started "sex-toying" with it, a very Catholic friend turned to my wife and whispered, horrified: "Are my eyes deceiving me or is that nun actually masturbating?"
I can tell you that it was a very brave film for its time.
I've never seen it again so I can't judge how emasculated the film was after it reached the USA. I'll reiterate my my point that Puerto Rico only got the International release prints. No British nor American censors ever touched the films.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Warners needs to step-up and restore and release this classic on Blu-ray. Just put the usual trigger warnings on the front of the film and release it and stop worrying about offending the always offended Christian right.

The rumor has always been someone at Warner or more than one someone does not want this released...ever. Not sure if it is about offending others but rather someone wants this picture buried.

At this stage my guess is Warner won't be doing it, however, if Shudder can show it why they can't license it out to a boutique label (Criterion, Arrow, Imprint, Kino) is beyond me. Probably fewer people would watch it on a physical release than have seen it on Shudder. Plus the mythical "Christian Right backlash" has not happened with the film showing on Shudder...because this is a forgotten film except for the film buffs of a certain age out there.

Nobody is protesting Shudder showing it or calling for heads to roll over there. It's a nonissue.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Going back to that screening in Puerto Rico, my future wife (of now 50 years) saw it with a group of college girlfriends. When a nun took a crucifix and started "sex-toying" with it, a very Catholic friend turned to my wife and whispered, horrified: "Are my eyes deceiving me or is that nun actually masturbating?"
I can tell you that it was a very brave film for its time.
I've never seen it again so I can't judge how emasculated the film was after it reached the USA. I'll reiterate my my point that Puerto Rico only got the International release prints. No British nor American censors ever touched the films.

So, I am guessing you are saying you saw the 117 minute cut back then. For the record, while there were some censor recommended cuts, it was Warner Brothers that appeared to want to chop it down more than the censors. Somebody at Warner hated this picture and likely masturbating nuns, priests, and defiling a statue of Christ did it.

Ken Russell liked to push people's buttons and did so with this one.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

WB's says they're against "cancel culture" in relation to Gone with the Wind but they've "cancelled" The Devils. The hypocrisy baffles me.

I always doubted that Warner Brothers was refusing to release it but recently I heard Joe Dante say this is exactly what is happening. That there is a person or persons there that do not want this film out.

Technically, it has not been cancelled because there have been showings, some home video releases, and even now it is showing on Shudder. It just has not been released by Warner. Which is fine, if that is how they want it, but just like Shudder can show it, license it out to a label that wants to release it.

 

[TravisR]

I always doubted that Warner Brothers was refusing to release it but recently I heard Joe Dante say this is exactly what is happening. That there is a person or persons there that do not want this film out.

I heard that from Joe Dante and I have no problem believing it used to be the case. However, for this person or people to still be in a position at Warners powerful enough to block the release of the movie for four or five decades, they would have to be the oldest people on planet Earth at this point. I think the far more likely scenario today is that the company has just looked at what they think it would sell and decided it wouldn't be worth it compared to what they think they'll have to deal with from the people complaining about it.

Personally, I think it's much ado about nothing. If they release it on disc, there will be a handful of stories about Warners releasing a controversial movie, the usual people that are fixated on "Hollywood" and yet love to say how celebrities don't matter will gripe and then no one sane will listen to them.

 

[Bob Graham]

Geez. What is in that 3 minute difference? I've never seen this film. I presume from the preview that there are no musical numbers.

Actually, it opens with a musical number.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I heard that from Joe Dante and I have no problem believing it used to be the case. However, for this person or people to still be in a position at Warners powerful enough to block the release of the movie for four or five decades, they would have to be the oldest people on planet Earth at this point. I think the far more likely scenario today is that the company has just looked at what they think it would sell and decided it wouldn't be worth it compared to what they think they'll have to deal with from the people complaining about it.

Personally, I think it's much ado about nothing. If they release it on disc, there will be a handful of stories about Warners releasing a controversial movie, the usual people that are fixated on "Hollywood" and yet love to say how celebrities don't matter will gripe and then no one sane will listen to them.

Yeah, this was why I always doubted the story, whomever it was way back when that did not like the picture can't still be around. I just thought Warner just felt it was not a popular title.

So, I do wonder who, if someone is, is sitting on it. Basically, it is just a movie, from 1971, that really is unknown to all but those that love movies and/or movies of that period. So, not sure if there would be many that complained about the release of the picture on a Blu-ray. I mean our news cycles are now a swamp of much larger issues than an old movie coming out.

