The Devil

I watched "The Devil" for one huge reason...it stars George Arliss. Although he's pretty much forgotten today, he was an amazing actor...perhaps the best of the silent and early sound actors. Many of his films are charming and wonderful. "The Devil", sadly, is not among his best...mostly because it is so old fashioned and dated.

Dr. Muller (Arliss) spends the entire film manipulating and destroying people for kicks. His main thrust is destroying the two women who love Paul (Edmund Lowe)...and he assumes that he can predict exactly what the outcome will be.

The story idea is okay....but if you want a better Devilish tale, try F.W. Murnau's "Faust"...it's timeless, whereas "The Devil" seems a bit dated and silly.

George Arliss is superb in this short feature as the marvellously manipulative, rapscallion "Dr. Müller" who relishes in the misery he causes. He overhears a conversation at an art gallery were a two people are discussing a painting illustrating that truth will always overcome evil. Our devious "Müller" sets about disproving this theory by cleverly manoeuvring "Mimi" (Sylvia Beamer) who is keen on painter "Paul" (Edmund Lowe) who is keen on "Marie" (Lucy Cotton) who is married to "Georges" (Roland Bottomley) and soon nobody trusts anyone anymore... Based on his play - and the direction and styling of the performances is clear testament to that - it is a bit stilted at times, the settings are a little too claustrophobic but Arliss is really good and sinister. Maybe the ending is a little bit disappointing, but that may depend on your own views of good v evil.

Anyone who looks at THE DEVIL expecting a typically sly, witty -- albeit voiceless -- performance by George Arliss will be disappointed. This is a filmed version of an early stage success of his and he was 51 when he filmed it: still young enough for some big movement.

In fin-de-siecle Paris, Lucy Cotton has just gotten engaged to Roland Bottomley. Meanwhile, artist Edmund Lowe is having an attack of nerves before a big show; he tells his model/lover, Sylvia Breamer, that he wishes he was in love. When Miss Cotton sees one of the paintings at Lowe's show, "Truth Crucified by Evil", she remarks that such a thing could never happen -- and Mr. Arliss steps on the screen and decides to make that very thing happen.

It's Mr. Arliss' first movie, and so he has some good, up-and-coming talent with him, along with his wife, Florence, in a small role. It's rather unnerving after a dozen and a half movies in which he played the witty and wise fellow to see him in this Mephistophelean part, but he carries it off very well, even silently. Thank goodness a decent print is finally available!

At the beginning Mimi, art model, loves the painter Paul; Georges, a banker, loves Marie, and they are bethroted. In the end nothing has changed. In the middle there has been some fuzz, all caused by the devil himself, in the sembiance of dr. Müller: he wants to show that it's not true that "Evil can never overcome Truth", as everybody seems to think.

In the middle Paul and Marie become lovers. Is it true? Yes, it is. Is it evil? No, it is not. In the end, as I said, George loves Marie, and they marry; and Paul and Mimi reunite. Is it true, is it evil? As above. I won't say the devilish dr. Müller failed to prove his point, rather that the point cannot be proven at all, no example having been given of Falsehood or Good, in particular.

Moreover: we are told and showed that the devil/Müller has done all the mess. But it could well have happened also without him, all by itself, as it happens in life, either for believers or agnostics. In that way the protagonist himself is out of the picture.

In watching this newly restored silent debut of George Arliss we learn that Arliss isn't really Old Scratch himself. Rather he's one of those many little messengers employed by the Prince of Darkness to deceive and trick human beings. We learn in The Devil that Satan is a most subtle creatures.

Arliss played this role on the Broadway stage during 1908-09 season with a cast of people I'm sure none of you know today. It's a play written by Ferenc Molnar and it's said it was a satire. Personally I didn't find any laughs in this one. In fact it's one highly moralistic Victorian era piece. If the central character hadn't been in the employ of the ultimate evil I think Cecil B. DeMille might have found this a very satisfactory morality play though we'd have got a lot more sex in the production.

The plot involves Arliss playing one Dr. Muller who plays havoc with the lives of two men and two women basically as an academic exercise. Although Arliss is good I really wish he had gotten around to doing a sound version of this like he did with some other classic stage roles of his. His voice would have been invaluable in creating a truly evil creature.

Still The Devil is a rather ancient curiosity, good, but hardly likely to be revived today.