The Devil's Playground

This film was a subtle masterpiece. It is of the quality of a Scorsese or Kurosawa epic in its eschewing of easy answers to life's major existential questions. The acting, casting and cinematography were all flawless. The evolution of the characters was handled with sensitivity and aplomb. Visually, the film is alluring and its avoidance of easy stereotypes in a way that only enhances its appeal. Some of the sex scenes are potentially divisive yet these too are treated with an abiding humanity. The settings are exquisite and deeply important to the film's lofty philosophical and religious probing. A very sincere and important film that is funny, sad and visually appealing despite some dark subject matter.

Fred Schepisi's semi-autobiographical "memoir" of life in an Australian Catholic seminary for boys and young men supposedly takes place in the 50's but was shot in the 70's and looks it. The stylistic tropes of the film are as distinctive as Disco, but the portrayal of all of the people who inhabit the pastel tableaux is lifelike and sympathetic. Anyone who has listened to old 78's of the great voices of long ago has undergone a similar process of adjusting one's senses to the medium and finding the performer very much alive under the "static".

This movie was shown to a group of clinical psychologists and psychiatrists who are also serious students of film. Their reaction was unanimously favorable. There's no difficult symbolism here. It's all right there for us to see, enjoy, and understand.

I think that Schepisi has tried to present life in such an institution as it really is. Not being Catholic myself, I suppose it's easy for me to agree with the author's obvious criticism of the astonishingly prudish standards set for both students and faculty. Maybe I'm a little dim, but I'm still trying to figure out how these fellows could get their "bottoms" clean when they have to wear bathing trunks in the shower!!

I may also be showing my ignorance when I say that the emphasis on sex seems realistic. Maybe men and boys who have to refrain from every expression of sexuality don't find themselves just as focused on sex as people who can do as they please. Maybe. On the other hand, my experience with the male species is that we're a horny lot who are NOT the "masters of their domains".

As the old humorist Alexander King observed when he was asked what he thought of a new organization that wanted to put an end to the nudity of domestic pets (by dressing them in specially designed pants), "There are people who are so repressed that they see something obscene in the crotch of every tree."

In spite of the seemingly serious subject matter in the film, with much moral gnashing of teeth evident, there are many funny moments, which come across as gentle and true to life. Anyone hoping to see "Seminarians Gone Wild" is in for a disappointment. There's not a hint of burlesque to be found, and when one of the guys is doing something a little naughty we feel like saying "Hey Buddy, don't sweat it." One of the old brothers or priests takes that view, and his way of talking about it is delightful.

But if the movie showed only the hairy-palm issue it wouldn't be the ageless classic that it really is. This is a typically "British" (in this case Australian) movie about civilized men living in a closed society. The boys boarding school, the regiment housed in its Scottish garrison, the sailing ship on a long and terrible voyage, the class of schoolboys marooned on an uninhabited island--all have become settings for intense dramas that emphasize both the beauty and the pressures of highly developed codes of conduct. Take a look at TUNES OF GLORY, MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY, LORD OF THE FLIES, BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI.

Lastly, the great thing about films with really long "legs" is that everyday life keeps recycling issues, so when it comes time to study the "latest" disaster, we can look backward into the vaults to see what has already been created that might pertinent. The Church sex-scandals have definitely made this movie required viewing. The fact that it doesn't touch directly on the subject of pedophilic practices among some clergy will spur some discussion, as it did with the group to whom I showed it.

I have this film as part of my home video collection and have not seen it in awhile. However, I can remember the feeling of misgiving I felt for these young men who were entering puberty. It brought back memories of my entrance into the same. It brought to mind that those things for which we are regularly exposed to do not cause so much curiosity. These young boys were required to remain sexless without feelings or hormones, just when their bodies were beginning to take off. I kept thinking that it could have helped them if they were taught about the normal body development they could expect, the urges and ideas which may spring to mind. The allowance of the natural arrangement of public showering, with the nudity exposure indicated, but allowance for one's privacy and dignity as the person is comfortable, could also have helped in their adjustment to puberty. Of course, this was a movie, but it is a good lesson to anyone dealing with pubescent kids. Simon Burke was excellent in his portrayal of his character.

A titillating title like "The Devil's Playground" suggests some very wicked scenes and lustful action to follow. Fred Schepisi goes about as far as the censor permits in revealing life among boys and staff of a highly disciplined Catholic College. The atmosphere of the College is well captured in the classrooms, the noisy refectory during mealtimes, the playing fields and private lake.

The Devil it seems likes to act at night or in dark shadows where boys in the throes of puberty discuss the mysterious happenings of wet dreams and contemplate the best ways of masturbating. When seeking advice from the brothers, the students are told to exert more self-discipline and say more prayers to overcome such sinful acts.

While the problems of puberty are laid bare in this film. the group of frustrated brothers with their difficult vows of celibacy are not overlooked. One gets the feeling that the strict code of discipline at all levels is far from the perfect system.

In one way or another, there is a lot of exposure of flesh whether it be in the College shower room, swimming in the lake or peeking at full-bodied girls in the nearby recreational area. This heightens the idea of the sins of the flesh.

Some of the brothers like to dress in civilian clothes when released from duty and become part of the outside world. Drinking beer at the local tavern and even chatting with the girls! Yes, temptation abounds in every corner of the Devil's Playground.

The film with its many players and short scenes is almost a documentation of the strengths and frailties of life in the Catholic education system. Fred Schepisi gives us a broad statement of the problems of the era but no real answers. He does however hint that, as a basis for a future life there is much lacking in the system.

On the whole, interesting...and a great basis for further discussion.

There's one piece of inspired casting: Tom Kenneally (who looks like a jolly monk) as the visiting priest who looks like a jolly monk. Kenneally isn't an actor. (He's an Australian writer, best known overseas as the author of "Schindler's Ark", retitled "Schindler's List" in the US.) In fact, a non-actor suits the part well: like Kenneally, the priest arrives at the school performing his priest act competently but without polish. Like Kenneally, his native charm shines through, even when he's giving an appalling speech about Hell. You find yourself wondering: is he REALLY serious? And you have no way of telling.

That's all that's truly inspired about Schepisi's film. The story takes place at some kind of young-priests-to-be training college, only for a long time it looks as though there is no story at all: instead we get slice after slice of life, and it's a while before we can tell all the characters apart and work out which ones we're meant to be following. Telling a story in this way requires razor precision; every single scene must be inherently interesting AND perfectly crafted. No scene (with one possible exception) is. On the other hand, no scene really falls down, either. This is the kind of reasonably absorbing movie (after the initial boring bits) that's well worth the time it takes to watch - i.e., an hour and a half. (And it's even worth the time spent thinking about afterwards.) There's a difference between satisfaction and pleasure; a film like this is satisfying, and ... well, not UNpleasant. If only the title didn't promise something BIG.