This film was like...

I liked it for the truthfully taboo subject matter, rarely seen nowadays, but the high rating is completely wacked. This is EXACTLY like a Monty Python skit made into a movie, with over-the-top overacting (or total lack thereof, of acting ability) shown throughout.

All I can figure is that people don't have very high expectations for older movies. Otherwise, this is a taboo comedy skit extended to film length. If you read the description of exactly what the movie is about, and then you actually watch the movie, you would think you were watching the wrong movie. The movie is described in serious tones with mature subject matter, then you watch it, and get hit with actors who stand around with wild grins on their faces in total close-up, no matter which side they are on.

This movie was compared to Altered States, and other than a common director (or whatever), that's pretty much were the similarities end. Period. Altered States WAS a disturbing, classic, adult, taboo, SERIOUS movie. This........not so much LOL.







"Hey, shut up in there, I'm trying to type....." OT: Do the voices in my head bother you?

reply share

add reply

formatting help

I got the message but I fail to see the brilliance in this film when things are so blatantly portrayed and shoved in your face. True brilliance comes from subtle messages and nuances, personifications, allegorical references, stark contrasts and metaphors. Perfect examples are Greenaway or Von Trier films like, The Thief..etc or Dogville.

Well you've contradicted yourself by saying "it's all blatantly portrayed (?!) and shoved in your face" and then conceding that "yes, okay, there are strong political undertones and commentary". But yes, there are garish, comedic elements as well as serious commentary, and I don't think it would've worked as well had it just been a glum, somber affair - it's probably more comparable to something like A Clockwork Orange than anything you mentioned.

Even so, I'd argue it's not significantly more "blatant" than Greenaway's more over-the-top efforts (who, I think, took a lot of inspiration from The Devils), and while Von Trier's films may sometimes be more understated, he doesn't exactly shy away from practically telling you what he's trying to say with them (the planet is called Melancholia - wonder what that could be a metaphor for!) But then again, I completely disagree with your assertion that "true brilliance comes from subtlety", which is a meaningless sentiment and I could probably name hundreds or thousands of great films which couldn't really be described as "subtle". There's more than one way to make a good film, you know.

It sounds more to me that you just didn't like it, which is fine. It's an unusual film in many ways, but I'd recommend watching it again without some of the expectations you seemed to have this time around.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

I watched the EuroCult DVD version this morning and had largely the same reaction as the OP. The first hour and a half struck me as an amateur theater troupe performing a second-rate Monty Python sketch. The last 20-30 minutes I felt were a vast improvement. Oliver Reed's character becomes much more sympathetic, and the overall tone of the film becomes much less blunt and "in your face." I couldn't figure out why this was the case. Why do the first three-fourths of the film ring false but the last fourth ring true?

It also occurred to me while watching "The Devils" that this film pales in comparison to "The Exorcist," but I couldn't figure that out either. Both films have very similar themes. Both have "worldly" priests (Grandier and Damien)as a central character. Both are based on historical incidents as well as being based on noteworthy books, one by Aldous Huxley and the other by William Peter Blatty. Both films were released in the early 1970s. Both were distributed by Warner Brothers. Both were presented to the public as shocking and controversial. However, with one ("The Devils"), prints of home video releases have consistently been out of print and very difficult to obtain--to say nothing of not being shown on television. The other ("The Exorcist") has readily been available on home video and can occasionally be seen on television, albeit late at night. Why? Why is "The Exorcist" seen as a success--indeed, a landmark, must-see horror film--while "The Devils" has languished in cultural limbo?

I think the answer, or at least the start of an answer, is in the BBC documentary on the EuroCult DVD. Only twice in that documentary (and several times in this thread) did anyone mention the word "subtle." One was a Catholic priest who had a position with the Legion of Decency in the 1970s, and the other was Ken Russell. There is no subtlety in "The Devils," but it's the very thing that builds the suspense throughout "The Exorcist."

It's a crucial element, and it shows. If you look at the BBC documentary on the EuroCult DVD, several members of the cast and crew from "The Devils" are interviewed, and not one of them--not a single one--has a critical word to say about "The Devils." (And conspicuous by his absence: no archival footage of Oliver Reed singing the praises of "The Devils.") Everyone who had a paycheck riding on their involvement with "The Devils" do, however, vilify anyone who is critical of the film. There's a story told about how "The Devils" was given a pre-release screening for an audience of critics. Within ten minutes, all of them had their notebooks out and were furiously scribbling notes. The reaction of the crew members who were present: "Now what in the world could they possibly find fault with? How could they possibly *not* get it? Gosh, I guess we'd better get out of here and go get a drink, or otherwise we'll have to answer a whole bunch of questions." Then, after the film's release, the preeminent film critic of 1970s London published a scathing, less-than-stellar review. Additionally, according to Ken Russell, this critic also found fault with two incidents within "The Devils" that were of the critic's own invention. What exactly were these two incidents? I don't know. Ken Russell didn't bother to say during his interview. But he did say that at the time (Summer 1971) he did confront the critic about this and demanded an apology. You might say Ken Russell confronted the words, "Confess, confess!" . . . ya know, kind of like the ending of the film. The critic, much like Grandier, stood his ground and refused to apologize for anything. Ken Russell's reaction? He rolled up a copy of the critic's newspaper and bopped him on the head with it--again, not very subtle. Isn't it interesting how the provocateur never likes to be provoked?

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Lol I agree with that description.

reply share

add reply

formatting help