BEFORE: And now for the original, which has been recommended to me over and over by my BFF Andy. (I suppose I'm also going to have to watch "The Stunt Man" at some point too...) But of course, I rely on word of mouth, along with movie reviews and sometimes pop culture references in general to point me in the direction of movies I haven't seen. How else would I know what movies to watch, without having seen them?
Wow, really no good links tonight - the most direct one is an actor named William Marquez, who played one of the drug dealers (I think) in last night's "Bedazzled" and was also in the film "Best Defense" with Dudley Moore (last seen in "Crazy People"), but that feels almost like cheating, relying on character actors.
THE PLOT: A short order cook, infatuated with the waitress who works with him, prepares to end it all when he meets the devil and sells his soul for seven wishes.
AFTER: My lead-in tonight was the Summer Olympics closing ceremony/aging rock-star concert, which of course was all London-themed (except for the end, after passing the torch to Rio). I enjoyed Russell Brand's take on "I Am the Walrus" and Eric Idle's appearance to sing "Always Look on the Bright Side of Life", complete with dancing nuns and centurions, making for a good intro to a British comedy. The rest of the concert, Madness and Spice Girls and George Michael's strange facial hair, didn't really interest me.
Andy wants to know why anyone would remake "Bedazzled" - the remake was directed by Harold Ramis, so regardless of the outcome, perhaps he was a fan of British comedy, and he wanted to take this simple, not-widely-seen film and update it with more modern special effects and sensibilities. I have to point out that the FX budget for the original seemed quite low - I think they did fine with what they had to work with, but it definitely has a sort of low-rent feel to it.
Anyway, comparing the two films, I think the 1967 version is a better film overall, but in addition to better effects, the 2000 remake had a better ending with regards to the loophole. Yes, there has to be a loophole in the contract, otherwise we just watch a man sign away his soul, briefly enjoy his wishes, and then get cast into the pit of hellfire. That might have worked back in 1800's German literature, but today's audiences want light comedies, and we want our heroes to succeed. Perhaps we see a bit of Stanley Moon in ourselves, and we want him to do well.
The remake sort of took the Devil and the Lust characters and combined them, turning the Devil into a hot babe - well, the devil should be a temptress, right? In the original, he's a well-dressed prankster, always sowing chaos in the world by ripping out the last pages of mystery novels, cutting off shirt buttons, that sort of thing. Anything to get people to commit sins of anger counts toward his goals.
Plus he runs a sort of nightclub/boarding house where the 7 Deadly Sins crash, in their human forms. Anger is just a bouncer-type guy wearing a "Make War" t-shirt (see? low-budget...) and Gluttony is just a fat woman. Satan, or George if you prefer, has a pretty nice wardrobe, and with his Beatle-like haircut, he sort of reminded me of George Harrison. And he never really seems "evil", which I suppose is part of his charm. He freely admits that he lies all the time (including lying about lying all the time, which is a paradox of sorts) and seems genuinely sorry for never quite allowing Stanley's fantasies to come true.
Here Satan serves a purpose, and in fact claims to be working for God - how else would God know who succumbed to earthly temptations and who didn't? It's all one big competition between them, battling for souls, and sinners can always repent at the last minute, which explains why the Devil has to resort to signing bonuses. I can get behind this concept, the Devil's just misunderstood and he's just a player in the game (or, perhaps he's lying...).
I have to say I'm kind of split on this one - there were a few clever asides, but nothing that really made me laugh. I appreciated the spin on the Devil, but I didn't feel that Stanley's soul was ever really in peril. It all comes down to the tone, and this was just a bit dry for my tastes. Then it just got a bit too silly in the last fantasy sequence.
Also starring Peter Cook, Raquel Welch (last seen in "Chairman of the Board"), Eleanor Bron, with a cameo from Barry Humphries (the future "Dame Edna").
RATING: 6 out of 10 pigeons
It's not meant to be a "consume the world in hellfire, accompanied by brilliant special effects" sort of story. It's intentionally small, which backs up this wonderful image of Lucifer and his low-key role on Earth. He can ruin the earth by unleashing hordes of murderers...or he can just wear us all down by lowering our expectations a little bit every year. I love that his whole day, when not collecting souls, is devoted to hiding "Wet Paint" signs and making parking meters trip before time is elapsed.
ReplyDeleteAnd the whole point is that Stanley doesn't NEED to find the loophole that every story finds in a deal with the devil. George decides to tear it up. He has more souls than he actually needs and there's really nothing personal about his business. What does he care, really?
I love this movie. True, I love the showcase of Cook and Moore more than than any other element, but it's that kind of a movie.
It's interesting to me that the Devil himself got caught in a loophole. After he reached his quota, he decided to do a good deed, which made him feel great. But then when he reported to God, God asked him if he had wavered at all in his calling, or shirked his duties in any way.
ReplyDeleteThe way I read it, for the Devil, doing a good deed meant that he HAD wavered in his calling. Declaring that Satan is on God's payroll, or subject to God's technicalities, was a pretty bold statement for a film made in 1967. Some may have even found that blasphemous.
In its own way, putting Satan at God's mercy, showing him eager to get back into the kingdom of heaven, almost makes him a sympathetic character. It goes against the standard paradigm of "Paradise Lost", which states that it's better to rule in hell than to serve in heaven.
And yes, the friendship of Cook and Moore was evident, it sort of carried over to where I could almost believe that Satan let him out of the deal because he found something close to a friend. But how can you tell when the Prince of Lies is being sincere?
By "loophole", I just meant the way that our hero gets out of the deal. Still, I liked the ending of the crappier remake just a bit better. I'd prefer to outwit the Devil than to rely on his good nature.