Exclusive“Flesh and the Devil” (1926): Love, Loyalty, and Temptation in Silent Hollywood

Oh, there you are. Where have you been? I told you I was going to a movie. How was it? Just awful. Should have seen the horrible things that were in it. I mean, it's just shameful the way they make movies nowadays. I'll tell you, a hundred years ago they never would have had stuff like that in the movies. Have you actually seen a movie from a hundred years ago? Well, no. But, you know, things were better back then. I mean, that was back in the good old days when people had some sort of moral compass. Granted, society at large had a higher set of moral standards in 1926, but that didn't always translate to the movies. Really? I find that hard to believe. You're thinking of movies made 80 to 90 years ago, by which point Hollywood had reformed, and it was governed by a code of moral standards. So you're trying to tell me that before that movies were all flesh and the devil? I'm Tiffany Brannan. I'm Rebecca Brannan. Welcome to Real Thoughts on Cinema. There's a common misconception that all movies were clean and wholesome before a certain point in history. It's hard to believe that the early 20th century wasn't automatically clean and good as the good old days. Yet, watching movies made before 1934, whether silent films or early talkies, can be a shocking reminder that all doesn't necessarily equal wholesome. For a good example of this, watch Flesh and the Devil from 1926. Two young men, Leo and Ulrich, have a bond of friendship from childhood. The sister of Ulrich has secretly been in love with Leo her whole life, yet his head is turned by a beautiful femme fatale, Felicitas. As they begin an affair, he soon realizes that she is married when her husband bursts in on them one day and challenges him to a duel. When he ends up killing the husband in a duel, he's forced to flee to Africa for five years. In the meantime, he asks his good friend Ulrich to look after the bereaved widow in his absence. Now, Ulrich has no idea that they were in love. When Felicitas realizes how wealthy Ulrich is, she marries him. And when Leo ends up returning three years later, he is furious and feels greatly betrayed by the two people who meant the most to him when he realizes that they have married. She's eager to resume their affair. Can the friendship between these two men survive the evil influence of this dangerous woman? This film was made by MGM. It was produced by Irving Thalberg, directed by Clarence Brown, and stars Greta Garbo and John Gilbert. Of the three main actors in this movie, without a doubt, Greta Garbo is the one who is the most recognizable by both name and image. I think her name stands out as just an image and, as well as her face, an icon of the silent era. Absolutely. And this movie was really the one that cemented her fame in her early career. She was 21 when she made this film as a young Swedish actress, so she's very fitting in that kind of exotic European setting. Now, this is one of only two movies that are silent that we've discussed on this show. That's right. And the other one, Modern Times, was made very much in the talkie era, so it had a synchronized soundtrack. Now, this movie was made in 1926, a hundred years ago now. It's hard to believe. Yeah, it is. Because it's in such beautiful, crisp, clear quality, it's like, I don't want to say it's like it was made yesterday, but it's very modern, you know? It's not like some antiquated thing, especially if you're familiar with old movies. It's in black and white, of course. Not that they didn't have some color technology, but this movie was released in the first year of the synchronized soundtrack, Vitaphone. There had been some sound earlier, but Vitaphone was the technology that really brought sound to the screen. First used in a mainstream film with Don Juan. Now, this isn't dialogue. This was just music, but it was synchronized to the movie. Right. And around that time, in the same presentation the Warner Brothers made, they presented some different shorts of a couple of opera singers, some other classical music, to demonstrate this is sound. But it would still be a few years before it really became the mainstream thing to even have partial dialogue. So silent was still the word of the day. And as a result, movies like this have no soundtrack that's original to go with them. That's right, because there was a pianist or an organist or a small orchestra in the theaters that just provided whatever music felt appropriate. So the movie truly was silent. Right. As a result, as these films have been remastered in recent decades, there are some composers who actually will write a score for them, and then it's recorded and synchronized so that you can have music to it. In this case, it was written by Carl Davis, who I think is one of the foremost composers for silent films. He's done a lot of them. I guess he studied that style. I think it's pretty realistic or pretty accurate for the era. Yeah. At times I wonder, was this a synchronized soundtrack? I don't think it was. It was mainly the recording quality that made me think this couldn't be original, because it was just a bit too recent sounding. It was just a sound to recordings from the 20s, because maybe they weren't in films, but there's a lot of music recorded from them. That's true. A hundred years later, it's fascinating to watch silent films. I would say that they're much more an acquired taste than old talkies. Absolutely. And I think a common misconception is that people will see one silent film and think they know all about silent films, any more than if you see one movie made