Plus "Hollywood" as we once knew it has been pretty much destroyed. I don't know how much more they could destroy it at this point but there really is no more real social significance to it now. It seems social media "influencers" are a much bigger deal than actors or musicians these days.

I kind of think it would be awesome if a film from 1971 suddenly was big news and a bunch of people were talking about it but that seems as likely as all of us winning the lottery on the same day.

 

[billO']

Yeah, this was why I always doubted the story, whomever it was way back when that did not like the picture can't still be around. I just thought Warner just felt it was not a popular title.

So, I do wonder who, if someone is, is sitting on it. Basically, it is just a movie, from 1971, that really is unknown to all but those that love movies and/or movies of that period. So, not sure if there would be many that complained about the release of the picture on a Blu-ray. I mean our news cycles are now a swamp of much larger issues than an old movie coming out.

Plus "Hollywood" as we once knew it has been pretty much destroyed. I don't know how much more they could destroy it at this point but there really is no more real social significance to it now. It seems social media "influencers" are a much bigger deal than actors or musicians these days.

I kind of think it would be awesome if a film from 1971 suddenly was big news and a bunch of people were talking about it but that seems as likely as all of us winning the lottery on the same day.

What's curious about this film is that WB did release the film in the USA on home video back in the '80s on VHS, yet have withheld it from DVD/BD release in the states. Basically it's like they're saying American culture then could handle having an opportunity to watch this film at home forty years ago, but cannot in the 21st century. Hmm, considering what a bunch of juvenile, reactionary knuckle-draggers seem to be shouting the loudest right now in America, maybe Warners is right.

 

[Worth]

I always doubted that Warner Brothers was refusing to release it but recently I heard Joe Dante say this is exactly what is happening. That there is a person or persons there that do not want this film out...

I saw a screening of the film a few years ago introduced by Guillermo del Toro and he said the same thing - someone who continues to have pull at Warner Bros. doesn't want it released.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

What's curious about this film is that WB did release the film in the USA on home video back in the '80s on VHS, yet have withheld it from DVD/BD release in the states. Basically it's like they're saying American culture then could handle having an opportunity to watch this film at home forty years ago, but cannot in the 21st century. Hmm, considering what a bunch of juvenile, reactionary knuckle-draggers seem to be shouting the loudest right now in America, maybe Warners is right.

I don't know, based on the stories it seems less that they are concerned about how people would react to the film or it getting a release and more that somebody with some sort of pull at Warner does not want, or left instructions that, the picture not get a release.

If you really think about it, if they put this film out on Blu-ray it likely would barely get noticed. So, I doubt there would be an uproar about the release nor anybody protesting it.

I mean Shudder showing it is a very public release of the picture and anybody with a subscription now has access to it. I see no complaints about it being available. I would bet that Shudder has way more subscribers than they would sell copies of a Blu-ray release. I mean honestly, they would sell maybe 3000 copies of it.

That's 3000 copies that would be in the hands of private owners that would watch the picture in their own homes. Meaning nobody would see the Blu-ray that did not want to see it. So, really no complaints most likely. Aside from perhaps a few articles in places where people write about movies or home video saying "Warner Brothers Releases Controversial Classic!"

I would think if there were to be a backlash over the film being available it would come with it being shown on a streaming service where anybody can stumble upon it. So far, crickets....I've not heard nor seen any complaints.

 

[Malcolm Bmoor]

This kind of thing never goes down well on this forum but the main point about THE DEVILS is that it's a truly dreadful film.

Ken Russell took a rather good stage play and rendered it nonsensical for his own purposes.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

This kind of thing never goes down well on this forum but the main point about THE DEVILS is that it's a truly dreadful film.

Ken Russell took a rather good stage play and rendered it nonsensical for his own purposes.

Well, it is a picture with very limited appeal. I won't argue that. I don't think the film is a masterpiece but it is wacky piece of weird cinema. It is all overheated and gonzo Russell style but basically that is what makes it watchable.

I would expect a lot of people to call it dreadful. So, I mean I have no issue with that. I would not call it dreadful, too much style on display and the nutty performances and, for me some quotable lines (I kind of love when Reed yells "What fresh madness is this?" and I yell that a lot myself, usually while watching the news) for it to be considered dreadful on my scale.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Ken Russell took a rather good stage play and rendered it nonsensical for his own purposes.

