The one positive thing you can say for Caligula is that it is the best and most perfect depiction of “decadence” that was ever put on film. If you want to know what a truly decadent society looked like, see the movie. (It will also stop you from ever using the word about today’s culture in the U.S.)
pool, what you need to realize is that when people call this film atrocious, they are not referring to the subject matter or to any specific situations in the film, for the most part. Some parts are indeed dehumanizing, callous and scandalous. But all that is just gravy on top of the fact that it’s one of the worst-made films in history.
Bad acting, bad camera work, bad lighting, bad sound. Some of the worst ever. The same level of filmmaking competence applied to any subject at all would garner the same reputation. The fact that it’s about debauchery just makes it that much worse.
Not until “The Cook, The Thief, His Wife, and Her Lover” was “Caligula” to have an equal in making sadistic hedonism so goddamn BORING. You would at least expect, with what tidbits I’m sure you’ve heard about the film, that, love it or hate it, your eyes will at least be riveted to the screen. Not so. You will find yourself looking at your watch, wondering about the cover story on that magazine lying there, wondering what’s in the fridge.
In this thread, I wrote the following:
This thread continues the cycle. “I’ve heard people say it isn’t worth seeing, but I need to know. … <two hours later> … Well, they were right. … <next person asks> No, trust me, you don’t need to see it. … <two hours later> Told you so.”
The film’s aura is strong, and almost irresistible, so please don’t think I’m knocking you for your curiosity. I gave in myself, after all. If you see it, please come back and report. Maybe eventually we’ll be able to get off the merry-go-round.
I really like Caligula the same way I like Blue Velvet or Pink Flamingos or a Russ Meyer movie… it’s the sheer bizarre-ness.
Well put! Not only boring, but hard to watch, due to the bad lighting and sound.
There are, however, a few interesting parts. You will find yourself saying “Hey, this part might be interesting!” Before you finish saying it, however, the movie will cut away to another scene. Often in mid-sentence. So no good idea is ever developed further than a hey look at this cheese.
Another vote for it really is that bad. By all means avoid the director’s cut.
LOL. I haven’t seen Calgula, but if it is comparable to The Cook, etc. then man it *must *be bad.
I watched it during the late 80’s which happened to be my wild 20s. I wanted to see it due to the hype: like The Wall, Blue Velvet, Liquid Sky, Eating Raoul, Faces of Death…
It’s one of those movies that I felt I had to see, but once I saw it I had no desire to ever sit through again. Sort of like Sid & Nancy.
Oh man, me too. I think I even started a thread about the scene that stuck with me, asking what movie it was from. How sad that the movie scene that had haunted me for DECADES was from friggin’ Caligula. And from tge descriptions here, it was probably the lawnmower thing. Did that involve people buried up to their necks and trampling horses?
A few years ago I tried to watch the whole thing and couldn’t stay with it. Just boring and badly paced and the acting sucks and the plot was incomprehensible. Ugh.
Alright alright. But you’re being a bit disingenous. I meant the content not the execution. I’m certainly not saying it’s a good movie.
Just a bit interesting. Grainy and underexposed though it is.
And yes, as I said probably acurate in it’s own weird way. How else do you portray a warped society? Take that for what it’s worth.
I watch this movie about once a year. I don’t care about its plot or historical accuracy, I just enjoy Malcolm McDowell as an eeeeevil character. His unrepenting villany shines brightly enough for me to be able to ignore the rest of that film.
A coupla points:
1.) I don’t recall the film being technically “bad”. Grainy and underexposed? That’s not my recollection. They had the budget and the talent to make a film that was technically good, and I certainly don’t recall it being bad as far as the imagin went. But that’s not the issue here.
2.) Despite whatever personal failings and craziness Caligula had, the Empire itseld wasn’t in danger of colapsing. Nor, for that matter, was Caligula probably as completely and unrepentently awful as he’s made out to be. Read Michael Grant’s The Twelve Caesars about the guys Suetonius writes about. They put in long hours and heard individual petitioners, even the worst of them. Even in Suetonius, Caligula is creited with a number of active programs and reforms. He might’ve been Hell on Earth,. but he actually did govern and produce some good effects. For all I know, this could have been all the work of an army of advisors and underlings, but that doesn’t change the facts – actual government took place during the reigns of these guys, and they didn’t spend all their time in decadent orgies.