today. You don't know what every movie ever made is. Right, and that's true of almost anything. You can't see one opera and say you know exactly what opera is like. Exactly. I think this is a good example of a well-made silent film, because it was considered a masterpiece at the time. A lot of old movies you see, whether talkies or silent, but particularly silent, weren't necessarily well-received. People made fun of silent film acting at the time. And so now we're like, oh, it was so goofy then. People thought it was goofy even then. It's so interesting to look back on certain things, even certain music and things, and be like, this strikes me as a little funny. Does it just strike me funny because I'm not used to it, because it seems so old or so different, or was that a bit silly at the time? And I think sometimes you'll find there are certain things that just have always struck people as funny. Like, we do it, but it might seem a bit hokey. Yeah. Even at the time. And of course, since there's no spoken word in silent films, they relied on a combination of mime. They definitely acted bigger in silent films. You can read their lips a lot of the time. Yeah. Some actors more than others. Some movies more than others. And then, of course, title cards. Now, that's another interesting thing that shows varied styles. Some movies have a ton of title cards, and others have a handful. This one was comparatively light in terms of title cards. Yes, definitely. They'd go a long time before one very sparse title card. Instead, relying on expression. It's a very visual film. It's very much about, obviously, it's silent. But even for a silent film, I think it's very focused on really making it sort of a visual art. Yes. So he's really focusing on shadows, or silhouette effects, or lighting effects. I think to kind of lean into, as much as possible, the silent film style. He's making it not just films that have sound. He's making it such an art in and of itself. Just like, you're so captured by the visual, you're not thinking about the fact that there aren't words. There aren't many title cards. I think that, inherently, silent films are more like stage works, such as opera and ballet, than talkies. Definitely like ballet, because it's mime. There's no doubt. And like opera, in that it's about the text, but it's not about the text. It's about the sung word. So as a result, you use more mime. I find watching a silent film to be very similar to watching an opera. Most operas are in a foreign language, as an American. Watching an opera in a foreign language without subtitles. But maybe I've read the synopsis, so I know the general story, or I have a slight understanding from being a singer of some of the Italian or some of the French. I can pick out some of the words. Yes. Or just from the stage action. You can deduce what's going on, but every once in a while you're like, okay, I'm getting a little bit lost here. There's probably some intricacy. Yes. But I just find it very much like that. Because you have... There's an occasional title card, just to kind of keep you on track. But you're getting the general idea of the story, even without that. Yeah, I think... I think it's... Especially this. It's not... It's a pretty straightforward love triangle. You could understand this movie with no title cards. It's... Yeah, it's a classic story, very operatic. This love triangle, sort of a love square. It's mainly this love triangle, but then there's also the nice girl. The nice girl, yes. I think some people's mouths are really easy to read in this movie, like John Gilbert and Barbara Kent, who plays the nice girl, the sister. Other characters, like Greta Garbo, who plays Felicitas, or Ulrich, who is Lars Hansen, they're both Swedish. Yeah. So I think one reason you can't read their mouths as much is that they... I don't even know how well either of them spoke English at this point. Greta Garbo was always... She was a little shy about... That she didn't speak English that well. And I think once she was making talkies, it was sort of her style. She doesn't open her mouth very much when she talks. That's true. I think that's partly from her accent, but it's also part of just... That's her manner. So I agree. She was... Once in a while you could get her, but most of the time she's like, She's speaking Swedish. There are always moments... I haven't seen that many silent films, but there are always moments where that's definitely not even close to what they're saying. There are a lot. Or like you said, sometimes you didn't need a title card there because you got the point of what they were saying. You could read their lips and their body language enough to get the idea. You don't need the words. It's interesting to see the range of ages in this movie. Greta Garbo was 21 here. So mature, so glamorous. In the very first scene, having seen her in some later films, okay, she looks young, but then from then on, just after the opening scene, she looks very mature. Something about the hat. I don't know. The way she was held in the first scene, you could see she was quite... Her co-star, her main co-star, John Gilbert. This was the first movie they made together. This is when they first met. He was in his late 20s at this point. He looks quite mature. He was one of the most dashing leading men of the silent era. Lars Hansen, in contrast, was 40 by this time. He's not the same age as John Gilbert, like he's supposed to be, but I'd say he looks very handsome and youthful. He's extremely Nordic looking. He's very striking. And if you're not used to it, it takes a little getting used to just how much makeup they're