Review of Caligula (1979) by Zeke C — 07 Jan 2014

Caligula is one of the more interesting characters in history - not because of any great contributions to human progress, but because of his sheer insanity. He was a psychosexual sadist with a god complex that raped his own sisters, and built one of the most lavish palaces in history for his horse (he also made it a capital offence to wake his horse). And, of course, he was Roman, so you've got that extra layer of debauchery and libertinism on top.

[PARAGRAPH INDENT]I recently read a graphic novel that fictionalizes Caligula's story with one of demonic possession (written by David Lapham; check it out on my Goodreads), primarily because I believed a tale of such debauchery couldn't be put to film and would probably be butchered in a novel. The graphic novel was quite good, but it turns out Caligula has been put to film. And they didn't try to whitewash it with modern sensibility censorship.

[PARAGRAPH INDENT]The 1979 film was produced by Penthouse, written by Gore Vidal and starring a young Malcolm McDowell, and was the first film to feature hardcore pornographic sequences alongside the guise of a legitimate Hollywood feature. It remains banned in a number of countries (including my own Canada, apparently, though I'm not sure what they mean by "banned") and is one of only three films Roger Ebert has ever walked out of. It's 156 minutes long and chronicles the rise and fall of Rome's third emperor.

[PARAGRAPH INDENT]In addition to Ebert having dismissed its worth in an anti-pornography bias, he did also criticize it for its lack of direction. And I'd say that would be my main criticism as well. Gore Vidal's writing I'm not going to throw under the bus, and Malcolm McDowell (God, he's young in this) commands a tyrannical presence on screen. In fact, the acting is good all around. But there are long, meandering scenes that are seemingly left to their own devices. In large part it does feel that the director (Tinto Brass) left for long coffee breaks while filming. This doesn't occur ubiquitously throughout, but it is noticeable more than it should be.

[PARAGRAPH INDENT]It should be noted here that I have the "Unrated" version. This prompts a question: at exactly what point does gratuity set in? I'm a huge fan of HBO, and, among other things, I especially love their ability to keep (as Stewie Griffin would call them) the unwashed masses interested in incredibly complex, intricately crafted serialized storytelling by seamlessly blending all this complexity in with their mandate for boobies every ten minutes. They've unabashedly done it with "Rome" and, of course, with "Game of Thrones". Moreover, Starz Channel has also (more for simple gratuity's sake) indulged in shameless nudity in their breadwinner, "Spartacus".

[PARAGRAPH INDENT]I have no issue with any of these shows. The sex and nudity is all tasteful and germane - indulgent, yes, but not over the top (not even when Emilia Clarke's flailing titties shoes up on Xvideos when she's taking a pounding from Khal Drogo). And, lest I be accused of a two-bit adolescent boy or an objectifying pig, this isn't just about breasts. I've never once been squeamish about the full frontal male nudity in any of these shows, including the castration in "Spartacus".

[PARAGRAPH INDENT]But "Caligula" pushed the envelope too far. Maybe the broad dividing line is the one that divides softcore from hardcore, or maybe, again, it's the lack of direction. Or maybe it's the hairstyles from the 70s. (Question for the ladies: is a button on a fur coat really attractive?) For whatever reason, this film did go too far - it was the long, lingering orgy scenes that would shift from suggestive to outright hardcore in the blink of an eye.

[PARAGRAPH INDENT]This film has a cult following, and a cult following it deserves, but I'm not all that upset it's been shunned by the collective fandom of general audiences. If you want the grit of Caligula's reign without the squeamishness, this film is it, if slightly lacking in direction.