Caligula (DVD)

Connect to Facebook/Twitter, recommend via email and much more.

---

When John J. Puccio reviewed the unrated version of "Caligula"--the 156-minute cut with triple-x graphic sex added by Penthouse publisher Bob Guccione, the film's executive producer--he wrote that it was "without any redeeming social value. It's bad history, bad filmmaking, and bad pornography, too."

Nearly 30 years after it was made, "Caligula" continues to shock. But even more shocking than the film's graphic sex--fellatio, cunnilingus, hand-jobs, masturbation, fingering of genitalia, mechanical phalluses, sodomy, pedophilia, beastiality, necrophilia, and orgies staged with all the lavishness of grand old Hollywood musicals--is that this new "Three-Disc Imperial Edition" offers some pretty reasoned and unapologetic commentaries from stars Malcolm McDowell (who played Caligula) and Helen Mirren (yes, "The Queen"!, who played Caligula's empress, Caesonia). In fact, their commentaries are so generous and high-minded that it all but gives everyone permission to include this title in their own video collections now, without feeling like a perv.

Mirren calls it "an irresistible mix of art and genitals" and says that making the film was "like being on an acid trip that has both its good and bad moments." Mirren and a handsome two-color, 14-page booklet remind us that this film started out with all the legitimacy of an heir to the throne, and that the script that was shot was still largely the one that Gore Vidal provided. That's why the project was able to attract an A-list that still looks big. In addition to McDowell and Mirren there's Peter O'Toole, who plays the syphilis-ridden Emperor Tiberius; John Gielgud, who plays the wise counselor, Nerva; and Teresa Ann Savoy, who plays Julia Drusilla, Caligula's sister. Vidal would eventually ask that his name be removed from the project after learning that Guccione wanted to bring in his Penthouse Pets and add more graphic sex scenes.

So is this the definitive edition of what's been called the most expensive ($15 mil) porno film every made? Not according to R.J. Buffalo, co-author of a work-in-progress on "Caligula," who writes that some 50 percent of the original footage is missing. "If you run across any leads of variant versions, missing footage, missing soundtrack or missing publicity stills, please contact . . ." Buffalo says. He offers a complete history of the film's problems and lawsuits, all of which, frankly, sounds much more intriguing than the movie.

Ahh, the movie. John called it "bad history, bad filmmaking, and bad pornography." I'm going to pass on passing judgment on the latter, since the only pornographic film I've seen was "Debbie Does Dallas," way back when I was young enough to fantasize that Debbie and her friends might also do my town. I will say this, though: If good pornography, like good sex itself, involves a build-up of tension to heighten the "moment" of release, then there's not much of that here. The first T&A comes shortly after the one-minute mark, and we only have to watch young Caligula and his conquest for about 20 seconds before he's pawing her and we're seeing just about every part of her body. When there is sex in this film, it's jump-right-in, slam-bam, thank-you-viewers sex that's so in-your-face and excessive that I'm guessing it'll shock more people than it will arouse.

Bad filmmaking? As Buffalo explains, any version of the film--and two are provided here, the unrated version with Guccione's added footage and a pre-release cut that omitted the graphic stuff--will seem jarring because too many hands were at work. Director Tinto Brass wanted one thing, writer Gore Vidal wanted another, and money-man Guccione did all sorts of tampering with the film. The result, even in this quasi-definitive set, is that there are numerous gaffes, among them, Buffalo writes, nine major audio errors, a bizarre sequence reworked into a nightmare vision, eight sequences that are fragments of missing scenes which have no context, seven shots of Guccione's and his filmmaker friend Giancarlo Lui's footage in place of Brass's, four instances of scenes cut off abruptly, and three crucial scenes missing TOTALLY--hence the call for help. If that isn't evidence of bad filmmaking, I don't know what is. And from a neophyte's seat, the film is simply boring. It feels as if we've just wandered onto Guccione's version of the Hugh Hefner Playboy mansion parties, with cavernous sets lit as if it were a Halloween gala and everyone dressed in togas. Does it evoke ancient Imperial Rome? Not to me, and I was a bit of an expert on Ancient Rome in a previous lifetime, when I collected and exhibited Roman Imperial coins.

Most of what we know of the first 12 Caesars comes from historian Suetonius, who spent as much time chronicling the "good" Caligula as he did the "bad." The turning point, according to another ancient named Philo, was a near-death experience that Caligula had which changed him from a reasonably committed Emperor to one that should be committed. There were abuses--Suetonius accuses him of having incest with his sisters and forcing them to have sex with other men--along with Suetonius's suggestion that Caligula himself may have hastened Tiberius's death so that he could rule. That's faithfully depicted in the film, but most of what we see is purely speculation. So many people walk around naked in this film--both Romans and slaves--that you begin to wonder why ANYONE bothers to dress. It's as if Guccione went with the clichéd depravity that led to Rome's fall, without bothering to consider that this was fairly early in the Empire, long before the widespread wanton licentiousness that hastened its end.