wearing, particularly the men. John Gilbert's wearing a ton of lipstick and Lars Hansen has so much eye makeup on, especially because he has crazy blue eyes. He has very light coloring. If you didn't really make him up, he would just be very washed out. And as the movie progresses, he's wearing less makeup, which makes him look more mature, but also less crazy. His eyes look a little nicer. He doesn't have this staring, almost horror film look about his eyes. People were more used to it then, and you get more used to it just watching the film. In contrast, Barbara Kent, who's playing Herta, this was her first film. She was 18 here, as her character is supposed to be between the ages of 16 and 18. She's very cute. She has a great contrast to Greta Garbo. They show the different types of style in the 20s, for one thing, in terms of actresses as well as clothes, but just like the really languorous, thin, tall, and then kind of shorter, more Betty Boop-like. She is tiny. She's very short. She's got to be like five feet tall. She's very petite. And because of that, and because of, like you said, how much makeup they wear, that can bring a lot of maturity or just kind of mask age. So looking at her, I was like, I get she's supposed to be about 16. She could be very young. She could be 30, and she's just short. I really wasn't sure. I think even more so, and this might be totally unfounded, I feel like even more so in silent films, they didn't always cast age appropriately. I feel like that was kind of the tendency. Mary Pickford, in the silent films, was a grown woman in her 20s, if not 30s, playing little girls. So yes, I would agree. Partly because you didn't have to hear the voice. Another sort of operatic thing. Everybody in opera is too old for their parts. A voice can be a dead giveaway of age. Without that, it's... It's a good point, actually. Sometimes that's the first thing that makes someone seem older. But the main point of this whole film is the magical chemistry between Greta Garbo and John Gilbert. When they first saw each other on the set, he kind of called out, Oh, hello, Greta. And she said, It's Miss Garbo. She always was known for being this ice queen. But they ended up having a passionate love affair during this movie, and it lasted for years. They were engaged at one point because he'd recently been divorced from his second wife. And the director encouraged that because, I mean, who doesn't want to have real electric chemistry in his movie, right? And they would go on to make several movies together and be this great... Yeah, one of the most famous romances of old Hollywood. One of the most discussed scenes from this film is not their first meeting, but their first real falling in love as they're out in the gardens at this ball and he's lighting her cigarette. Lighting a cigarette has never ever looked so sensual. Yeah, it's kind of disgusting, actually. But because it's very saturated, movies that are this old, it's more black and white. And by the 40s, it's more gray than anything else. You're right. It's not a black and white film. It's a gray film. Because the film was just different. But in these early films, it was really like white. I also wonder if in remastering it, the best way to clarify it is by really just intensifying those colors. There's no colors, even though they're black and white. So in this film, in this particular scene, a match is bright, but it wasn't bright enough. So he had like a little lamp, a tiny lamp in his hand. And as a result, it has this bright light on the bottom part of her face. Lights up both their faces. And it's so dramatic. No match is that bright, but it works. It's not too much. And it's a very dark scene because they're out in the garden in this sort of arbor. So it just illuminates everything. It's really... It was dangerous and difficult to film. So you can just see, it's all about painting those colors. And Clarence Brown went on to make really successful films for decades. He was a great filmmaker and he really captured what was unique and special about his performers. He has what I would call sort of almost like a photographer's eye. Yeah. The way he finds pictures. It's so important in silent films. Another scene, she's standing at the window and it's raining outside. She's sort of bathed in the light. This had to be intentional, but there's a particular raindrop that it looks like tears going down her face. And this was right after her husband was shot. Not that she's actually sad about it, but she's pretending to be. She's sad that her lover has gone away. Right there, that's like a picture. He kind of has her photographed, if you will, in this window with the rain. The thing that's true of every silent film, except Modern Times, because it was made in 1936, is that it is a pre-code film. That term is usually used for early talkies, made between 1930 and 1934. Now, in 1934, the Production Code Administration was put in place, and that was the beginning of the Breen era under Joseph I. Breen. So then movies were very wholesome and clean. And the ironic thing is, 1930 was actually the mark when the production code was first technically put in place under the Studio Relations Committee. It's funny that's called pre-code era because it was there, it just wasn't doing anything. It was the pre-code enforcement era. Well, just like Prohibition. Exactly. Prohibition, when all this bootleg alcohol was roaring all over the place, was when it was completely banned. So it's sort of the same thing. It became more risqué as... Well, it's just like having any kind of a constitutional set of laws and then no one's enforcing