The Dark Secrets of The Devil's Advocate: Controversial Film History
Table of Contents
- Introduction
- The Controversial Release of "The Devil's Advocate"
2.1 The Plot of the Film
2.2 Unwanted Attention and Legal Issues
- The Lawsuit Against Warner Brothers and Frederick E. Hart
3.1 Allegations of Copying and Perversion
3.2 The Demand for Settlement
- Warner Brothers' Response and Compromise
4.1 Home Video Release and Sculpture Alterations
4.2 Use of CGI to Rectify the Issue
- The Impact on the Film and Audience Reception
5.1 Changes in the Sculpture's Appearance
5.2 Confusion and Pacing Issues
- Evaluation of the Changes Made
6.1 Controversy around Religious Interpretation
6.2 Perceptions of Christianity and Satanism
- How to Identify the Original Release
- The Rarity and Value of Unaltered DVDs
- Conclusion
- FAQs
🎞️ The Controversial Release of "The Devil's Advocate"
In the realm of home video history, there exist films that were banned and hidden away from the public eye. One such example is "The Devil's Advocate," released by Warner Brothers in 1997. This movie faced numerous challenges, including sex scandals, legal battles, and creative disputes, leading to its rare versions remaining unseen by most audiences. In this article, we will delve into the controversies surrounding the film's release, the legal issues it faced, and the alterations made to the original picture. Join us as we venture into the darkest corners of home video history.
2. The Controversial Release of "The Devil's Advocate"
2.1 The Plot of the Film
"The Devil's Advocate" tells a gripping story of greed, seduction, and politics. Keanu Reeves portrays an ambitious young lawyer lured astray by his employer, played by Al Pacino, who is revealed to be none other than the devil incarnate. This timely tale, adapted from an earlier script by the controversial Larry Cohen, attracted attention for its provocative themes and exceptional performances.
2.2 Unwanted Attention and Legal Issues
Unfortunately, the film garnered unwanted attention from religious advocacy groups and found itself mired in legal trouble with the National Cathedral in Washington. The Cathedral, along with renowned sculptor Frederick E. Hart, alleged that the film not only imitated but also perverted Hart's artwork displayed at the Cathedral. They claimed that the film debased and distorted the profound beauty of God's creation by depicting the carved figures engaging in sexual acts.
The lawsuit brought forth by the Cathedral and Hart became a significant hurdle for Warner Brothers. A federal judge even threatened to block the film's home video release unless the studio reached a settlement with the artist. This legal dispute and the subsequent measures taken by Warner Brothers to address the concerns raised would have a lasting impact on the film's release and reception.
📜 The Lawsuit Against Warner Brothers and Frederick E. Hart
In 1997, Warner Brothers found themselves embroiled in a legal battle over the controversial film "The Devil's Advocate." This section delves into the specific allegations made by the National Cathedral in Washington and sculptor Frederick E. Hart, as well as the ongoing negotiations and attempts at resolution.
3.1 Allegations of Copying and Perversion
When the National Cathedral in Washington and sculptor Frederick E. Hart launched their lawsuit against Warner Brothers, they claimed that the film had copied Hart's artwork on display at the Cathedral. Moreover, they argued that the film grossly perverted the original work of art. Hart expressed deep disturbance over the distortion of his sculpture's profound message and beauty in the film, where the carved figures came to life and engaged in sexual acts.
While some may view the allegations as unfounded, it is essential to understand the significance of the Cathedral's claim and the impact it had on the film's release. Despite the lack of demonstrable similarities between the on-screen sculpture and Hart's original work, the court proceedings threatened to halt the film's home video release unless a suitable compromise could be reached.
3.2 The Demand for Settlement
Warner Brothers, eager to proceed with the film's home video release, sought to resolve the issues raised by the Cathedral and Hart. The studio offered a lengthy disclaimer on the DVD box, clarifying that the Cathedral did not endorse the film. However, this measure was deemed inadequate to address the concerns. Even a sticker reinforcing the disclaimer on the cover failed to appease Hart.
Faced with mounting pressure and the impending release date, Warner Brothers ultimately reached a compromise with Hart. The agreement allowed Warner Bros. to distribute 475,000 copies exclusively to rental stores. However, the consumer release had to be recalled until the original picture was edited to address Hart's concerns. This compromise marked a significant turning point in the film's history and showcased the influence that legal battles can have on a major-studio production.
(Remaining sections are truncated to fit within response length)
