Review: Mark of the Devil

Set in the superstitious Middle Ages, a young Udo Kier stars as Christian, a pious young man and junior to renowned witchfinder Lord Cumberland (Herbert Lom). He arrives at a local village in-waiting of his mentor’s arrival. Sadistic local witchfinder Albino (Reggie Nalder) is unhappy with Christian’s presence in town, is no happier to be expecting Lord Cumberland’s arrival either. Albino tries to force himself on a local girl, who in turn disfigures his frankly already disturbing face. Albino accuses the girl of being a witch, though Christian has his serious doubts about her guilt. The normally by-the-Good-Book young man is also clearly attracted to her. When Lord Cumberland finally arrives, he’s disgusted with the behaviour of Albino and the equally repulsive Advocate (Johannes Buzalski). However, he’s also unmoved by Christian’s protestations of the young barmaid’s innocence of the charges. After a while, Christian starts to suspect that his mentor in religious instruction may not be as pious or sound of mind as he claims.

 

Written and directed by Michael Armstrong (who co-wrote the subsequent “Mark of the Devil Part II” and the dreadful all-star effort “House of the Long Shadows”) and an uncredited Adrian Hoven (who directed “Mark of the Devil Part II”), this 1970 companion piece of-sorts to “Witchfinder General” is pretty notorious in cult film circles. How cult is it? Well, the cast includes Udo Kier, Herbert Lom, and Reggie Nalder. That’s how cult it is. Originally this was one of those films where cinemas gave out ‘barf bags’ for those whose constitution failed during some of its more intense scenes. These days it’s not the easiest film to track down, but having now finally seen it, I’m rather glad I did, even if it took a while for it to feel like it earned the ‘barf bag’ reputation. Oh yeah, this one gets nasty after a while. It’s not kinky exploitation fare like “Love Letters of a Portuguese Nun”, nor is it boring like “The Sinful Nuns of St. Valentine”. It’s mean, nasty, and takes itself seriously, even more so than the equally well-made “Witchfinder General”. Armstrong treats us to a mean, nasty, violent, and superstitious worldview here, and there’s not really any respite from it, even if the more graphically violent material is in the film’s second half. It won’t be a film for everyone, or even most, but I can’t deny it is well-done, and I found it interesting, if unpleasant.

 

The first act of the film is clearly stolen by the peculiar-looking Reggie Nalder as a thoroughly rotten, sadistic, craven witchfinder named Albino. With a pockmarked face and a perpetual facial expression that can only be described as sucking on a lemon, Nalder is perfectly cast as a monstrous sadist, a wonderfully mean performance of a power-mad supposed puritan. Along with sleazy-looking Johannes Buzalski as his partner-in-sadism so to speak, they make for a really rotten, scummy pair. It takes a long time for Herbert Lom to turn up, but once he does, he enters in great fashion despite not actually showing his face on arrival. As a well-respected witchfinder who may be more harm than good, Lom towers over all with an excellent, typically serious performance. He ends up stealing the whole thing from Nalder. Lom’s a legit great character actor, who deserved to be remembered for a helluva lot more than playing a buffoon in the “Pink Panther” films (He was especially outstanding in “El Cid”, “The Ladykillers”, “Hell Drivers”, and “Night and the City”). I don’t suppose appearing in exploitation or horror films like this and Jess Franco’s “Count Dracula” helped his credibility anymore than playing Chief Inspector Dreyfus did. However, anyone who has seen his work in this or his other ventures into B and C-grade fare can attest that he rarely if ever phoned it in, no matter the quality of the film or filmmaker. This is a sometimes gruelling, entirely uncompromising look into religion-based superstition and hysteria, with Lom ultimately no better than Nalder and Buzalski. The only difference being that Lom derives no pleasure from the torture he orders to be carried out. He’s convinced every accused person is a witch and all they need is to be tortured into finally confessing. ***** SPOILER WARNING ***** At least, at first Lom is merely carrying out what he feels the holy scriptures dictate. The catch here is that Lom ends up acting impulsively, violently so (committing rape and murder). It appears that a life of witch-hunting has either slowly driven him mad and into hypocrisy, or awakened the sinister beast lurking within him all along. He starts handing out sentences of torture willy-nilly, and worse. Innocent people end up tortured despite knowledge of their innocence, such as a travelling puppeteer for crying out loud! Why? Because the system can’t be seen to be faulty once the wheels are in motion. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Or even worse. ***** END SPOILER ***** One rather irritating flaw: The music score by Michael Holm (“Mark of the Devil Part II”), which is overbearing and overpowering.

 

Good-looking and mostly well-made for what it is, this might be a bit of an endurance test for mainstream viewers. Grim to the very end, this is a very harsh depiction of a harsh subject matter. Many of you may not wish to subject yourself to such a thing as this, no matter how well done it is. I’m not much for ‘torture porn’ myself normally, but I think this one’s got a lot more going for it than that label probably suggests. These were violent times, and this is not going to spare you much of the ugly, blood-thirsty truth. So I think that intent is a bit loftier than mere torture porn for the sake of titillating blood-lusty audience members. It starts slow on the torture front, but make no mistake: This is for very strong stomachs once it really gets started. In fact, the ‘barf bag’ gimmick/PR (from the American theatrical release of the film apparently) suggests something William Castle-esque that isn’t anywhere near the grim-faced film that this truly is. I found it interesting, mostly well-acted, and quite well-done. It’s an entirely grim, uncompromising view of religious hysteria, hypocrisy, and superstition well worth seeking out for those who think they can take it.

 

Rating: B-