Spielplatz des Teufels

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.

Fred Schepisi's Australian drama from 1976 is a semi-autobiographical quite straightforward movie about the life and growing pains of both Fathers, Brothers and boys at a Roman Catholic boarding school, in 1953. Within Australia, it is considered amongst the top 50 films ever made there.

There are as many personal dilemmas and demons in the Brother's lives as there are in the boy's. Probably more. For someone who is not a Catholic, for me there's always the ever overpowering lecturing on sins of the flesh and such, particularly pertinent with pubescent boys, of course.

However, taking this aside and concentrating on the characters and the individual stories, these are solidly interesting and, thank goodness, the script is suitable for the 15 certificate, so there is no blushing at the natural use of grubby schoolboy banter.

There was also a slightly surprising amount of nudity, the strongest scene of which comes as a dream by one of the Brothers. The acting is uniformly very good, all natural, both boys and adults.

Radio Times said that The Devil's Playground 'takes us no further into the issue than a legion of others have before' and whilst I've far from seen them all, I'd have to agree.

Best bet buying the DVD is the Australian Cinema collection vol 1, a 12 film boxset and that is exactly where I got and saw my copy from.

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.

A fine early example of Fred Schepisi's directing style. The film is more than 20 years old but is still fresh. Some strong acting performances, particularly from Nick Tate and young Simon Burke and Arthur Dignam as the tortured Br Francine. Watch for a cameo performance from Tom Keneally, the author of Schindler's List.

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.