Truly Dreadful Film

This is a gorgeous movie made by a gorgeous spirit.

It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

Love is the Devil (1998)Francis Bacon (along with Lucien Freud) is one of a handful of British painters of note in the last century. That's not very many. And he's inflated here beyond his very idiosyncratic and repetitive works. They're powerful paintings, no question, and filled with psychological drama as well as painterly angst. They come from a time when representative and expressive paintings was out of favor, and so he's a rebel, too. But this isn't about Bacon the successful artist, and it doesn't address his work directly (the filmmakers couldn't get his cooperation so none of his work is shown). What it does do is show the man, as seen through actor Derek Jacobi, who plays a kind of deadpan and slightly boring character a little too well. We are, I think supposed to find the artist through his mentality, which is played out here by showing his social and sexual lives in all kinds of diversity.But there is another goal to the movie, to me: creating an interesting contemporary world of artists and social renegades. That is, the art world of London (etc.) in roughly the 1970s or 80s. The filmmaker John Maybury is a close associate of Derek Jarman, who was an openly gay filmmaker known for personally quirky films that dealt with issues that mattered to him, including his odd and intriguing "Caravaggio." Maybury, unlike Jarman, has no history of great indie films, and this one is just structurally awkward, and in filmmaking terms it seems a little novice, whatever the good intentions.So it might actually fail on several levels. One is the most damning--that it doesn't actually illuminate the paintings. I found the personal life and the heightened story distracting, even if it has a basis in truth (and is the driving line of the movie). It also doesn't quite work on the simple level of convincing acting, even though Jacobi looks enough like Bacon to make that fly, and his counterpart played by Daniel Craig is decent (we don't dare expect more from Craig, do we?). And then the movie wobbles visually, both with camera-work that is either clumsy or affected (or both) and with editing that seems clunky. That is, this is a movie almost "thrown together."Which I'm sure it was not. Maybury is trying to mainstream his life (unlike Jarman, who enjoyed being an Indie star), and his collaborations with the likes of Keira Knightley are revealing for both (one as a way of going serious, the other for a way of going commercial). I know there are those who accept and love a movie like this because of its flaws, which only enhance somehow it's integrity and its artistry. But that's only one way to look at it, and if you like offbeat movies that are also brilliant deep down, you might not find that here.

Written and Directed by John Maybury,Love Is The Devil tells the true story of British artist Francis Bacon,focusing on his tragic relationship with George Dyer.London during the 1960's,one night a young thief George Dyer(Daniel Craig)breaks into the home of painter Francis Bacon(Derek Jacobi).Bacon seduces the younger man and in time the two become a couple,however George suffers from severe depression and in his battle against his demons a strain is placed on their relationship.If you've read about Bacon you'll know how this chapter of his life ends,if not lets just say it's not cheerful.The performances are the highlight here with Jacobi deserving particular praise,he bears a striking resemblance to Bacon and brings the tortured inner workings of this art legend to life.Craig is equally superb as the young lad about town,who in starting a relationship with Bacon finds himself out of depth and adrift in both Bacon's private and public life,especially among his bohemian friends.It won't tell you anything you didn't know about Bacon and if that's what your looking for try your local bookstore's biography section.In summing up this is like looking at one of Bacon's paintings,something different but ultimately it leaves you cold. Worth a watch though for the superb performances of Jacobi and Craig.

Taking a lemon and eating it whole: swirling the sour, acrid juice and pulp around in your mouth and savoring the burn; chewing the tough skin and reveling in the pure bitterness. That's the most fitting analogy I can think of for Francis Bacon's approach to both his life and his art, if you are to believe his story as John Maybury has chronicled it in the biopic LOVE IS THE DEVIL.Having had only the most peripheral exposure to Bacon's work and knowing even less about the man's life, I have to admit that my interest in seeing the film was mostly prurient (after all, Daniel Craig IS naked in it), but it most definitely left me with a pressing need for sunshine and cute, fluffy bunnies after all was said and done.Brilliant actor Derek Jacobi draws a razor-sharp portrait of a man whose penchant for self-loathing and the active contempt for everyone else in his life are the only reasons why he even bothers to get up in the morning; that and spending every other free moment trying to find the simple beauty behind life's darkest horrors and transferring it to canvas. Not the most pleasant character to spend ninety minutes of your life with, but a little research will inform you ahead of time that this movie will never be confused with "The Sound Of Music."The opening sequence actually telegraphs the entire story: ne'er-do-well-burglar George Dyer (Craig) tumbles through a skylight into Bacon's studio, and rather than seeing flashes of objects ripe for the taking, George is treated to what appear to be glimpses into Hell - flashes of distorted bodies, streaks of blood-red, raw meat, faces and mouths distended in horror or agony. He's just seen some of the materials that Francis works with to create his 'art,' and he's barely had time to recover from the shock when he is confronted by the man himself, who beckons him with a proposition: come share his bed, and he can have anything he wants. And so begins their twisted, sadomasochistic relationship.It's obvious that the roughly handsome George, with his street sensibility and working man's background, is in over his head with the monstrous and monstrously self-centered artist. But it becomes even more apparent when he falls in with George's scabrous, gargoyle-like friends as well, who come across as Algonquin "round-table" types who have even more pretensions and less of a pedigree than Mrs. Parker's storied associates.Throughout the film, which does come across at times as pretentiously arty, it does seem a bit strange that none of Bacon's actual work ever makes an appearance. Considering the subject matter as it's presented, this might not be all that surprising. It would've been more of a shock if the filmmakers actually had obtained permission from Bacon's estate to use his work. After all, on the surface this could be perceived as nothing more than yet another tired tale of two degenerate, amoral, self-destructive gay men - just more fodder to be used as ammunition by fundamentalist-based homophobes; an example of how "they" live and what "they're" really like.As has often been said, there's a fine line between madness and genius, and LOVE IS THE DEVIL blurs the lines completely, daring to propose that one cannot exist without the other. But the film is just as much about Dyer, the neophyte, and his own descent into insanity and despair, as he is gradually infected by Bacon's own black-hearted view of the world. Which is why this won't be everyone's cup of poison. Jacobi bravely plays Bacon with barely a single trace of sympathy, while it's equally hard to identify with Craig's Dyer, who seems doomed to oblivion from the start.To sum it up, LOVE IS THE DEVIL seems to be geared more towards those art aficionados who already have a pretty well-informed grasp of Bacon's art and are more curious about his personal history, (with plenty of dramatic liberties taken, of course.) It may also be more attractive to viewers who are into watching character studies that feature great actors, of which this is definitely one. Now I'd like to see a documentary or even another biography that focuses more on Bacon's art and its impact on his peers and the art world in general, and less about the man and his tortured private life.But not for a while, thank you very much.

I'll admit it. I rented this film to explore the past works of Daniel Craig. He's great in it and so is the legendary Derek Jacobi. The movie itself is presented in what I'm assuming is the same vein as Francis Bacon's works. There are lots of dramatic flashes of what are supposed to be disturbing imagery, etc. However, these effects take away from the story of what happened between these two people. Instead these two great actors are forced to tell a story as best they can in "moments". This movie did spur me to do some light research into Francis Bacon, which helped me fill in the story. Knowing more about what happened gave the performances more meaning but I think it could have been better. Still, full frontal nudity from Daniel Craig made it more than worth the price of admission. License to thrill: confirmed.