Does the Caligula: The Ultimate Cut deserve all of the hype or is it just excess for excess sake?
Listen at the podcast providers of your choice.
It's not uncommon for historical figures or movies to have infamous reputations. But movies about said figures are rarely as infamous as their subject. The Marquis de Sade may have written some of the most infamous literature in history, but Quills didn't generate extreme outrage, boycotts, or censorship. That's what makes the 1979 film Caligula so special. Because much like the Roman dictator the film is based on, the film faced a wave of backlash for its pervasive sexual content and excess including censorship, bans and a bunch of a negative reviews that portrayed the film as empty titillation or merely a step or two away from pornography. Was that fair? For years it was hard to say, because the "uncut" version of the film wasn't available for public consumption and was flat-out banned in numerous countries.
Despite all of this, the film developed a cult following, with many considering the film a misunderstood masterpiece. And now after years of restoration the film has been delivered in its original intended form. A 2024 178 minute "Ultimate Cut." So does the film deserve all of the hype or is it just excess for excess sake?
The Setup
The film introduces Caligula as the heir apparent to Rome's throne, just behind his Uncle Tiberius who has fallen into depravity. But as Tiberius circles the drain and Caligula attempts to ascend, will the young man be able to reach the height of Roman power unscathed...?
I think I've identified the disconnect between this movie and its reputation. Visuals vs. plot. So let's talk plot first.
The Plot
If you look at the plot of the movie, the movie plays more like a tragedy where every player was more or less doomed from the start because absolute power can both breed rampant suspicions and excesses, both of which will create more enemies and could lead to an untimely end.
Caligula is the heir apparent and if things progress in a normal fashion, he should ascend to the throne of Emperor and rule. Buuuuut, the man who's currently on the throne is both a murderous asshole and clearing dying/decaying due to VD and looking to maintain his stranglehold on power, so he plots to kill Caligula who has to counter kill him in response. And because Tiberius was a tyrant who lived excessively, that's the only blueprint Caligula had for a ruler, so he behaves accordingly and he starts circling the same drain Tiberius was almost as soon as he takes power. Because...what the hell was his model for ruling? So even if you don't relate to Caligula, you can see why he turned out this way. And that's something that's pretty clear in the longer cut.
Caligula was regularly humiliated as a boy and a man by the active ruler. So the cycle continued with him. Only Caligula didn't have an heir so he takes it out on...everyone else. And who or what is going to stop him besides a violent revolt?
Caligula was regularly humiliated as a boy and a man by the active ruler. So the cycle continued with him. Only Caligula didn't have an heir so he takes it out on...everyone else. And who or what is going to stop him besides a violent revolt?
It's a one of those stories where if anyone had a solid parent or A therapy session the end result could've turned out a lot better.
On paper, this is an indictment of the Roman system, or any system, that puts so much centralized power in one man, which can lead to abuses and isolate said ruler from their humanity. And there's a number of scenes that highlight that whether it's Caligula being unable to console himself after the loss of a loved one or him viewing how the commoners actually see him.
But that's all gonna get distracted and washed away by some of the largest on screen excesses ever put to screen.
The Visuals
The argument you can make for Caligula's on screen nudity and violence is the same you'd make for the nonstop cursing, substance abuse and nudity in a movie like The Wolf of Wall Street. The excess is the point. Uncontrolled id running rampant because the only concern is the next thing. The next high. The next orgasm. The next multimillion dollar deal. So much so that it becomes normalized white noise and both the audience and the lead character realize too late just how far they've fallen.
So why doesn't this work as well in Caligula? The first reason is the visual presentation.
Almost all of the nudity presented in Caligula looks and feels like a performance. It's not intimate. It's like a swimming pool full of nude people in period costumes. Like a Buzzby Berkley musical, complete with giant sets and boobs butts and genitals as costume. It doesn't feel real. As much as I don't think Salo is as deep as its defenders claim, this is something it gets very right. The sex and nudity in that movie is being carried out on prisoners. There is nothing fun or "visually stunning" about it.
Whereas individual moments like Caligula publicly assaulting a man and woman in front of a crowd of nobles does have the intended effect because that feels grounded, real and gross.
It's almost like the nudity is just an aspect of the society, not a sign of moral decay as the movie seems to want to convey.
It's almost like the nudity is just an aspect of the society, not a sign of moral decay as the movie seems to want to convey.
As a history fan, I'm well aware that Roman society in Caligula's time was much more sexually free than we are now. So portraying a freedom around sex and nudity would be in line for the time.
As a movie critic, I think this movie needed contrast so that the escalation is more obvious. If you go from one guy who's having naked swims with 20 of his best friends and then we shift over to a new ruler who puts together giant orgies of his own. Even if the first guy is bad, this isn't really a sign that things have taken a darker turn.
The movie's most effective moments are when we focus on Caligula himself and his fragile, if not outright broken, psyche. And just when it seems to be reaching a point or making a point, we have another orgy scene with flesh on flesh. Which isn't effective because we've been seeing orgies for almost two hours now.
As much as Martin Scorsese's excess characters have predictable arcs, it's an arc in behavior. We enter in media res with something violent or excessive. Then we see how our character started. Then how they got to where we just saw them. And see how they change along the way. Goodfellas 'Henry Hill goes from fresh face young man to coked up lunatic over the course of the film. And the film's visuals get more intense and sad along with him as the movie progresses.
Without the arc, almost all of the excesses become white noise. Nudity for nudity's sake. Which is a very Caligula approach to making a movie, but not an effective way to tell a story.
Without the arc, almost all of the excesses become white noise. Nudity for nudity's sake. Which is a very Caligula approach to making a movie, but not an effective way to tell a story.
No comments:
Post a Comment