Movie news on your iPhone today!
Advertisement
Sign in
Username   Password         Forgot password?
Wanna join? Sign up
Find movies you'll love

BigJeffLebowski Blog

  • "Hell will hold no surprises for you."

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    The Devils  (1971)

    Metropolis  (1927)

    Bold, brutal, blasphemous, and utterly brilliant, Ken Russell's The Devils is easily one of the most unjustly overlooked films of its time, surely due in no small part to its limited availability.  Taking place in 1634, the film explores the unconscionable atrocities committed by the Catholic church in the seventeenth century, especially in regard to social and sexual politics.

    As Urbain Grandier, a French priest whose interpretation of the clergy allows for sexual daliance, Oliver Reed gives one of the most underrated performances of the '70s.  He is galvanizing: powerful, charismatic, and sympathetic.  Even his questionable actions and beliefs are rendered understandable, if not likable, by his charm and presence in the role.  "Saint Paul says that he who marries does a good thing," Grandier is admonished, "but he who remains chaste does something better," to which he simply responds, "Then I am content to do a good thing, and leave the best to those that can face it."

    Vanessa Redgrave, in one of her earlier performances, is also superb as Sister Jeanne, the head nun whose obsession with Grandier is the impetus for the rampant sexuality that overtakes the convent and, subsequently, the Cardinal's takeover of Loudon.  That hers is not the most memorable performance is not a criticism of her, but rather a compliment to the entire cast; rarely has Russell assembled a troupe of actors who get his twisted blend of history, satire, and surrealism as well as he has here.

    And what a unique blend it is.  The film is joyfully anachronistic, with sets admittedly modelled less after Victorian architecture than after Fritz Lang's Metropolis.  (And by Derek Jarman, no less.)  Russell's pageantry is not of the stuffy variety one usually expects of a period piece; instead, his brilliant screenplay comes to vivid life with the kind of absurd theatricality to which only 1971 could give birth.  Everything about the film is bold: its colors, its sets, its costumes, its performances, they all jump off of the screen with a brazen confidence that defies you to turn away, knowing well that you won't, in spite of your outrage at what you're seeing.

    This is marvelously subversive cinema, a film with ideas and the conviction to deliver them as fearlessly and as confrontationally as possible.  The Devils is less cautionary than A Clockwork Orange, less willfully obtuse than The Holy Mountain, and less obstinately grotesque than Salo or the 120 Days of Sodom; yet it stands easily alongside these classics and paints, along with them, a picture of a disquieted generation learned enough to understand its place within a greater context yet determined to fight oppression in all its forms.  If ever there was a film absolutely begging to be brought back into the spotlight by the Criterion Collection, The Devils is that film.


  • "The lord used you, brother."

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    There are many people who will find David Petersen's documentary Let the Church Say Amen inspiring.  I am not one of them.  This is not to say that there are not individuals portrayed in the film whose personal crusades are inspiring, but I am not of the school of thought that the benefits of religion -- specifically organized religion -- outweigh its detriments.

    The film follows the proprietors and congregants of the World Missions for Christ Church in Washington DC.  Battling poverty, hunger, drugs, violence, and mass dismissal by the affluent, these people fight a never ending crusade to help themselves and their brethren rise above their regrettable situation.  Many of these individuals have stories which are touching, but their militant theism is alienating.  It is not enough for Pastor Bobby Perkins and his brothers and sisters to help the destitute; all the good in the world it seems must be done by and for Jesus Christ.

    The old saw that "God helps those who help themselves," is possibly the greatest example of a pernicious, self fulfilling prophecy ever recorded and the most transparent proof of organized religion's gleeful appropriation of autarchic acts of altruism and chance; that theists will still use this expression unironically baffles me.  And this is what upsets me the most about institutions such as the World Missions for Christ Church.  Why must the benevolence of these groups be so rooted in religious fundamentalism?  I am of the opinion that organized religion -- and the concept of the afterlife, specifically -- developed as an empty solace for those who wondered, What is the point of this after we die?  Rather than embrace the temporal nature of life, and in doing so value every choice and every action that much more, so many of us prefer to believe that there is an eternal reward waiting for us on another plane.

    I could argue (as I have frequently to many people) that the question of an afterlife is irrelevant.  All of our knowledge comes through our physical experiences, experiences which are filtered through our five senses.  Without our physical bodies, we would experience the afterlife in ways we cannot even fathom now; we would be entirely different beings in an entirely different context with no relation to who we were before our death.  This seems self evident to me.  It also seems largely hypothetical, as I don't believe in an afterlife of any sort.  But regardless, I am still hard pressed to understand why so many people in our world need the hollow comfort of organized religion.  I am not one of those agnostics who will attack religion on all fronts; rather, I accept and appreciate the good that it does for those who live better lives for it.  What bothers me is the inability of those people to accept an objective, relativist view of life and act generously to their fellow men for reasons that are not self serving.  For ultimately, isn't all of this a little selfish?  Aren't we all just trying to secure ourselves a spot in heaven with the angels?  And escape eternal damnation and hellfire?

    I admittedly haven't said much about the film, which is a competent, if somewhat uneven documentary.  But when you're shouting at people with megaphones and singing "We're gonna kick the devil's butt!" with the fervent zeal of a man possessed by some unholy spirit, you can surely understand having a reaction more than a response.


 

Like what you're reading?

Subscribe
Search
  Go

Browse previous
<January 2008>
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
303112345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
272829303112
3456789


Categories
 


Advertisement