Caligula (1980)
Tinto Brass
156 mins, unrated uncut version
The Romans Did It All the Time, Didn't Shave, and Were Also Murderous
Seven years since my first screening of Caligula and I was surprised as to how much I had retained. This is an amazing movie, but not for the reasons you normally hear. This comment refers to the uncut 20th anniversary edition and the accompanying "Making of" feature (on the DVD).
First, this is NOT a pornographic movie (although you should probably skip on the family night idea). There's enough nudity to make old sleazebags (like Jess Franco) weep with envy, and there's a bit of hardcore sex, but the movie does not aim at arousing sensations your run-of-the-mill XXX flick does. It is only mildly erotic (this gives it too much credit).
Second, this is NOT a gore movie. There's some blood-letting (less graphic and explicit than the sex), certainly not enough to give the movie more than a PG rating in this department. Of course, horror was one thing the makers certainly were not going for.
Third, this is NOT an historical movie (although in some respects it takes the viewer closer to pagan Rome than any other film this author has seen). There are really only two main sources on Caligula (i.e. not much is known about this character), so the movie's claim to fame isn't documentary accuracy. It is, however, an unapologetic depiction of a society different from any contemporary one in more good ways than bad.
Fourth, this is NOT a movie about the ``corrupting effects of power'' or ``Caligula's gradual descent into madness.'' Gore Vidal may have pulled out of the project due to disagreements with the director, but the interview with him did not impress me with the alleged subtlety or profundity of his original script. This is coming from a person (me), who is a great admirer of Vidal's work. On the other hand, the director's pretenses are a sham. We've all heard the story about power corrupting innocent human beings, blah, blah. Could be true, certainly not deeply philosophical, or even remotely entertaining. So, viewers can probably disregard both the director's and scriptwriter's rationalizations.
Finally, a bit about what the film IS. ``Caligula'' is a wonderfully amoral movie, unabashedly wallowing in sensual excess, and profoundly unapologetic about it. This is an excellent depiction of a different morality, before christianity changed it forever. This was a society, where the privileged could indulge most of their desires (not different from ours), where the public thrived on spectacle (not different from ours), and where violence was an accepted facet of life (not different from ours), but which felt no guilt for it (this is the difference). It is here where the movie shines.
``Caligula'' confronts modern deeply held restraints on behavior and it is dangerous because it seeks no excuse for enjoying challenging the social taboos. There is nothing natural about the way Romans lived but there is nothing natural about the way we live as well. Thus, we have to deal with such alien morality on its own terms. So don't condemn the film or the era, their right to existence is perfectly valid, just as ours.
I do regret one aspect of the movie: it could have been more engaging in a dramatic way. There are plenty of exceptionally strong moments (Caligula dancing before Tiberius and then naked in the night, or him kissing the dead body of his sister, almost trying to devour her, not able to let go), but one is left dissatisfied with the limited portrayal of the character. Caligula may well have been mad, but he challenged the most powerful institutions of his time. He remained (mostly) loved by the public until his demise and it was the rich and the powerful that curtailed his miserable life.
With its visually arresting sets, lavish production, and enough gorgeous people to keep any normal human glued to the screen, the movie could have gone for some flair and suffered none for it. The cinematography is very much dated, although most of the acting is impressive. The music (both Khachaturian/Prokofief and the original score) is appropriately grandiose, sweeping, yet somewhat disturbing; an excellent fit for the movie.
Verdict: see it, then see it again. Then read some of the narrow-minded self-indulgent narcissistic comments here and understand why we need movies like this. Oh yes, then see it again. 8 out of 10.
December 1, 1999. BLS