(Ken Russell, 1971)
(essay by Troy)
Known primarily for it’s history of censorship*, I was actually first made aware of Ken Russell’s The Devils via Roger Ebert’s zero star review of it(the best line: “We are filled with righteous indignation as we bear witness to the violation of the helpless nuns, which is all the more horrendous because, as Russell fearlessly reveals, all the nuns, without exception were young and stacked.”).
I’m not quite sure what Ebert was thinking there, because Russell, though a bit of a bad-taste provocateur known for flamboyant style, uses his elaborate style to great affect here, crafting a harrowing and tragic look at how the persecutions of religious and political institutions are capable of destroying individuals. Or, as the lead character says near the end, it’s about those who would attempt to create “a new doctrine…especially invented for this occasion, the work of men who are not concerned with fact, or with law or with theology. But a political experiment to show how the will of one man can be pushed into destroying not only one man or one city, but one nation.”
I don’t often like to delve into wholesale plot recaps, but here will, as the underlying story is so critical to the greatness of the film.
France in the 17th Century. In the town of Loudon, the governor is dead, thrusting the vain and prideful, but beloved priest Urbain Grandier (Oliver Reed) into a position of power. The women of the town lust after him, stating “there’s a man well worth going to Hell for.” This status even extends to the nuns of the local convent, especially the hunchbacked Sister Jeanne (Vanessa Redgrave), who is sexually obsessed to the point that she fantasizes about him as Christ walking on water and as Christ crucified on the cross, herself licking his wounds while twitching with ecstasy.
Grandier, who has a known penchant for bedding the local females, is introduced to Madeleine (Gemma Jones). Madeleine functions as the sane version of Sister Jeanne — she also has affections for Grandier, but instead of fearing and repressing them and driving herself to insanity, she opens up to Grandier, which soon puts him on the path to redemption and spurring him to become closer to God. The two marry, in a secret ceremony. Once the news of this circulates around the town, Sister Jeanne, rebuffed by Grandier once again (he doesn’t even know of her existence) finally loses it and tells his colleague, Father Mignon, that Grandier bewitches her at night.
Meanwhile, Cardinal Richelieu begins machinations to tear down the fortifications of Loudon in order to control the city. However, with Loudon under the protection of King Louis XIII and Grandier too powerful a leader, he is unable to do so. Thus, he employs the devious Baron de Laubardemont (Dudley Sutton) to attempt to humble the progressive Grandier and remove him from power. Once the Baron finds out about Grandier’s marriage and Sister Jeanne’s revelation he posits that a magnificent spectacle is in order to truly take him down, calling in the services of “professional witchhunter” Father Barre (Michael Gothard), beginning the madness that drives the second half of the film.
At this point, the horror of the film truly begins with several visually extreme scenes, beginning with the inquisition and “forced exorcism” of Sister Jeanne, whereby Father Barre implements a rape-like “medical examination” and forced enema. The madness flows to the nuns, as they are incited into a theatrical, sexualized frenzy, as they are implored by Barre, “you will scream, you will blaspheme, you will no longer be responsible for your actions” (it’s made clear earlier that the nuns of the time were those that could not be married off and who had no vocation, thus their only choice was the convent, making them ripe for this kind of manipulation).
The opportunity for them to break free of their repressions is taken to an ultimate degree as they tear off their clothes in the church, beginning an orgiastic display of desecration, including that infamous moment of blasphemy, “the rape of Christ.” This spectacle goes on for days, with people coming from around the countryside to watch, including the King (at which point we get a great acknowledgement that many of the people involved know this is nothing more than a performance, yet they continue to go along as if it was “real”). The madness is enhanced with a final series of quick shots alternating between Father Mignon and an array of naked nuns on the ground, Russell’s camera zooming in and out on both with such fury and speed that it creates an almost vertiginous effect.
It’s the preceding segment that many point to when they speak of Ken Russell’s over-the-top excessiveness, and yes, it is surely there. However, just as the film seems to be running off the tracks, turning into farce, Russell manages to find a way to ground the proceedings juxtaposing the sheer insanity taking place in Loudon, by interspersing it with humanistic and pastoral scenes of Grandier taking Communion as he proclaims to God that he is now “fortified to change.” Once lost, his life now has meaning in serving and protecting the people of Loudon, his wife, and God. This provides enough humanistic realism that it even reveals the Loudon scenes to be even more crazed and surreal, eliciting a truly horrifying audience response.