it, no one's going to pay attention to it. Yes. And it was because of the advent of sound, all of a sudden they could do things they never even thought of doing. It's so much harder to write risqué things on the title card. Did they do it? Yes, they did. It's all just visual. It's so much more visual. So this film, you can see that this is a pre-code silent film. Very much. More so than others. It's a little strange in a way that only a silent film can be. Yeah. And a lot of that, the code wouldn't necessarily stop. The code did stop a lot of strange things. I don't know, there's just... The relationships of all the characters are just a little weird. Yes. And that's something you see in silent films a lot. It is. You see it in early talkies too, but there is something particularly about silent films. And you'd say, oh, people just think it's strange now. No, people thought it was strange then too. They acknowledged that it was strange. The most notable thing, that just visually, is the very clear illicit relationship between Greta Garbo's character, Felicitas. You don't know she's a married woman until her husband comes in and then the duel happens. But even if she weren't married, they're not married. Yes, it's very obviously they're not married and it's very risqué with all the... First the cigarette scene and then the scene where they're in her room. Yes. And just posturing is... It's not obscene like films are today. I think it's more the true definition of risqué. Yes. There's not nudity, but there are some risqué costumes. There are some indecent costumes. Modern audience members looking at it, it could go both ways. You can either have someone be like, you think that's risqué? Because compared to what people are so used to in films now, it's like, oh, that's just like... Oh, look at how romantic that is. It's so tasteful that they're doing that without showing a skin like that. Yes, say that on YouTube comment. Yeah. But I think on the other hand, you would have a different group of people who would have that kind of perception of, oh, this is the good old days and they just wouldn't expect it to even go that far. It's not that they are shocked by seeing anything like that. They're shocked to see it in that context. In a movie made 100 years ago. Context is everything. It could be like something that wouldn't shock you in one place, really shock you in another place. If your grandma swore, you would be shocked even if your friends do all the time. And it's like, I can't believe you're doing that. It's like believing all your school teachers are a certain way. It's just that perception you have of certain things being a certain way. And in some ways, I think it can be more suggestive because it's not as blatant as it is now. It is just writing the line because they know we can only go so far before the censors tear us to pieces. Because that's something you have to consider. Throughout the whole pre-code era. Besides, I mean, really the reason for the production code was that there were censors all over the country and world. Every state, every county, every city had a censor board which had its own strange, peculiar taste. Different things bothered different people. But if they put things that were too risqué, too scandalous, they would get censored. And oftentimes, with an extreme lack of artistry, as you'd expect of some government board, there was one important censor board where the main censor was literally blind. People joked about that. He actually was blind. Really? And how did he censor silent films? I don't know. But that's the story. Or there was one man who was blind in one eye. And they would joke about these things. Did he cut the film? Probably. And they would get out the scissors because you had to cut the negative. That's why you have the case of a lot of pre-code films would be like, there was this scene and it's lost because too many censors cut it out so the original print is gone. And one scene which I know they would have not allowed and which probably got censored is the scene in the church. It takes place. This is after Leo has come back. She's married to Ulrich. This scene was the thing I remember the most from this movie. We watched it years ago. I remembered this scene. Once you've seen the scene, it's in your mind forever. It's pretty striking. They don't get too deeply into what denomination I'm pretty sure they're Lutheran. I know, I was remembering it as they're Catholic. Something about the way they were Catholic. But the character of they're calling him pastor and he's not dressed as a priest when he's out and about. So I think he must be a Lutheran. Since it's in Germany, I say it's Lutheran. And so all the parishioners are kneeling by the altar and they're passing around this goblet of the wine, presumably. And in and of itself, many censor boards did not want to see religious ceremonies being depicted on screen. Censors didn't even want to see a wedding in a church because it's too sacred to be in a movie. They were very sensitive about that in England, right? Yes, they were. They didn't want you to quote from the Bible. They just said, that's too holy. It's too sacred. Don't show it in movies because movies are inherently evil. And there were still a lot of people who felt movies were just in and of themselves, lurid and evil. But I mean, look at movies from time capsule. It took years of things like the production code administration to help movies move away from that. So the movies could actually be a positive art form. Because here's an example of like, you have this strong, there is a strong religious message and moral to the