Fair enough, betenoir. I just couldn’t get past the bad filmmaking.
But then again, I find the claim that this film is historically accurate in any way to be highly questionable. Was Gore Vidal a respected historian?
OK, that was hyperbole. It’s been a long time, but I remember it being visually hard to watch. Underlit, or bad color schemes, or something. I’m not about to watch it again to figure out why it was so bad.
Gore Vidal was a historical ovelist, whose works I’ve found to be acceptably accurate. But I have no idea how much of his script made it to the screen. Not a lot, I’d expect.
It’s now highly suspect that Caligula made his horse a Senator, for instance, as depicted in the film. (On the other hand, it’s a photogenic scene, and does seem like the kind of thing Caligula’d do, so I’m not surprised it’s in there.) I really seriously doubt that Fellini-esque Decapitator, as I’ve said. Claudius really does come off as feeble-minded in this version, but that would be consistent with historical sources (it’s Graves whose accuracy is somewhat suspect there). Somehow I can’t really credit the scenes of debauchery shown in Tiberius’ court, either.
Hee hee hee.
I guess I have a cetain affection for it because it was my first exposer to sadisitic hedonism. Of which I am so fond.
And I have to admit ( :o ) I liked “The Cook The Theif His Wife And Her Lover”.
But I was so young then.
I liked Liquid Sky and Rocky Horror Picture Show…
But what did i know?
On preview thanks tdn. I don’t know. Gore Vidal? I’m guessing not the greatest historian. But he did get some of his information from Robert Graves…not that he was the perfect historian either. And it was that kind of culture. Who was it who said the sin of the the ancients was crulty and the sin of the modernes was hypocrapscy (and bad spelling).
The biggest gripe I had watching the movie wasn’t how awful Alex, I mean Caligula was. It’s just that the movie never even tried to show why everybody followed his orders. What was the source of Caligula’s power? Why didn’t people get fed up and lop his crazy head off? What made the army loyal to him? He’s the emperor? What difference does that make? In real life these nutty emperors had a power base, they had people who would suffer if the emperor was replaced, they had agents, they foiled plots against them. The movie was just Caligula doing one crazy horrible thing after another, and everyone standing around like idiots waiting for Caligula to do the next crazy horrible thing.
Yeah, Caligula was crazy, and drunk on his own power. But what was the source of that power? His uncle Tiberius made Caligula his heir? So what?
Of course in real history Caligula “little boots” was the son of a beloved general, and as a child he accompanied the legions everywhere, he was revered by the army. Why couldn’t they show the hold his persona had on the legions?
And I disagree about the “that’s how it really was!” sentiment. No it wasn’t. It really was this decadent? Then how did the empire survive another 400 years? You can’t just show every crazy thing Caligula did over his 4 year reign, and leave out the parts where he was administering the empire, or defending his turf, or what have you.
And the hardcore sex scenes splice in don’t add anything to the movie. Look, I’ve got nothing against hardcore sex scenes, but these added nothing, nothing to the movie. They literally have nothing to do with the rest of the movie.
And just for grins:
Three words for you. A Clockwork Orange.
He is a naughty naughty unrepentant boy in that movie, too. But, it has other things going for it as well, like, for example, a plot.
Uh…they did. (Okay, they didn’t chop his head off, but they ran him through a few times.)
And when you’re making a movie about someone as infamous as he was…well, you’ve only got a couple of hours to put to film, right? It’s kinda understandable that you’d want to record all the “good” freaky stuff before getting to the mundane parts. I mean, how many movies about Hitler are there that take time to show him discussing the “ruin value” of architecture with Albert Speer, or approving government anti-smoking campaigns, or something? (I’m not saying you can’t, or shouldn’t make a movie that doesn’t just note the sensational bits of history, but I don’t think it’s really surprising or automatically unforgivable if you don’t)
And it’s not exactly like he was the only nutball monarch who got into and stayed in power (at least, until it was more trouble than it was worth to keep them alive) just because of his name and bloodline. Just look at mad king Ludwig, or Charles II of Spain.
Yes, such unluck! Is there any support group Caligula victims?