Saturday, 18 September 2021 19:27

Bedazzled/ 1967





BEDAZZLED

UK, 1967, 103 minutes, Colour.
Peter Cook, Dudley Moore, Eleanor Bron, Raquel Welch, Michael Bates, Barry Humphries.
Directed by Stanley Donen.

Bedazzled was a very popular film when released though some audiences wondered whether they should be laughing at such irreverent jokes. Comedians and writers Peter Cook and Dudley Moore have taken the old legend of Faust and the Devil and treated it in a modern revue style and used the fluidity of the cinema medium to full advantage.

Faust becomes little Stanley Moon in a Wimpy Bar and the Devil is tall, thin George Piggott who runs a London night club in which are housed the Seven Deadly Sins (more revue morality play - including Raquel Welch as Lust and Barry Humphries as Envy). Stanley gets seven wishes in exchange for his soul and the object of his desires is Margaret, who also works for the Wimpy Bar.

The variety of stories in the seven wishes, as well as the main plot, provide wonderful opportunities for Cook, Moore and Eleanor Bron to play a number of roles. Situations are funny and the dialogue witty with the result that Bedazzled comes off as a successful revue morality play.

1. How literally should this film be taken? Would it make much difference to its enjoyment and interpretation if it were taken literally?

2. In the Faust stories, the hero is supposed to represent mankind and sells his soul for power and his skills. How did this film use the traditional stories of Faust and the Devil? How did it change the stories?

3. How typical was Stanley Moon? What value for the film was there in his being the "little man"? Did this make the audience identify with him and feel sorry for him? He couldn't even suicide successfully).

4. What was the effect on the audience of Peter Cook, tall, thin, witty and always in control, as the Devil? What did his being George Spiggott and living in the London underworld add?

5. Why was the film so funny - the situations, the dialogue, the variety of the acting of the three principals, the satire? How did each contribute to the humour?

6. Did the humour lessen the impact of the "morality play" aspects of the film or did the film get a message across through the genial and engaging humour?

7. Why are people prepared to risk selling their souls to the Devil? Did Stanley Moon have good reasons (Margaret Spencer)? Did the Devil make a good proposition? Did he guarantee his promises, e.g. Stanley's wish for an ice-cream?

8. How malicious was the Devil - his story about the Moon family, his entering into all Stanley's wishes and winning, his practical jokes e.g. the telephone lines, the lady and the mouth-wash, his treatment of the seven deadly sins'?

9. George's explanation of why the Devil left Heaven - "this is boring; let's change places"?

10. What aspects of our sophistication were being satirised in: Stanley and Margaret's intellectual conversation about monkeys, Brahms? - their talk about Anglo-Saxon? fear of feeling and Margaret's cries of 'Rape', - the rich (inarticulate) life of Sir Stanley Moon and the discussion of Margaret's being physical (and Stanley's trying to win her by gifts) - the police inspector - the pop scene (and the girls rushing to Peter Cook who sang how he hated and loathed them) - in the domestic scene where the couple feel so guilty because of the goodness of the husband?

11. What was the point of introducing the seven Deadly Sins? Were they effective in the film?

12. Was the leaping order of St. Beryl just farce, or was there some satire on religion? If so, was it effective?

13. Was the Heaven scene humorous? Why? What was the point of George's return to Heaven? Had he repented of was his motivation self-love? Could he ever change?

14. What lesson had Stanley learnt after all his wishes? Do people who sell their souls to the Devil always want them back? Is the moral of the story, that it is better to be and stay oneself, a valid lesson?

15. Was the treatment of religion, God, heaven and hell too flippant? Was the film blasphemous? Some people thought it was.

16. Could this film be called a 'religious' film at all? Why?