Arriving back in town, Grandier stops the debacle at the church, which he is ultimately blamed for inciting. Grandier is arrested and a mockery of a trial is performed. The nuns and others in the city are coerced into signing confessions against him and he is quickly found guilty and sentenced to death. Grandier goes through a series of tortures, all in an attempt to coerce a confession out of him. Again, Russell is sure to keep Grandier human throughout the process, making the grand nature of his punishment even more tragic. You can see the fear in his eyes and hear it in his words. He refuses to confess, nor will he ask forgiveness (an implicit confession), so his legs are broken and he is forced to crawl to the stake, still unwilling to confess, even to end his pain. This proves to Mignon that he is innocent and sends Barre into even more demented ravings, as he lights him on fire.
Key to the film’s visual power is the production design by Derek Jarman. He creates a world half way in between reality and dream. The exteriors are all white buildings and spires set against the overcast white sky, while inside the white faux-brick and marble is blended with the white outfits of the nuns and priests. The knowledge that we are looking at a sound stage creates an unreal, otherworldly feel that adds to the discord of what is happening on-screen. Particular intriguing to me is a room that Sister Jeanne enters to see Grandier. The door of it is shaped almost like her contorted back, two askew angles that cause a sense of disorientation. Furthering the discord is avant-garde composer Peter Maxwell Davies score. Russell wanted a “disturbing, echoing resonance” and Davies provides that. In each scene that revolves around the maniacal happenings, the music reaches a fever pitch with a cacophony of instruments and sounds all crashing together at once.
Russell has also crafted deeply resonant main characters, especially in Grandier and Sister Jeanne, along with colorful supporting characters. Reed, as Grandier, stands out amongst the actors, providing 70′s style sexual magnetism and showing Grandier a flawed but faithful man, truly striving to be closer to God, but never shown as a saint (I particularly love the scene where he asks to see his beautiful hair one last time before it is cut off – he doesn’t ever “perfect” himself in his final martyr-like moments.). The moments up to and including his death provide a real horror and disgust that may not have been possible were it not Reed performing the role. Meanwhile, Redgrave provides a frightening portrayal of what happens when a person has no outlets, showcasing the path from repression to guilt to denial to madness that Sister Jeanne undergoes. The supporting cast is just as able, the performances ranging from supremely camp, with Gothard’s lunatic witchfinder going the most appropriately over the top, to those that keep things grounded in some sense of reality, namely Jones as Madeleine.
But it’s the final few minutes that truly haunt. As Grandier burns, he flesh bubbling and charring before our eyes, the crowd laughs and dances and chants at him, the father of a woman he impregnated even holding up Grandier’s son and saying “[L]ucky little bastard, it’s not everyday baby sees daddy burn to death.” Even as this is all going on, Grandier faith does not waver and he tries to be noble to the end, imploring the people of the town that they have been tricked and they must protect their city. He is proven right as immediately after he is dead, the Baron blows up the walls of the city. Russell pulls no punches here, provides no over-the-top excess to leaven the horror, just a terrifyingly surreal vision of the death and destruction that can come from repression, bloodlust, abuse of power, corruption, and persecution.
(See more screencaps at Troy’s blog, here)
*Of course, much of the notoriety surrounding the film is derived from its history of censorship and lack of a proper DVD release. I’m going to ignore that aspect of the conversation here and instead point you to watch Mark Kermode’s documentary Hell on Earth here for the full story.
(this film appeared on Troy’s list at #16, Robert’s at #33, and Jamie’s at #66)








“I’m not quite sure what Ebert was thinking there, because Russell, though a bit of a bad-taste provocateur known for flamboyant style, uses his elaborate style to great affect here, crafting a harrowing and tragic look at how the persecutions of religious and political institutions are capable of destroying individuals…”
Just what the doctor ordered – a superlative Troy Olson treatment of Russell’s masterpiece, a film of exceeding visceral power. I saw this two months ago at “Russellmania” at the Walter Reade Theatre in Manhattan in a (surprisingly) beautiful print. The notorious “Rape of Christ” sequence was not present in this print, thou various booties still circulating (including one I now have) do have it. There is really so much that can be said here, so I’ll just wait to see if the comment thread takes off before returning. It is of course criminal that Warners has avoided releasing a legitimate uncut DVD of it. It’s tantamount to censorship.
Troy, even with your excellent work for this countdown you have really exceeded yourself here!
It seems to me that Warners should just sell the print to Criterion or some other boutique label, as they would all gladly want to sell it and could probably do pretty good business with it, even if it’s only due to its notoriety.
