The 1997 film The Devil’s Advocate starring Keanu Reeves, Al Pacino, and Charlize Theron is remembered for its dark themes, standout performances, and eerie depiction of power and temptation. But behind the scenes, the film became part of a legal battle that many people don’t remember. It had nothing to do with its plot or even the cover of the film. Instead it had to do with a piece of art that can be seen in one portion of the movie. And the story about it is quite interesting.
The sculpture which can be seen prominently shown in John Milton’s apartment, the film’s dark setting, is the art we’ll be talking about. In the sculpture you can see people writhing around in a sensual, otherworldly arrangement. Something that’s supposed to represent temptation, lust and dark desires. It fits with the film’s unsettling tone but unfortunately for the director and movie studio the art used was supposed to represent creation in a religious context. The sculpture, Ex Nihilo by artist Frederick Hart was installed at the Washington National Cathedral.
Below you can see some images of the original vs. the re-edit included on current releases of the film. I pulled these images from DVD Exotica which is an amazing site if you ever want to read something interesting.
When Art and Film Collide
Hart’s Ex Nihilo is a bas-relief sculpture which represents the creation of humanity. It is of course inspired by the biblical Book of Genesis. And like many other sculptures of it’s nature, carries a deep spiritual meaning. Not to mention it’s housed in one of the most significant religious sites in the United States. So, when it appeared in The Devil’s Advocate Hart took notice.
In the film, the image of the sculpture comes to life and the multitude of naked men and women writhe erotically. This is where Hart had a problem. The National Cathedral denounced the film as a grotesque distortion of sacred art. Hart and the Cathedral claim confusion between the work and the sculpture has damaged both of their reputations.
Hart, along with the Washington National Cathedral, filed a lawsuit against Warner Bros. in 1997. The claim centered on copyright infringement. It also was heavily based on the misrepresentation of religious artwork. Essentially, they argued that the film had used a design too similar to Ex Nihilo and placed it in a context that went against the original meaning.
Legal Pressure and a Fast Resolution
The movie had already been released in general distribution, but the video and DVD release was scheduled for Feburary 17, 1998. On February 10, 1998, the judge ruled for Hart and ordered that the release be delayed 48 hours to allow the parties to come to some creative solution.
As part of the agreement, Warner Bros. was required to alter the sculpture in future releases of the film. This meant that there are copies out there with the original artwork but they are few and hard to find. Other subsequent releases were digitally edited so it no longer resembled Hart’s original piece. The result is that different versions of The Devil’s Advocate exist today depending on when and how they were released. And the version with the CGI edits, while still perfectly watchable, just don’t carry the same weight of the original release. I would be focused on how it looks like someone used a “push” tool to just swirl around on top of the original design. But then again, I’m familiar with digital editing tools. Others may not have that same point of view.
The Outcome
In the end, The Devil’s Advocate still remains an amazing film. Reeves, Pacino and Theron all have standout performances. But it’s lore makes it a film that will go down in history as an example of what studios shouldn’t do when it comes to the use of art, even if those involved think it’s innocuous.