film, but it gets too caught up in showing the sinfulness. But continue and tell us about the scene. Well, you see the good girl, the devout girl taking communion, very like she's praying. And then Leo drinks from the goblet. And this would be disgusting to people with the modern germophobia, but everyone's drinking from the same goblet. He just turns it for each new person. So they're not directly putting their mouths on the same place. But she, Greta Garbo, takes the goblet and turns it back so she can put her mouth where Leo's was. And it's just like, it's just gross. And it's very sacrilegious. You can just imagine the censor boards all over the world getting out the censors and cutting out that scene, at least that part of the scene. And then I'm sure Mr. Brown would be like, but then you show the nice girl and she's praying, she's got a light on her. She looks like a little saint and he's showing the contrast. Like still you're, you're pushing it. You're kind of writing the line here. That's, that's, oh, that is powerful and striking. But still it's so blatantly disrespectful. Yeah, that would be considered deeply sacrilegious by most religious people at the time. And just one of the most obvious things you see, 20s fashion is probably one of the most parodied and copied looks. The fringe, the flapper, oftentimes what we think the 20s look like. Absolutely. Watch some movies from this time. It's like, is that what they look like? Then you see some of it. There are some of the kind of, the drop waist, the drop waist. That was a, that was a thing. The cloche hat. That was a thing. Sometimes the headband. And then there's some dresses like you never would see that in any replication, any movie, play, but that's what they wore. It's just, it's strange. 20s fashion is very odd and not as consistent as some eras. No, I think it, I think it's a little narrow-minded to think there's one. This is the one dress that every woman wore for 10 years. Throughout the decades, styles changed. Throughout the world, styles changed. But I think like, does this have something to do with the code? This sounds weird, but the 20s and then the early 30s, it looked more disorganized. A little bit more like now where you see so many different styles. And I feel like going like the 40s and 50s, there were different styles, obviously, but I feel like there were more set different styles. The code, I strongly believe, influenced the fashions of the nation, if not the world, by bringing back two things that were lost in the 20s and early 30s. Modesty and femininity. They couldn't be too risque. And the 20s was part of this rebellion against all traditionalism. Women now had the right to vote, smoke. Nobody was supposed to drink, but they were drinking out in public places. Work. And so they were just casting off a lot of traditional ideas, like actually looking good. So instead, they wore these just bizarre clothes with like no foundation garments of any kind. And even the shape of the dress was like going completely against the Victorian idea there's always like a corset or something to really accentuate the waist. And I was like, your waist doesn't exist. It was the boyish look. And the only way they would show the femininity would be in having a very low neckline or showing a lot of skin. Because you were talking about this being very black and white, there's an outfit that Greta Garbo wears when she's in mourning, of all things. She has on the black veil. And at first I thought she's wearing a really high-necked white blouse. And I realized that's her skin. The blouse is down here. Yes, yes. There are a couple of scenes like that where it's hard to say, is that her skin or is that her coat? There's a tiny bit of a white blouse. It's almost like she's just wearing a v-necked coat with nothing under it because her skin is so white. Especially accentuated by this, the very crisp black and white. My outfit is inspired by the fashion of Felicitas. She wears a dress very much like this, particularly at a ball that she attends, with the dropway style of the 20s. Very light chiffon fabrics, a lot of loose necklines. There's a notable scarf draped around her. She wears a couple of different tight fitted-to-the-head hats. And notably later on the film, Ulrich gives her a large diamond bracelet. My outfit is inspired by the more girlish fashions of Hertha, particularly the dress she wears at that ball. It is sleeveless and with the dropwaist style, definitely looser since she's a little rounder and not the femme fatale. She wears shoes with a strap, a little pearl necklace, and in several scenes she wears a cloche hat. This movie was based on a comparatively old German novel. It was called, in English, The Undying Past. It's from 1893. It was written by Hermann Zudermann. And although it's called The Undying Past in English, which is quite dramatic, the title in German is just Es war, which means it was. It's actually very dramatic. It is very dramatic. And all those themes about this memory, this mysterious affair from the past, that I think that was in many ways more the focus of the book, whereas more of the movie is dedicated to showing this friendship and how these two young men, as boys, became blood brothers on this little island, the Isle of Friendship, and how it then becomes very powerful as this woman comes between them and they're going to duel to the death on this island. Sort of a very tale as old as time, so to speak, the idea of the two friends and a woman coming between them. And you don't often think of there being a powerful line from a silent film, but the most powerful title card, I