Caligula (1979)
This is a weirdie. It is certainly not genre, but if Fellini could claim that Satyricon was a science fiction film, this certainly qualifies as a sort of fantastic interpretation of historical events that takes place in outrageously extravagant sets which have no relationship to real space or real architecture. The theatrical based structures' sole purpose is to present and frame the scenes we are looking at. No one character is able to achieve any degree of humanity and one might as well be looking at aliens for two and a half hours.
The film itself is a disaster. Real actors were called in (Gielgud, Mirren, O'Toole, McDowell,) but for the most part they seem to be ignored by the camera and editing. It feels as if this might work better as a silent film because as the actors recite their dialogue the camera and the editing do their best to undercut them. It zooms in and out, it gets distracted by elements in the background and foreground or by hardcore inserts which may or may not have been added in post production.
There is certainly a recognizable rhythm in the editing, but it really has nothing to do with anything else that is going on. It may very well be that the editor had nothing better to work on: several times the image we are focused on is a fuzzy, zoomed-in and cropped image of one or two of the actors. We might also end up looking at the back of the head of the actor as he/she does their dialogue.
Most of the blame could easily be placed on the shooting director. Is this an instance where the director and the actors simply did not speak the same language*? There was probably never a good film in there, but a better (chosen) director could have shot better materials for the editor and might also have guided the actors better in what was desired of them. It would still not have not resulted in a good film, but maybe as optimal a film as possible while sticking with the limitations of the established concept.
The film seems to have been designed as a series of Sadean tableaux (in mostly impressive sets - in one instance the set is impressive, but they were only able to bring on a few dozen Roman soldiers and the scene looks underpopulated,) in which the actors are lost, yet appear to be doing their best with what dialogue and direction they are given.
Knowing what I know of Guccione, this seems exactly like the film that Penthouse would produce: the focus being on sex, violence and in grossing out the audience with grotesque imagery: urination (fake) and vomiting (possibly real) happen right on camera. Series such as the excellent Rome (TV Series 2005–2007) have since proven that one can have elements such as these without detriment to the dramatic impact of the whole, but in Caligula the drama element itself seems like an afterthought or as something that was simply forgotten in the shuffle.
The story, or whatever there is that can be called it is the story of Caligula's rise to power after the assassination of Tiberius, and his subsequent fall after a brief period of power.
There are plenty of horrific and gross out scenes: stabbing of a soldier after his stomach has been distended after forced drinking of much wine; an enormous decapitating machine; freaks (real deformed men and women in addition to some achieved via special effects - I hope,) the rape of a virgin bride and the fisting of the bridegroom (thankfully many of the horrific scenes are not as explicit as one would fear, some are implied and some happen just off camera,) multiple castrations, poisonings, stabbings, a disturbingly graphic child murder; a horse in a bed that cannot but recall the Marx Bros.' Duck Soup**; many explicit orgies with all sorts of toys and mechanical implements, soft and hard core scenes, etc.
Does not get a recommendation, but it might be of historical interest to some, or as well illustrated example of what happens when things go wrong while making a film.
Hefner had better success with Macbeth.
I'd say watch that instead.
* I may have seen another Tinto Brass film, but I cannot recall, so cannot compare with a fully Italian production.
** Some dialogue seems inspired by Groucho's dialogue from Duck Soup:
"Caesonia: They are senators and consuls. They are important men.Caligula: So important that they approve all I do?
Caesonia: They must be mad.
Caligula: I don't know what else to do to revolt them."
"Proculus: Divine Ceasar, PLEASE! What have I done? Why am I here?
Caligula: Treason!
Proculus: Treason? I have always been loyal to you!
Caligula: [laughs insanely] That IS your treason! You're an honest man, Proculus, which means a bad Roman! Therefore, you are a traitor! Logical, hmm? Ha, ha, ha!"
This is a weirdie. It is certainly not genre, but if Fellini could claim that Satyricon was a science fiction film, this certainly qualifies as a sort of fantastic interpretation of historical events that takes place in outrageously extravagant sets which have no relationship to real space or real architecture. The theatrical based structures' sole purpose is to present and frame the scenes we are looking at. No one character is able to achieve any degree of humanity and one might as well be looking at aliens for two and a half hours.
The film itself is a disaster. Real actors were called in (Gielgud, Mirren, O'Toole, McDowell,) but for the most part they seem to be ignored by the camera and editing. It feels as if this might work better as a silent film because as the actors recite their dialogue the camera and the editing do their best to undercut them. It zooms in and out, it gets distracted by elements in the background and foreground or by hardcore inserts which may or may not have been added in post production.
There is certainly a recognizable rhythm in the editing, but it really has nothing to do with anything else that is going on. It may very well be that the editor had nothing better to work on: several times the image we are focused on is a fuzzy, zoomed-in and cropped image of one or two of the actors. We might also end up looking at the back of the head of the actor as he/she does their dialogue.
Most of the blame could easily be placed on the shooting director. Is this an instance where the director and the actors simply did not speak the same language*? There was probably never a good film in there, but a better (chosen) director could have shot better materials for the editor and might also have guided the actors better in what was desired of them. It would still not have not resulted in a good film, but maybe as optimal a film as possible while sticking with the limitations of the established concept.
The film seems to have been designed as a series of Sadean tableaux (in mostly impressive sets - in one instance the set is impressive, but they were only able to bring on a few dozen Roman soldiers and the scene looks underpopulated,) in which the actors are lost, yet appear to be doing their best with what dialogue and direction they are given.
Knowing what I know of Guccione, this seems exactly like the film that Penthouse would produce: the focus being on sex, violence and in grossing out the audience with grotesque imagery: urination (fake) and vomiting (possibly real) happen right on camera. Series such as the excellent Rome (TV Series 2005–2007) have since proven that one can have elements such as these without detriment to the dramatic impact of the whole, but in Caligula the drama element itself seems like an afterthought or as something that was simply forgotten in the shuffle.
The story, or whatever there is that can be called it is the story of Caligula's rise to power after the assassination of Tiberius, and his subsequent fall after a brief period of power.
There are plenty of horrific and gross out scenes: stabbing of a soldier after his stomach has been distended after forced drinking of much wine; an enormous decapitating machine; freaks (real deformed men and women in addition to some achieved via special effects - I hope,) the rape of a virgin bride and the fisting of the bridegroom (thankfully many of the horrific scenes are not as explicit as one would fear, some are implied and some happen just off camera,) multiple castrations, poisonings, stabbings, a disturbingly graphic child murder; a horse in a bed that cannot but recall the Marx Bros.' Duck Soup**; many explicit orgies with all sorts of toys and mechanical implements, soft and hard core scenes, etc.
Does not get a recommendation, but it might be of historical interest to some, or as well illustrated example of what happens when things go wrong while making a film.
Hefner had better success with Macbeth.
I'd say watch that instead.
* I may have seen another Tinto Brass film, but I cannot recall, so cannot compare with a fully Italian production.
** Some dialogue seems inspired by Groucho's dialogue from Duck Soup:
"Caesonia: They are senators and consuls. They are important men.Caligula: So important that they approve all I do?
Caesonia: They must be mad.
Caligula: I don't know what else to do to revolt them."
"Proculus: Divine Ceasar, PLEASE! What have I done? Why am I here?
Caligula: Treason!
Proculus: Treason? I have always been loyal to you!
Caligula: [laughs insanely] That IS your treason! You're an honest man, Proculus, which means a bad Roman! Therefore, you are a traitor! Logical, hmm? Ha, ha, ha!"
