criterionforum.org

As best I can figure out, we seem to have seen the British cut at Beyond Fest last night, on a really lovely 35mm print. If someone can point me to a definitive moment that only occurs in the British cut I could say with more certainty, but it definitely wasn't wanting for pubic hair and What seemed like coy evasiveness on the programmers' part in the lead-up to the screening actually struck me as delicately-worded legal maneuvering in person, as the programmers were seemingly unable to say precisely which cut was screening even immediately prior to rolling the film (they kept alluding to what they were "allowed" to say about this version). I'd be very curious to know the circumstances that made such a screening possible, especially if, as has been suggested, this was the cut that has never/rarely been screened in the US (they did hold to the notion that this was the third US screening of the print, ever, and even cited the locations where it had previously been shown, but I can't recall them).

After the film, they screened the clip from "Hell on Earth" that included the "Rape of Christ" scene--insisting that "nobody tell Warner Bros." we were watching it. Not ideal quality, of course, but still great that they thought to show it, and on the big screen, no less.

All told, it was a pretty incredible experience, regardless of which cut was shown. A powerful, troubling, exciting film. I'd love to see this get a definitive Blu-ray release.

I was also there last night, and being in the same boat of seeing it for the first time, my best guess is that it was the British cut of the film, too.

pzadvance wrote:If someone can point me to a definitive moment that only occurs in the British cut I could say with more certainty, but it definitely wasn't wanting for pubic hair and

SpoilerShow

there were a good few (disturbing) close-ups of Reed's crispy, well-done face at the end, to go off of criterion10's notes above.

pzadvance wrote:

SpoilerShow

Hopefully captveg can corroborate, but I recall seeing both that frame and close-ups of Reed throughout his speech, showing him get progressively more charred. Only once he's finished does the camera back off somewhat, presumably when it's no longer Reed in the flames.

That brief shot of the was certainly there.

And we definitely saw

Seems like it was certainly the UK Cut. Very impressive that this was able to have been shown, and hopefully it's a sign of good things to come! (although past experiences tell me that I shouldn't get too optimistic yet)

Between all the strange wording on Beyond Fest's part (and even telling me that they were showing the US Cut), I wonder if this was a print acquired through unconventional means and screened under Warner Bros.' radar.

Anyway, I certainly hope you two enjoyed the film; it's easily in my Top Ten of All-Time. (Be sure to check out some other Russell films!)

Just watched The Devils UK Cut on 35mm, and it was nothing short of astonishing, a masterpiece.

Alamo Drafthouse showing The Devils in a 35mm print from Warner Bros.

Runtime is listed as 111 minutes (the UK Cut), though who knows if that's accurate.

Is it irrational to view this as a sign that Warner Brothers is relaxing about the film? I recall Mark Kermode asking rather bluntly for the film to be released (as he has for a while) over a year ago in a blog post. I doubt it had any effect.

Does the film still spook Warner Brothers that much?

Our best chance is that Criterion pried it away, but I'm not holding my breath.

I think Alamo Drafthouse owns a print they regularly show in their theatres. I've seen it listed as playing at their other locations before.

Does anyone have any more reliable information about WHY Warner Brothers is so scared of this film being released? They have far worse in their catalog. I've seen a copy and I can't think of anything that should so scare them even after all this time? Is considered blasphemous or something?

Professor Wagstaff wrote:I think Alamo Drafthouse owns a print they regularly show in their theatres. I've seen it listed as playing at their other locations before.

They might, but that would surprise me, as WB is very litigious regarding privately-owned prints of their films (which is in stark contrast to studios like Paramount and Universal, who actively encourage repertory houses to screen collectors' prints and just pay for licensing fees).

Cinefamily in Los Angeles will be showing The Devils "35mm UK Cut" a few different nights in June as part of a series on witches.

pzadvance wrote:Cinefamily in Los Angeles will be showing The Devils "35mm UK Cut" a few different nights in June as part of a series on witches.

This may not mean much, but there are a number of West Coast screenings happening. The Hollywood Theatre in Portland is screening the UK cut on June 21st, then it's coming back for return engagements at the Cinefamily in July, and it's screening at the Landmark's Nuart on July 15th.

For those in the U.K., Sky Cinema (Sky Movies as was) currently has The Devils available to download and watch on demand.

The Devils is suddenly available to stream via Shudder. Sam Zimmerman said on Twitter that it is the same cut as the BFI DVD, at 109 minutes.

sir_luke wrote:Sam Zimmerman said on Twitter that it is the same cut as the BFI DVD, at 109 minutes.

Sadly, though unsurprisingly, Sam Zimmerman is wrong: I can confirm that this is the censored/Russell-disowned US cut, which in its native speed of 108-minutes, runs the same length as the PAL sped-up BFI/X-Rated UK Cut.

And other sites seem to be spreading the misinformation as wide as possible.

Bloody Disgusting wrote:Rare Unrated Cut of Controversial 1971 Film ‘The Devils’ Just Hit Shudder

That's because they're parroting an ill-informed press release without bothering to do any independent research.

My immediate reaction would have been extreme scepticism, and it looks as though it would be amply justified.

(And to back up what criterion10 says, a friend of mine did a side-by-side comparison between the Shudder version and an old US videotape of the R-rated cut: they were pretty much a perfect match.)

I just saw the film for the first time this weekend as I had always hoped there would be an official release.

My local arthouse got a print from WB and it was scope Eastman in optical mono with only one or two very brief pinkish shots-overall in amazingly good shape. The opening logo was a Kinney WB one so it looks to be an original release print.

I expected it to be the US cut but it appeared for all I could tell as the UK cut.
There were: I didn't notice anything else as I'm not hugely familiar with the film. Is there any definite shot that is in the UK but not the US cut?

These few screenings may mean the studio is finally loosening up...or someone in this particular department has no idea about the studio's refusal to release the film.

I'm certainly glad I waited to see it this way on the big screen. It's a truly powerful picture that should be available for all to see freely.

captainsolo wrote:These few screenings may mean the studio is finally loosening up...or someone in this particular department has no idea about the studio's refusal to release the film.

There have been a handful of screenings in the U.S. over the last several years. Apparently Warner's objections don't extend to the occasional repertory theater. However, it being available on Shudder is a promising new development.

captainsolo wrote:Is there any definite shot that is in the UK but not the US cut?

The shot you referenced of is definitely limited to the UK Cut.