Besides, is there really any chance that a furor is going to be raised 40 years later over this film (assuming this is what holds Warners from releasing it)? Highly doubtful it would even register…
Really fantastic review here Troy of a film that I’d think would be difficult to write about (and not succumb to cliche). But again, you provide great coverage.
I watched this for the countdown again, and I’m always increasing amazed how Russell pulls this off; it’s so over the top and bombastic, but it never is ‘shlocky’ or absurd (at least to me it isn’t). He really could have missed on this–and miss badly– but it never seems childish or ridiculous. Compared to say exploitation master Juan López Moctezuma’s ALUCARDA (a film that many horror fans like), which is laughable, Russell makes a great thought provoking film about Religion that does scare you.
_ _ _
Russell is a good Horror director as he’s returned to the genre many times producing many good films, along with this I also included THE LAIR OF THE WHITE WORM on my list, and I like GOTHIC too, though it missed out of the top 100.
I also must mention how much I like two Russell films that are pretty trashy: WHORE, and specifically CRIMES OF PASSION. THe latter being a pretty stylish thriller.
Wow Jamie I always considered Whore to be one of the worst films ever made by a major director. I found it so inept in every conceivable department. The acting is especially cringe worthy. I would straight up say that even Showgirls (and not in a ironic schlocky sort of way) is a better acted and composed piece of cinema. Both are absolute garbage but Whore is total excrement personified. When people ask me what is the worst movie I have ever seen….. the two most popular choices that rise up from my brain are Whore and Howard The Duck. The Devils on the other hand is a very good movie. I just don’t see how its a horror film…….. I thank Sam for sending me a copy to view for the first time. I don’t quite consider it a masterpiece as it feels slightly heavy handed. Also attacking organized religion for it’s stupidity is like shooting fish in a barrel. I can cheer along with everyone else but afterwards I just feel empty. It’s too easy a target to really motivate more passionate emotions.
Oh yeah, WHORE is complete garbage… but garbage I get a kick out of.
and as bad as HOWARD THE DUCK and WHORE are if those are the two worst films you’ve ever seen, I envy you… you’ve somehow been able to steer clear of the trashiest of the trash. I must assume this is because you are not a huge Horror fan (as the 80′s direct to video market produced much true shit, same for the action genre).
Though I love some of it… when it’s fun of course (see 1982′s PIECES that was covered in the Horror countdown earlier).
Cobra and Over The Top with Stallone are pretty bad. My father loved those films when I was a kid. I think he inadvertently destroyed my soul by allowing me to watch that dreck with him. I swear I will force my future kids to only watch Citizen Kane and 1940-50′s film noirs!!!!!! No low brow entertainment until legal drinking age………. :0)
I really think a film fan that can see value or fun in JUNGLE ASSAULT, COLD FIRE, FRANKENHOOKER, PIECES etc. are a rare breed… but a breed I align myself with.
COBRA’s bad, but next to say, FUTURE FORCE it’s really nothing. Then there’s the creme de la creme like VICE SQUAD. That one’s actually great. I shudder at the thought of having children, but if I did I’d have no problem giving the widest possible film experience. After all, I’ve already waded through it and have sufficiently picked out the diamonds in the rough which is the real laborious task.
(but yeah OVER THE TOP is bad, it’s not even fun, or laughable. When trash is faux sentimental, that’s when it’s REAL bad IMHO)
OVER THE TOP rules because, see, he’s arm wrestling for the custody of his son and when he turns his hat around, it’s like flipping a switch. Also: Kenny Loggins. (I prefer the Rifftrax version of this, as it takes it from unwatchable to brilliant). COBRA is kind of fun in how over-the-top it is (pun intended), but it’s no COMMANDO or ROADHOUSE in terms of goofy, mindless action.
I know it’s kind of cliche now, but TROLL 2 and THE ROOM truly are as bad (hilariously so) as their reputations state them to be. I can watch either a million times over and always get a laugh, though.
I still haven’t seen this film, and wouldn’t mind a copy. Russell’s “Tommy”and “The Music Lovers” have long been among my favorites, but with this film he chatered a different -and controversial- course. Too bad about Warner Brothers.
I just looked up his LAIR OF THE WHITE WORM, Ebert provides one of the funniest passages of a review I’ve ever read:
“It provides you with exactly what you would expect from a movie named “The Lair of the White Worm.” It has a lair, it has a worm, the worm is white and there is a sufficient number of screaming victims to be dragged down into the lair by the worm.”
Lol that is a great passage. Ebert can be humorous at times. To me the funniest critic is Armond White. I’m sure anyone that visits Rotten Tomatoes knows what I’m talking about. His pieces are pompous and unintentionally humorous, but the feedback he produces is epic.
