sunheadbowed After reading Daniel Farson's moving and strangely tender biography of Francis Bacon, I expected to equally enjoy 'Love Is the Devil', but it didn't quite click.The book left me with a feeling of compassion and understanding for the twisted, Grand Guignol monsters of The Colony Room, with their likable mix of contempt for showy pretension and debauched indulgence in caricature role-playing of the very same thing; this film left me feeling not much at all, except slightly depressed and empty -- the characters seemed to be presented in their worst light at all times, which isn't what the book was about. A big part of Bacon's appeal, for me, is his integrity.Despite how difficult it was to feel any warmth for any of the characters, Jacobi's Bacon was almost eerie in how close it got to the real thing.The stylisation of the film attempts to echo Bacon's art (which is never easily imitated): using mirrors and other tricks, the actors are at times shot in ways that grotesquely morph their faces into the violent splashes of beautiful disfigurement in Bacon's portraits; Dyer's nightmares feature screaming, blood-red creatures that seemingly crawled right out of Bacon's triptychs. The attempts at cinematic art are commendable but not entirely effective: what should be chilling and striking, like the subject matter himself, is a little bit boring.I never quite bought Daniel Craig as George Dyer, but that's probably as much to do with 'seeing James Bond' as anything. Had I seen the film in 1998, perhaps I would have been able to succeed in suspending disbelief.If you enjoyed this film you definitely have to read Daniel Farson's book.

DesbUK Rarely seen English film from 1998 about which I can can only say I don't know much about art films, but I know what I like. This one is is set in a drab and austere not very swinging 1960s London where crook George Dyer (Daniel Craig) goes from burglary to buggery with artist Francis Bacon (a wonderful Derek Jacobi). No real drama here, just consistently imaginative camera-work (blurred around the edges when the characters are getting drunk at the colony club), or the odd standout moment such as Bacon brushing his teeth with Vim (a white powdery bath cleaner). I like his line: "We all have nightmares, but they can't be as horrific as life". It's the sort of drama the late Derek Jarman used to make - only more watchable.

gradyharp Returning to films remembered from the past is a fortunate aspect of owning DVDs. LOVE IS THE DEVIL: STUDY FOR A PORTRAIT OF FRANCIS BACON is an art film that belongs in the collection of all those who admire the great British artist. One of the aspects of this film that makes it so powerful is revealed in the latter part of the title: many of Bacon's paintings were names 'Studies for...' and what writer/director John Maybury has created here are the impulses or stimuli that probably are close to the visual and visceral seeds resulting in the canvases of Bacon. Rather than a biography of Bacon, LOVE IS THE DEVIL is episodic, attempting to recreate some of the situations that focused the mind of the man who created such grossly distorted creatures that ranged from the Pope to athletes, to portraits of his friends, to highly charged images of his long term physical ally, George Dyer. The camera pulls in and out of focus just the way Bacon's paintings do and instead of replicating Bacon's actual works, the film merely suggests the nidus that began the ideas: there are extended periods of Bacon, all dressed up for his smarmy nights on the dark side of town, turning from side to side, in and out of focus, not unlike his triptychs of Self Portraits. Fully in charge of this 'study' of the genius is Derek Jacobi in a brilliant portrayal of the strange man who would become England's most honored painter. He has managed to discover myriad gestures and rituals like Bacon and whether he is in his infamous filthy studio or at The Colony bar he simply IS Francis Bacon. Balancing the needs and fragility of Bacon's psyche is a stunning portrait of the lost and tortured George Dyer by Daniel Craig. The interaction between these two actors is magical. And discovering the friends of Bacon who so often became models becomes a game of recollection as we are introduced to Muriel Belcher (Tilda Swinton), Henrietta Moraes (Anabel Brooks), Isabel Hawthorne (Anne Lambton), Daniel Farson (Adrian Scarborough) and John Deakin (Karl Johnson). Many viewers would find this film difficult viewing as the life and style of the painter are less than immaculate. But for those who love expressionistic figurative art and the joy of creative film making, this is a very fine work to add to the library. Grady Harp

bob the moo When British painter Francis Bacon disturbs a burglar in his home, he invites George Dyer to come to bed with him in return for anything he wants to steal. This starts a relationship between the two that is as impatient and untrustworthy as it is passionate. Bacon draws on Dyer to compliment his work while at the same time Dyer begins to feel used and out of his depth in a relationship that draws him into the arty underworld of the time.I don't know a great deal about Francis Bacon other than a passing knowledge of his work and I must admit that I had vague hopes that a film about the painter would give me a little more knowledge of him, his work or the circumstances around him; it's a shame then that it didn't really manage to do any of these things particularly well. Instead what it does is deliver a rather pretentious piece of film rather fails to really deliver anything of value for those of us who are not as smart and informed as others. Maybe of Bacon lovers (pardon the turn of phrase) this film serves as a minor insight into his life for them to um and ah over but for me it was simply a collection of blurry shots, overdone pretentious shots and arty sentiment.The plot, for what it is, follows Bacon and Dyer together and separately as they destroy one another in various ways. It is as meaningful as watching paint dry because we are never allowed into these people as, well, people and the film seems more concerned with camera movement and minimalist sets. Of course part of this will appeal to the arty crowd as the direction tries to ape Bacon's style but I'm not sure if that was because his estate refused to have anything to do with the film or not. While not rubbish it is aimed at a select audience and I don't think I am in that group; a little annoying perhaps because I felt like the film was looking down its nose at me in the same way that Bacon did with Dyer but I suppose that's what I get for trying out something new!What made it more worthwhile though was a collection of good performances throughout; none of them have particularly likable characters but they all deliver with passion. Certainly Jacobi is very good even if I came to dislike his Bacon's pretentious approach to life, art and others, but Jacobi never let up on his portrayal anyway. Craig is a good actor and he is like a hurt animal for most of the time here – eager to please but knowing he is out of his depth and suffering for it. Swinton is OK, Johnson is overdone and the rest of the support tend to just drift around like a collection of back street 'Darling!' clichés. However bleak and unlikeable performances from both Jacobi and Craig are worth seeing.Overall this film was wasted on me as it seemed to be aimed at a very specific group of people who are much smarter than I. To me this was annoying as I felt inferior and irritated that the film did not throw me a bone to help me out with the subject. The direction, editing and themes come across as pretentious a bit too much and this did put me off but in fairness I'm not a big Bacon fan so maybe it was my fault. Anyway – fans of Bacon's work may wish to see this film to discuss his life further (whether they agree with the film or not) but for most of us this will come off as an elitist piece of cinema that does nothing to help the unaware and only serves to alienate 'the masses' from art.