MovieChat Forums > The Devil's Advocate (1997) Discussion > Were we meant to take, and interpret, th...

Were we meant to take, and interpret, this movie literally or metaphorically?


I mean, a lot of this film if not all of it does seem like it maybe interpreted literally, but then, combined with that ending, which many people interpreted as Lomax' dream and how symbolic it mostly seems to me, it can be read metaphorically about the dark sides of the "lawyer" profession and how in order to succeed and do their job, they must "sell their souls to the Devil", so to speak.

When I first saw the movie I actually took the plot too literally and straightforward, about how it is basically about how a lawyer finds out that the main lawyer and owner of the law firm he meets happens to be the Devil and how this entails all sorts of trouble and how he must survive etc if not battle him, but many years and viewings later, I began to realize the symbols and metaphors contained within and how although yes it can be taken literally and at face value, it can also be viewed as a metaphor for those aforementioned things.

In many ways also, the movie, taking places in its own universe, is almost like a supernatural, horror and fantasy version of many familiar events that happen in our world and real life, including various aspects tied to the lawyer profession. Albeit this movie often puts a supernatural twist on them, for instance, its often the case in reality how victims of such violence that Charlize Theron's Mary Ann character experiences are often disbelieved and are difficult to prove etc but this movie adds the fantasy touch of having a supernatural evil being do it and in a fantasy manner of apparently also being able to be in two places at once.

Or the various aspects relating to human conscience, decision making, free will, law, capitalism, religion, choices, career, family, friends, temptations, mental illness, peer pressure, gender roles in society and the world in general. Or even good and evil.

And although it may seem like a plot hole, but its also interesting how at times even when characters experience contact with the supernatural evil as is portrayed in the movie, they still find and have time to worry about their own personal problems and what wrong decisions they may have made, although maybe for instance, some of them were not yet sure, like Mary Ann's character in that fashion store when she saw that demon face on that lady, if they were just hallucinations or real, and were maybe afraid to find out but did and it became too late.

Anyways, what do you think, thanks.

reply

I took it literally. My big disagreement was how they made a big deal about how man has "free will" (to choose between good and evil). The Bible says man has a sinful nature and is a slave to sin. That our hearts are wicked and yet this movie has you believe we have "free will" to choose between good and evil. This point is even demonstrated in the film by the fact even Kevin cannot resist engaging in some incest with his sister.

reply

But then at the end, he DOES resist the temptation to engage in incest with his sister and even, SPOILERS alert, shoots himself, apparently, to prevent having to father the Antichrist and possibly bring about apocalypse or something, cue to Al Pacino shouting "NOOOOOOOOOO".

reply

Lol. Al was brilliant as Satan and I think it was a very underrated role from Al just because the movie wasn´t considered very good.
RE: incest. Kevin doesn´t engage in sex with her but he lusts for her as well as briefly engages in foreplay with her. Jesus said, if you look at a woman with lust you have committed adultery with her in your heart. According to Jesus, Kevin would have committed adultery with his own sister. So yes, he did ultimately make the right decision but he still sinned on the way there. Not to mention, him earlier having successfully defended a paedophile, (Yes I am aware he got a "do-over" for preventing the birth of the anti-christ). The moral of the story seems to about having free will to do good but ironically this isn´t a Biblical message (despite the movie taking a lot of inspiration from it) since none of us are good, nor can we choose to "be good" in the eyes of God.

reply

The movie wasn't considered very good? By who? The movie is fucking classic. It's one of Al's best performances.

reply

It got very mixed reviews at the time, but I really liked it, & definately one of Al Pacino's best performances😎

reply

Wouldn't that be irrelevant within the world of the film? If Kevin's actions stop Satan and place Kevin into the "good" path, then wouldn't that just mean, theologically, that God elected for Kevin to perform a good action there?

reply

If you are replying to me. Isaiah 64:6. Our good deeds are like filthy rags in God´s eyes since they are tainted by our sins. So Kevin choosing to defy Satan in one instance, doesnt mean he is righteous.
"theologically, that God elected for Kevin to perform a good action there?" You might have misunderstood my theological position. We have autonomy over most of our choices (outside of choosing God to be saved), we can do "good", but because we do evil, our "good" is not considered good by God until we are washed of our sins by Christ by being born again.

reply

If Milton was able to reset the outcome of Lomax's decision, then it is likely that Lomax has been inveigled by Milton in the past. With such a thought, any feelings of triumph or free will are suddenly dispelled, because there is nothing preventing Milton from merely attempting to entice Lomax time and again, until he finally succumbs to his vanity and produces the antichrist.

reply

I didn't like the ending very much; it felt like the filmmakers hit the Randomize button and shuffled up several endings - all of which they used.

With that said, I didn't think that Milton was the one who reset everything. I got the impression that Kevin was being given another chance because of his sacrifice. He, at long last, resisted temptation. I think the reset was more about Divine Intervention. Milton is still in the mix because he's allowed to continue tempting Kevin.

There is something interesting about the idea that this either isn't the first time that the reincarnation has happened or that this is the first time in a long series of horror lives that Kevin will have to endure, like a demonic Groundhog Day.

reply

If it were Divine Intervention, then what would be the point if Milton could continue to tempt Kevin. By giving Milton another chance, God risks granting Milton more power. This is buttressed further by the idea of free-will. If Kevin has free-will, then there is always a chance with each reset that he will finally succumb to Milton's advances. This appears a very large risk for God to take, unless...

God is, as Milton suggests, "sick." Perhaps God knows that there is no free-will, knows that Kevin will continue to always foil Milton's advances every time a reset occurs, and is essentially toying with Milton. In such a scenario, he is also toying with Kevin, and now the audience must truly consider Milton's words: Is God just having fun toying with everyone, Milton included? Is everything a ruse? One big massive form of deranged entertainment?