White belongs in the category of “is he putting us on?” (ala Glen Beck re our previous conversation). I dug him a while back – he is good at calling other critics out on their shit – but he became so predictably offbeat. His ideology is so wacky yet consistent you have to wonder (black-directed film = good (unless it’s Spike Lee), Spielberg or De Palma = manna from heaven, critically praised art film post-2000 (even Army of Shadows, which came out in France 40 years ago but made the top 10s of all the wrong people when it hit stateside) = overrated garbage, critically praised art film pre-2000 = even better than you heard, cliched studio product – particularly sports film = honest, non-hipster “working class” art, anything anti-Bush = elitist intellectual garbage, anything by Noah Baumbach = monkey excrement – though after Margot I can’t really blame him. No what would he do with a critically praised Lee-Baumbach-Spielberg co-production about a come-from-behind Southern high school football team which includes a villainous coach who says “You’re either with us or against us?” I think his head might explode.)
Have you ever read this? Pretty funny:
That’s a fantastic review. Ebert in full on heel mode is always good for a laugh.
I also laugh a bit at Ebert’s review of THE DEVILS considering less than one year earlier BEYOND THE VALLEY OF THE DOLLS was released (scripted by Ebert) and is every bit as sensational as Russell’s film, and far, far sillier at its core.
yep, I always think that when Ebert righteously mock’s a film. Oh it’s not as good as ‘Beyond the Valley of the Dolls’? Though I give him credit most critics never enter the filmmaking arena.
Oops, didn’t include the link. Here it is:
http://themanfromporlock.blogspot.com/2009/06/armond-white-reviews-my-breakfast.html
Lol awesome…..
Also, stumbled across this not-entirely-unsympathetic article while looking for the previous piece. Makes a good read, especially the last passage which made me smile. God bless the crazy old loon…
http://nymag.com/movies/profiles/54318/
I haven’t seen The Devils, but I want to.
But I wanted to say this about Armond White: I don’t like him. Many find him funny, but I think he’s just boring, I can’t read any of his reviews entirely, he just confuses me, he tries to demonstrate some kind of wisdom that maybe he has but not many else has, and his own arguments contradict themselves, while he praises a movie for a reasons, he dumps another for the same one.
That’s it, I don’t wanna pay attention to that man anymore, I think he’s playing a character and it’s just a troll.
Jaime: I will send you an e mail tomorrow about THE DEVILS on DVD.
I can’t blame you for feeling that way about White. He is inconsistent, and he does come off as a major troll. His writing may be seductive, but he is easy to see through!
Just to come back to The Devils, Reed was never better in my expreience. Nunsploitation is a recognized subgenre that often carries a horrific vibe. It has something to do with the demoralization of sacred innocence, I suppose, whether the devil is literally involved or not. Even Black Narcissus has its eerie or outright scary moments. On top of this generic horror, Russell’s film piles on the dystopian terror of state power dedicated to cruelty. It wouldn’t necessarily have popped into my mind automatically as a horror film, but it’s easy for Troy to make a strong case for inclusion here.
This is the best Reed’s best performance I’ve ever seen, though I’ve not seen nearly enough of his entire career for that to carry a ton of weight.
Samuel (and do you prefer Sam or Samuel…sorry, but I always forget) brings up a great, great point in referencing “nunsploitation” that points to a specific type of horror that can be hit from several angles — that of the possible outcome of extreme repression and, as you so succinctly put it, the “demoralization of sacred innocence.” Both are on display in THE DEVILS and both provoke a distinct abjection in the viewer, which helps define the film as horror (though, there is also the torture and burning at the stake genre element which push things to the horrific side of the scale, even if the film has elements of satire and drama, besides that).
I’ve seen all the comments and have been a bit too busy to reply to them, but I hope to have time by the end of the weekend.
BRAVO used to run a truncated version of this film when the station was in its infancy. It was a jumbled mess, and I never really understood what the hell the whole thing was about, nevermind I was also in my early teens when it was being shown.
Forgotten, I haven’t thought of this film at all until SCHMULEE mentioned it as part of the Russell festival, where our dear leader here at WITD gave me a quick but detailed history on the director and likened this film as a forgotten masterpiece of the macabre. Now, along with the new critical response, he comes WITD praising the film.
I HAVE TO SEE THIS ONE…
Yet another on your list, Dennis. If you have the time after watching the ones that have piqued your interest, please do go back and comment on them so we can keep some of the older conversations going!