What is sort of funny about that is Russell called the play, I think, too sentimental. Which was part of why he made changes to it. He also called The Devils his only "political" film and had an interesting take on the story and what it meant to him.

It is sort of funny that it is showing on Shudder, a horror service, because while what goes on in the story is horrific, I am not sure I would classify it as horror. He is making a statement with the film.

 

[Prof. Ratigan]

I would bet that a 4K restoration of The Devils would actually sell very very well because of the highly restricted release. Whether Salo is a great film out not, it will consistently gather the curiosity of the film buff. I have no doubt that if Criterion released it, it would sell out at the next sale. After that, who knows.

Also, the dead hand of release restrictions against the wishes of the public and commercial self-interest sounds like the work of...George Lucas!

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

On the running times for various versions I have found the following listed from various sources:

108 minutes (the US cut?)

109 minutes (a variation or mistake on the US cut?)

111 minutes (the UK cut, also the UK DVD listed running time)

113 minutes (No clue on this, it appears in the first post here, I assume it is a mistake on the UK time)

117 minutes (listed as the long cut that Mark Kermode found in the Warner vaults which they say has not had a home video release and was shown at a special UK screening)

I bring up all those times because of the fact that the picture was cut more than once. I would guess that those of us that would want this to get a Blu-ray release would be most interested in the 117 minute cut. I do not know if that is actually Russell's intended cut or just some sort of extended version.

As Jose states, he saw a longer/complete version of the film, so was the 117 minute cut what was released in most of the world outside of the US and UK?

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I would bet that a 4K restoration of The Devils would actually sell very very well because of the highly restricted release. Whether Salo is a great film out not, it will consistently gather the curiosity of the film buff. I have no doubt that if Criterion released it, it would sell out at the next sale. After that, who knows.

Also, the dead hand of release restrictions against the wishes of the public and commercial self-interest sounds like the work of...George Lucas!

I like your Lucas theory.

I can't say what it would sell in terms of copies. When something is hard to see or intentionally hidden it does automatically draw some curiosity seekers that just want to see the "forbidden" film. I did see Salo because of the reputation it has. Not a film I love nor enjoy rewatching. In fact I believe I have only seen it twice and the second time just to test if I really did not enjoy watching it...and yes, I confirmed I did not enjoy watching it.

I do know older films tend to struggle to sell 3000 copies on Blu-ray. The Devils does not have the same reputation as Salo right now because it just is basically, outside of places like this where film buffs gather, forgotten.

So, I do think it would be good marketing to tout the controversy around the picture and that it has been rarely seen. Not sure how many more copies that may sell though.

Plus, content wise, I just think not many people will enjoy seeing Oliver Reed tortured and killed and masturbating nuns and defiling a statue of Christ while a priest masturbates...it is going to be a bit much for most people. With the title The Devils I think they are going to expect a different kind of film.

 

[Malcolm R]

Kind of like Disney and Song of the South. It was released on VHS and Laserdisc on other countries, but has been completely off limits since then. The modern world is not mature enough to handle these releases, apparently.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Kind of like Disney and Song of the South. It was released on VHS and Laserdisc on other countries, but has been completely off limits since then. The modern world is not mature enough to handle these releases, apparently.

This does not appear to be the reason these pictures are not available. In the case of Disney, they made a bunch of changes to their company polices and as such Song of the South now violates them. So, no release. Disney has gone so far with their policy decisions as to choose to alienate the majority of people in order to appeal more to a small number of people. It is generally the exact opposite of what most large companies are attempting to do with their pictures. It is certainly an odd choice, it could be better handled, but it is their choice. It is across the board in their films, shows, and parks. If they continue to make money hand over fist they will continue to do it. If they start to lose money, they may decide to change their policy. So, this seems a company decision not one based on how the public is or may be reacting.

On this film, again, I don't think public reaction is the reason it is not being released. It is something else and people claim it is someone that has some control at Warner that has made the call.

Has the public reacted to it on Shudder? Seems the answer is no, so why would we think that is what is holding this release back?

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

OK, another odd thing, apparently The Devils was first made available on Shudder in 2017. So, I am really late to the party here.

Second in everything I see when I search this on the internet it refers to the version showing on Shudder as "uncut" which I assume is not the case. However, articles refer to the Shudder version as never before seen in the US. Wacky!

Here's an article from 2017:

Widely Banned Horror Film The Devils Now On Shudder

This is kind of a big day for streaming services.

www.pastemagazine.com