This type of Gnostic-like interpretation may be what the director's were trying to accomplish.

reply

It might be similar to the Book of Job where God will allow Satan to interfere as a way to test and prove one of His faithful.

It could be that God is sick and just enjoys it, but I don't think so. It helps that this was coming from Satan. Milton himself says, "Consider the source," but I think the irony is that his own words are far more biased than God's.

How do we know this? Well, he's advocating selfish gain, abetting horrifying behaviour (murder, molestation), and he is actively encouraging incest. These are not good actions, so we can conclude that, within the film, Milton isn't on the level.

But God might still be doing this for his own amusement. But what if these tests weren't tests, but were refinements?

I seem to recall a myth of Siegfried - the German hero - forging his sword. The legend as I remember it goes that he crafted a blade, then beat it against the rocks until it broke. He took the shards and reforged them, over and over again, repeating the process dozens of times until his work was so perfect that even he could not shatter the blade, nor dull its edge. Now, I haven't been able to find a copy of that myth again, so I don't know where I heard it, but think now of Kevin's reincarnation.

At the end of the film, Kevin is still arrogant, but he's more careful about how he uses his talents. Perhaps each reincarnation will see him refined until he is a saint (or he breaks) and God is just putting him through Hell to strengthen him.

Yes, Gnosticism might be part of the worldview of the film. To be honest, I don't think the filmmakers were going for that. I think they bunked up the ending. I think they had a great ending, didn't want to close the movie on such a downer note, and walked it back. But they also wanted that cheeky, little twist - just to make people talk. I think it's more them trying to be deep than actually being deep - which they got to plenty with the rest of the film, frankly.

Whether intentional or not, however, we're talking, so I guess it worked. And, hey, I'm having fun pondering the spiritual and philosophical implications of the film, so it worked on that level, too.

While I'm not a fan of the ending, I do like the movie, and the interesting themes and ideas are a major part of that. Also the cinematography (this is such a good looking movie!)

reply

Ace, your points are thorough, concise, and difficult to contend. I am not tethered to any one theory regarding this film, so I appreciate your insights as always.

reply

Thank you for saying so!

I'm mostly just spitballing and playing around with the idea in the film. I wasn't expecting it to be as deep as it was. I was quite impressed.

reply

How do we know this? Well, he's advocating selfish gain, abetting horrifying behaviour (murder, molestation), and he is actively encouraging incest. These are not good actions

Speak for yourself buddy

(kidding)

reply

Sounds like your weekends are full.

reply

Join me

Diaboli virtus in lumbis est.

reply

Sounds a bit like solamen miseris socios habuisse doloris, to me...

reply

Join me

reply

That really depends on the interpretation of the Bible. Most theologians agree that man has a sinful nature, but plenty of interpretations hold to the idea that a person may choose the good - either turning to God or remaining in the thrall of the Devil.

The film's contention is that we have a sin nature (Kevin's urges and desires) and that we have a supernatural adversary, but that our responses to our nature and adversary are our own.

Calvinists might disagree, but there are other philosophical traditions within Christianity (and religion generally) that provide room for free will.

reply

Yeah you are talking about Arminianism/Synergism. The idea that man can freely choose God of his own volition. It has very scarce Biblical support though and the Biblical support it has must be twisted/cherry-picked to arrive at that conclusion. Arminianists generally disagree with Calvinism is because they don´t like the idea God chose who would be saved and who would be doomed before the world was created. They consider it unfair that not everyone has a chance to be saved but there is a plethora of scripture that supports Calvinism.

reply

My point is that disputes arise within the Church about free will, fate, and the Elect, and even within Calvinism, there is much discussion about how free man is to choose his own fate. There are a multitude of shades and nuances of belief, and I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss out-of-hand the notion that the Bible opts out on the subject of free will.

reply

Biblically speaking though, man has free will, he just does not have free will to save himself and choose to be saved. If God relied on man to make the choice to be saved, none of us would be saved since we all love and choose sin. Scripture says we all reject God and none seek God. Romans 3:11. Salvation is purely the work of God alone, he does not need to rely on man to make the "right choice" for salvation to take place. Ephesians 2:8-9.

reply

See, and even that isn't quite "God rules from His Heaven and man does as is ordained." Most agree that, Biblically-speaking, man has free will.

reply

"Most agree that, Biblically-speaking, man has free will."

When it comes to salvation most are wrong. See Romans 9:13-24.

reply

"Biblically speaking though, man has free will..."
-BillySlater

reply

Yes congrats on being able to quote someone mid-sentence, I also said, "just not to save himself". Free will is an ambiguous term anyway. Do you believe that drug addicts who talk to themselves have "free will"?

reply

I think the story is meant to be taken as literal (within the film world, at any rate), but I agree that it's symbolic of and commenting on philosophy, religion, and human nature.

With them seeing demons and other supernatural phenomena, it was mostly Theron, and the first few were mere glimpses. She'd write a lot of it off as, "No, it *couldn't* have been that..." Then, as the film goes on, she goes insane because of those experiences (plus the stress from Kevin's non-responses).

reply

"I think the story is meant to be taken as literal (within the film world, at any rate), but I agree that it's symbolic of and commenting on philosophy, religion, and human nature."

And even on law and especially LAWYERS for that matter - the moral and otherwise nature and the dark sides of that "profession".

reply

Absolutely. I can't believe I missed the lawyer thing. I'm more interested in the religion and human nature part, so I guess I overlooked the commentary on the legal profession and how many diabolical deals are cut every day in the offices of Dewey, Cheatem, and Howe.

reply

It's Faust, the classic theme of Western Civilization.

reply