suppose, from which they got the title is when the minister says to Leo, when the devil can't get to a man through the spirit, he sends a woman beautiful enough to get to him through the flesh. Yes. That's the title. And like I said, there's a good moral there, but they get so caught up in the flesh and the devil aspect of it that the compensating moral value, as they call it under the code, is not as prevalent as it would have been if this had been a code film. Exactly. The story easily could be made into a code film. It's just the handling of it. Yeah. And that's interesting to note because there are silent and pre-code films that are either just very frivolous or very lurid, and they would take a lot of breeding to really be good. They would basically not be the same story anymore. Yeah. This one, like you said, the story, it's a good message. You know how they say about a house that has good bones? The story has good bones. It does. And it's a very, it's not intended to be frivolous. It's a very deep, well-made artistic film from a meaningful story. But there's a lot of lurid stuff, which is expressed by the title. The Undying Past. Now that's a good title. Flesh and the Devil. Even it was. Yeah. Flesh and the Devil. Now that's a lurid title. You say like Flesh and the Devil. It sounds terrible. And they want it to sound terrible. They want you to come and see some movie about a bunch of female flesh and the devil. You know, like it's bad. And they want you to think about that. Yeah. And that just shows the focus of, and I won't even say Clarence Brown. I don't know that it was his decision. It might've been Irving Thalberg, more likely. He was a marketing genius. We're watching Flesh and the Devil 2. A friend, what did he say? What's a nice title? He's like, what a title. And that's what the title makes you think. It's actually not quite as bad as you'd think. It gets your attention. It does. I'm just like, what? But there is a lot of meaning beneath it. In a code film, there would have been, obviously not some of the scenes in the church. They would have toned down the affair. But that character of the minister would have been even more important. It would have made him even stronger of a moral guide. Yes, they would have. And his characterization. They kind of put in some comical elements regarding him, which was very taboo under the code, as well as to show him drinking a lot of beer. And again, not tasteful. Now, I know that came from the book that he was sort of depicted as gluttonous, as well as being a sort of Helen Brimstone preacher. Interesting. I think it was more of a deep meaning in the book. And it ended up just being a casual joke in the movie. Yeah. That was what the 20s were like. Very frivolous. Very just like, ah, nothing really matters. We survived the war. The lost generation. Yeah. That was what the era was. Very much an eat, drink, and be merry attitude. Yeah. Because I think everyone kind of knew it was like, we're acting like, oh, it's just all released after the war. But I think people felt like grab onto happiness because something else bad is going to happen, which of course it did. Yes. Spoiler alert. But if you want to understand, I'd say really culture of the 20th century, where we are today, politically, socially, morally, fashion wise, as well as cinematography, you have to see what came before. You need to study the code first and foremost. Watch the golden era from 34 to 54. But you can't appreciate that if you just watch a bunch of modern movies and then watch those. Because then you get this warped good old days mentality. Because that's not what it was. It was a hard won battle. So you have to watch the pre-code films and the silent films to see what created this. And Father Daniel Lord, who was one of the two authors of the code, said silent smut was bad enough, but vocal smut called for vengeance from heaven or something like that. So you see how there was a lot of censorship. People were beginning to wonder about Hollywood. But it would be when they began to talk that it became extremely modern and just very fast paced and frivolous in a way that it almost couldn't be in silent films. Yeah. But if you're interested in seeing silent style and a good example of a really well-made silent film around two hours long, I would highly recommend Flesh and the Devil. Absolutely. I think it shows one of the most famous silent actresses, Greta Garbo, her most popular screen partner, John Gilbert, and just a lot of excellent cinematography. This movie is available to rent or buy on Amazon Prime Video, Apple TV, Plex, Tubi. It's free on Plex and Tubi. And you can interestingly buy or rent it on YouTube, but it's also free on YouTube. Also on YouTube, you can find the alternate ending, which I think was cut before the original premiere. Yes, it's a final deleted scene. It's a little tag ending. Nothing too groundbreaking, but it just shows what you imagine might happen afterwards. And all of these are clear, beautiful black and white copies. You can also find on, if you look online, the Internet Archive also has a nice free copy of the movie. So this is available on DVD as well. Many ways to see this film. Flesh and the Devil is definitely the kind of movie that would be considered adult content nowadays. While there are many equally deep and mature code movies, the shift in Hollywood definitely led to more family-oriented films. Join us next time as we talk about a charming movie about a child-hating man who unwillingly becomes mentor to a group of boys, only to realize they're exactly what was missing in his life. Thank you for watching. Goodbye.