spittle Posted October 13, 2007 Report Share Posted October 13, 2007 Opinions on this film would be appreciated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-Manicus Posted October 13, 2007 Report Share Posted October 13, 2007 Opinions on this film would be appreciated. [tact mode]Um, what a ... er, um, uh ... UNIQUE film! Yes, that's it ... "unique." [/tact mode] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASCLEPIADES Posted October 13, 2007 Report Share Posted October 13, 2007 Opinions on this film would be appreciated. Salve, SP As far as I remember, Caligula (1979) tried to please both History and *or* fans; eventually nobody was pleased. Too much *or* for the historians, too much history for the *or* fans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flavia Gemina Posted October 13, 2007 Report Share Posted October 13, 2007 (edited) Some nuggets from IMDB. They will give you an idea of why this film was not well-received... Despite popular beliefs, Gore Vidal and Tinto Brass did not disown this film because Bob Guccione of Penthouse magazine inserted hardcore sex and graphic violence sequences and changed the point of the film. In reality, only five or six minutes of the 156-minute version of the film was part of Guccione's reshoot - that five or six minutes consists of the lesbian tryst in the secret room, and several inserts in the imperial bordello scene. Everything else was shot by Brass. Vidal disowned the film because Brass and lead actor Malcolm McDowell changed the point of view of his screenplay. Brass disowned it because Guccione locked him out of the editing room (some in the industry suspect it was because Brass didn't want to use Guccione's hardcore inserts) after assembling the first 40 minutes (which was probably disassembled shortly afterward). Guccione then proceeded to edit the film himself, but he often chose shots that were never meant to be included (the many zooms, out-of-focus shots, etc.), and also cut up certain scenes and put them in the wrong order. A prime example of this is Caligula's nightmare scene with Drusilla, which now occurs in a part of the film that would have been quite impossible dramatically, and is actually the first half of an earlier scene, which occurs just after the credits (together, the two scenes were meant to be the opening of the film, and the current opening in which Caligula and Drusilla enjoy a romp through a forest was intended for an entirely different purpose altogether, and was meant to occur much later). Maria Schneider was originally supposed to play Drusilla and actually started shooting some scenes, but she changed her mind while filming a sex scene with Malcolm McDowell. Deeply disturbed by her skimpy toga and the graphic incest scenes, she walked off the set bad-mouthing the production. After raping Proculus' wife, Caligula was meant to sodomize Proculus himself. Malcolm McDowell refused to do it, and Tinto Brass instead suggested the off-screen fisting which is seen in the movie. After the film was released, Anneka Di Lorenzo (aka Marjorie Lee Thoresen, a 1975 Penthouse Pet of the Year), who played Messalina, sued Bob Guccione, saying that his handling of the film, mainly his adding of the hardcore sex inserts, had damaged her acting career by associating her with a hardcore porno film. She won her case, but was awarded only $4.06 in damages. The film's screenplay was developed from an unproduced television mini-series treatment, written by Roberto Rossellini. It since has gone on to become Penthouse's best selling video. Nuff said... Edited October 13, 2007 by Flavia Gemina Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caldrail Posted November 11, 2007 Report Share Posted November 11, 2007 Opinions on this film would be appreciated. Salve, SP As far as I remember, Caligula (1979) tried to please both History and *or* fans; eventually nobody was pleased. Too much *or* for the historians, too much history for the *or* fans. Actually I don't think the history side was important at all, it was merely an excuse to portray human excess and indulgence in an almost surreal manner. This unreality was deliberately intended to water down the *or* element and make it acceptable to a mass market, whilst appealing on the level of roman myth. Personally I think its a truly awful film. The characters are two-dimensional and even John Gielgud does the decent thing by committing suicide almost as soon as we see him. Like many such films, the actors have little idea who they're portraying and seem to fill the gap by acting a little 'mad'. Is there anything [positive to be said for his production? Well, yes. The overall mood is consistent and there is almost a balletic quality to some scenes. It has a style all of its own, a fairy-tale vision of decadent Rome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pertinax Posted November 11, 2007 Report Share Posted November 11, 2007 I remember this ironic comment: " Sir John Gielgud said he was "unaware of any sex or violence in the filmscript "after an initial reading of his salary cheque. I remember being very bored by the excess of the whole thing, my impression was that someone was trying very hard to be as naughty as possible to display how liberal they were (and failing horribly).It was a relief when Malcolm's head was finally lopped off and we could go home. