MovieChat Forums > The Devils (1971) Discussion > Perhaps the most ambiguous and interesti...

Perhaps the most ambiguous and interesting dialogue in the film

posted 14 years ago by cult_classics
19 replies | jump to latest

Father Mignon: My cousin tells me his daughter is pregnant, you have your whores, why do you need to make it with her?

Father Grandier: It seemed a way

Father Mignon: A way to what?

Father Grandier: Understand at last that all worldy things have a single purpose for a man of my kind; power, politics, riches, women, pride, ambition. I choose them with the same care your cousin Mr. Trincant might select a weapon, my intention is different you see. I need to turn them against myself

Father Mignon: ... and bring about your own end?

Father Grandier: I have a great need to be united with God.

Father Mignon: You are a blasphemy to your cloth.

"Confess quickly! If you hold out too long you could jeopardize your credit rating."

[–] foxonthedocks 14 years ago

A few corrections.

Mignon. Why did you have to make it with her?

Grandier. ..your cousin Mr Trincant.

Grandier: You see, I need to turn them against myself.

Mignon: And bring about your own end?

In John Whiting's play, Grandier is portrayed as somebody who deliberately creates powerful enemies to bring about his own destruction as a means of transcendence, and the play is full of existential angsty dialogue like this. But Russell jettisons this theme and I've never really understood why he retained this section. In Russell's film, Grandier is a fighter, nothing like Whiting's introspective philosopher, who is very much a product of the 1960s.

[–] cult_classics 14 years ago

I liked the ambiguity of Russell's film, especially in that scene, as oppossed to it's just this or it's just that.

Btw, is that correction from The Devils script?

"Confess quickly! If you hold out too long you could jeopardize your credit rating."

[–] foxonthedocks 14 years ago

Oh, I agree with you entirely about the ambiguity. I like the way it poses issues and questions and doesn't tie everything up all nice and neat like a modern glossy Hollywood product.

The corrections are from Whiting's play... and from obsessive viewings of the movie!

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] zachlen48 14 years ago

You mean,"Do you know why most of us are here. Most of the nuns here is because there wasn't enough money at home to provide them with dowreys, Ha Ha Ha.or unmariageable because ugly or burdened with a family, Ha Ha Ha ............

[–] foxonthedocks 14 years ago

..because they're ugly or a burden to the family.

or is it ..a burden to their family. ?

[–] richmondhill 14 years ago

It's "...a burden to their family". Also, for what it's worth, the earlier snatch of dialogue should read as a "...a blasphemy to your CROSS", not cloth.

[–] zachlen48 14 years ago

Satan is ever ready to seduce us with sensual delights.Ha Ha Ha."

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] zachlen48 14 years ago

That is the first time meeting her.Then she turns around. The shape of her back, under her habit,leaves us to believe something is very wrong with this picture. Then we discover what it is.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] zachlen48 14 years ago

You'll not only be punished in this world, but the next one as well". GREAT LINE. Russell reversed it from the play.Much better this way.

[–] cult_classics 14 years ago

Also, for what it's worth, the earlier snatch of dialogue should read as a "...a blasphemy to your CROSS", not cloth.

Thanks for this correction. I think this scene and dialogue is important in that it seems to show Grandier wasn't quite the heroic good guy that many have made him out to be. His rebellious "united with God" bit seems to suggest that his "martyrdom" wasn't quite a surprise and could be seen more as a carefully orchestrated mockery. I did always wonder how the real Father Grandier who supposedly cared about his city and people would allow the powers-that-be to come down so hard on those around him. It's almost as if he didn't really care that his proclivities were hurting those around him, or even possibly yet as suggested in that mass grave dialogue, that it was all part of some elaborate plan to 1.) discredit the possibility of real evil and 2.) cause a whole lot more suffering in "God's name".

I think this same ambiguity was also heavily explored in The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus which also features those medieval "breaking wheels" seen during the outro of The Devils. I believe there is a lot of similiarities between Grandier and the God-mocking Nick and Tony in The Imaginarium, in that they both pretend full-time to be charming good guys, but at the end of the day are really just narcissistic, egomaniacal, minsanthropic dirtbags that we the audience can't help but to partially (some more than others) get behind.

After umpteen viewings of both films however, i'm leaning towards the possibility that all three characters are figuratively the same and it was the director's intention to either fool us, or to at least make us think about that almost invisible line between good and evil.

"You wouldn't know crazy if Charles Manson was eating Fruit Loops on your front porch."

[–] zachlen48 14 years ago

Grandier does admit to Father Mignon during the mass burial that one of his great purposes in life was to distroy himself. but no one should need to suffer like he did for a few f--cks.

[–] cult_classics 14 years ago

Grandier wasn't the only one to suffer though, his actions and lack of responsibility ended up fueling the beginning of long history of similiar incidents all across France. He essentially helped open the door for a whole lot of uneccessary suffering. For what? So he could feed his insatiable ego as another lechorous priest who liked young and impressionable souls?

I personally never saw the reason to romanticize the guy. I mean one can easily take that stance from the point of the selective anti-religionist, but who again did Grandier want to be one with?

"You wouldn't know crazy if Charles Manson was eating Fruit Loops on your front porch."

[–] zachlen48 14 years ago

You have got to be Catholic, and rather radical at that.Your blaming Grandier for all the witch trials that spread through Europe after these events is rather foolish.There was no way he could have imagined this outcome. Why would anyone imagine such insanity occuring. He very well knew his Catholic guilt but not what he was being accused of. He could not lie to save his soul.He died a real Cathloic.Don't think there is a Cathloic today who would go through such torture and NOT give in. That includes you.

[–] cult_classics 14 years ago

Having entered a Catholic church one single time in my life to satisfy an inlaw's family during a wedding and all the high impact aerobics involved, kneel, pray, kneel, pray was enough torture for me.

I didn't solely blame Grandier either, i said he essentially helped open the door for more suffering by the way of his own self-importance. So no, i'm neither Catholic, nor a radical. I'm just saying, Grandier knew somewhere in his mind he would not be the only one to suffer for his actions. He either didn't care about those others or had some very bizarre ulterior motive.

If he was a good Catholic or "real" Catholic he would have behaved like a gentleman and not given the powers that be any help in wiping out the Huguenots and others. Grandier basically played the role of the perfect problem that gave way to a reaction he should have seen coming that ultimately gave the political and religious powers their much desired solution.

"You wouldn't know crazy if Charles Manson was eating Fruit Loops on your front porch."

[–] ciprianl 9 years ago

"... a blasphemy to your CROSS" makes no sense, whereas "a blasphemy to your cloth" does mean blasphemy against his vocation, since Grandier was a priest, a man of the cloth.