Love is the Devil: Study for a Portrait of Francis Bacon (1998)

A Strange Love Affair

"Love is the Devil: Study for a Portrait of Francis Bacon"

A Strange Love Affair

Amos Lassen

When Daniel Craig was cast as the new James Bond there was a lot of interest in the 1998 film, "Love is the Devil" (Strand Releasing) because of his frontal nude scene in the film. The film, itself, is a somewhat short look at the very strange love affair between Francis Bacon (Derek Jacobi), an artist and his model/lover George Dyer (Daniel Craig). Dyer was the model for some of Bacon's most famous works and the film gives us an impressionist look at the relationship between the two men. Jacobi gives quite the performance embodying some of the artists real quirks including interaction with some very strange friends, brushing his teeth with ammonia, his masochistic bend and his sheer audacity. Visually and through characterization the movie is quite brilliant in its abstractions, darkness and cruelty.
Bacon is presented to us as a man who is disturbed and uncaring but he is also a genius who is not completely in control of himself. He used people, including Dyer, in order to succeed in the art world. However, his life plays second fiddle to the art scene at the time.
Craig as Dyer is also excellent and he falls victim to Bacon's strange ways as he becomes the artist's muse. As Dyer falls into alcohol and drugs as well as an abusive relationship, we become aware that he is heading toward the final fall--suicide.
Aside from the stars and the appearance of Jarman's muse Tilda Swinton, it is the photography of the film that is outstanding even though the film does appear pretentious at times. Obviously, this film was made for a more intellectual group than the man on the street but all in all, I found it completely interesting.
As for Craig's nude scene, let me just say that he measures up.
October 8, 2008

GRITTY, SAD BUT THE BEST.

I KNEW NOTHING ABOUT FRANCIS BACON. SO THE MOVIE WAS EDUCATIONAL. SOMETIMES MORE THAN I REALLY WANTED. D. CRAIG WAS MAGNIFICENT. A MUST FOR ALL THOSE WHO MIGHT BE INTERESTED IN ART AND ARTIST'S HISTORY AND A DICKENISH ENGLAND. June 19, 2008

Don't waste your time...

This is a ridulous and manic amalgam of nonsense that fails to satisfy either a lust for Daniel Craig (the hook that made me purchase it) or an interest in Francis Bacon. You will not learn about the artist and you won't see much of Daniel Craig (yes, he's naked in the tub, but is that alone worth the purchase price?). What's more, you won't likely be engaged as there is nothing closely resembling a story arc. Perhaps the film-makers forgot to take there ritalin during production?! Too frenetic, too disjointed, and just...too much of nothing to connect with. June 12, 2008

The devil you know or the devil you don't

John Maybury's study of the love affair between the great Irish painter Francis Bacon (Derek Jacobi) and George Dyer (Daniel Craig), the handsome their twenty years Bacon's younger, is more of the kind of film you can really admire than enjoy: it's a dark and very sour study of their sadistic-masochistic relationship between the years 1964, when Dyer tumbled through Bacon's skylight seeking to burgle his house, and 1971 when Dyer committed suicide in France from an overdose of pills. Maybury achieves some lovely effects by framing their relationships entirely with the seediest filthiest milieux imaginable and often using interesting distorting camera tricks (such as shooting characters through curved glass whiskey bottles or wineglasses, or using angled mirrors) to reproduce the famous ugly distorting effects of Bacon's paintings. Maybury was forbidden from using any of Bacon's actual work for the film, so if you didn't know what the finished works looked like you'd be very confused; still, it's hard to imagine anyone seeing this who doesn't have some familiarity with Bacon's work. Even so, some of the more cheaper shots (like those of Craig as Dyer threatening to jump off the ledge of a high New York City hotel) were so clearly done on the cheap they mar the overall effect of the film.

In their sexual encounters Bacon, a lifelong masochist, made Dyer the physically dominant and punishing figure (the film does not shy away from suggesting the more disturbing elements of their sexplay, which includes Dyer extinguishing cigarettes on Bacon's body at Bacon's request). But out of the bed the sour, cynical, and often intentionally cruel Bacon dominated the fastidious and unhappy Dyer, who despite his beauty felt he was a nothing, even when he was the famous model and partner of arguably the most famous living painter in the English-speaking world. Both actors really show their range with their roles, and Jacobi looks so much like the actual Francis Bacon, and adapts so beautifully to his poisonous nasty remarks that it's almost uncanny. It's fascinating to compare his performance with Craig's equally fine one: whereas Jacobi's long stage training shows in his more theatrical flourishes, Craig, who is predominantly a stage actor, goes for subtler effects, suggesting Dyer's misery, self-hatred, and complete lack of confidence. Maybury's fascination with the men's shared misery together prevents him from showing anything of Bacon's lingering years of agonizing guilt after Dyer's suicide that prompted him to create his masterwork, a triptych reproducing Craig's suicide. As a result, you feel only relief when Dyer dies and feel both men are better off without one another since Dyer seems only to be holding Bacon back and Bacon takes such relish in verbally tormenting his partner. So the whole film leaves you with the mistaken impression that Dyer didn't mean all that much to Bacon.

December 9, 2007

One big bad dream

If you need the plot look at other reviews. Actually there is very little in the way of plot however that is not really a criticism there are lots of films just about mood or tension between characters that are fascinating and fulfilling. Francis Bacon was never my cup of tea as an artist I found his paintings one note and void of structure and composition but that should not and was not important when viewing this film. I agree with some of the reviews posted here that there are a lot of cliches depicting mental illness, the spiraling staircase et al but the need of the director not let the actors convey this was a big mistake. The film is all about visuals and the lack of any actual depiction of Bacon's paintings doesn't really make a difference. He is portrayed as one of the most unsympathetic characters in film making Hannibal Lector look like a better candidate to hang out with. Okay I get it all homosexuals were totally miserable in the 60's before the word Gay was stuck on. I doubt that was true and Francis Bacon may have been the miserable jerk this film makes him out to be but I doubt that. Having said all that I would rather watch this movie than a white wash job Hollywood bio like "Ray" or "I walk the line" any day. November 29, 2007

More reviews at Amazon.com ...