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Augusta Posted November 11, 2007 Report Share Posted November 11, 2007 I have very little to add to the comments of Calders and Pertinax - but I would say ONE thing about this awful mess: Malcolm McDowell actually looks like the real Caligula! Beyond that, well....what is there to say....? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WotWotius Posted November 12, 2007 Report Share Posted November 12, 2007 I remember my Ancient History teacher telling me about a similar film advertised under the title of 'The Affairs of Messalina'. She said she spend ten minutes watching the film until she realised that she was in the wrong kind of cinema, watching the wrong kind of film. Apparently there was very history in the dialogue; in fact, there was very little dialogue at all... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursus Posted November 12, 2007 Report Share Posted November 12, 2007 Too much *or* for the historians, too much history for the *or* fans. For a second there I thought we were having another discussion on Showtime's "The Tudors." Then I realized I was in the Colosseum folder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faustus Posted November 12, 2007 Report Share Posted November 12, 2007 (edited) Opinions on this film would be appreciated. Salve SP, EtaL - I've never seen the film, but from reading these comments, a report on McDowell I heard many years ago, becomes clear. It appears he had something besides a British accent to qualify him for the roll. But also, when I finally watched I CLAVDIUS (after having it on the shelf for 12 years), of all the segments the one I turned away from was ZEUS, BY JOVE on Caligula. And when loaning "I.C." out to friends, I suggest passing over that part, as it reinforces an already popular stereotypical and extreme image of Rome. The expected popularity expressed in the making of the film Caligula in 1979, seems to say more about "us" at the time than it does about Rome. It appears Caligula, following I Claudius having been made in 1976, was an attempt to cash in on the "seamy" (hypersexual) side of the classic, by taking that one gruesome "chapter" and capitalizing on it. But what else is new? Valete Edited November 12, 2007 by Faustus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spittle Posted November 12, 2007 Author Report Share Posted November 12, 2007 There was also a mini-series called The Cleopatra's from around that same time. That too was little more than an excuse for partial nudity, barbaric cruelty and people eating grapes. Rubbish! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaius Paulinus Maximus Posted November 12, 2007 Report Share Posted November 12, 2007 I found these clips on youtube, after watching them I'll have to agree with everything said in this thread......... THIS FILM IS S*** http://youtube.com/watch?v=JU2ACd_Yc1c http://youtube.com/watch?v=EYLv9vnpxsk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pertinax Posted November 12, 2007 Report Share Posted November 12, 2007 Even worse than I remembered, a prequel to the Jerry Springer special "I married my Horse" (I speak only the truth) , but not as moving. Now I must burn my PC screen and bury its ashes. In clip number two I see that Malcolm has borrowed Peter O'Toole's dicition (no Up Pompeii double entendres please) most particularly from his Lawrence of Arabia speech " greedy , babarous and cruel" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pertinax Posted November 12, 2007 Report Share Posted November 12, 2007 This is the best part, because you could go home at last. The horse seems unhappy. http://youtube.com/watch?v=QwfKbSiKH0Y My only question is , why did Morrisey from the Smiths ( may only resonate with UK members) take the part of Longinus? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Augusta Posted November 12, 2007 Report Share Posted November 12, 2007 There was also a mini-series called The Cleopatra's from around that same time. That too was little more than an excuse for partial nudity, barbaric cruelty and people eating grapes. Rubbish! Yep - and The Borgias. How could we forget The Borgias? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.