CALIGULA isn't great art and IS repulsive enough to outrage all but the most jaded of viewers. But is it simply a sham? Myself, I consider it an especially twisted example of what Gahan Wilson calls an "art trap"-- a film that attempts to be art, but instead ends up being a device that hopefully will trap art, just as a mouse trap hopefully will capture a mouse. I think Bob Guccione was aiming at what Ridley Scott successfully created twenty years later with GLADIATOR -- a historical epic with the brutal frankness that was prohibited back when Rhett Butler almost wasn't allowed to say "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn."
And CALIGULA has good points,, such as Malcolm McDowell in the title role. McDowell's evil magnetism serves this role well, mainly because it helps convince you that Caligula was as charismatic and popular as history tells us. This is in sharp contrast to the creepy, effeminate image presented in movies such as THE ROBE. McDowell's portrayal also works toward Gore Vidal's intended goal of suggesting that Caligula wasn't simply a monster, and actually may have had more in common with some of us present-day "normal" folk than we want to believe.. An interesting corollary to this suggestion is that Caligula's monstrous behavior might be due at least in part to his knowing he wasn't qualified to be the emperor, and thus trying to cover it up by torturing and killing everyone who might have exposed him. In fact, we see him utter his famous statement, "Let them hate me, so long as they fear me," in self-defense when his wife takes him to task. Up until he executes Gemellus, he even reminds me a bit of Macbeth.
And consider the similarity between Caligula and CLOCKWORK ORANGE's psychopathic Alex,, perhaps McDowell's most famous role. If Alex was a student of Roman history, Caligula was probably his hero. This connection makes the two movies interesting companion pieces to each other.
Then, there's the surrealistic, other-worldly atmosphere. I'm thinking especially of the sequence in Tiberius's weird, multi-level abode, and the way the action goes from one level to another when the mood changes. We're on one level while Tiberius (Peter O'Toole) enjoys his romp with his "little fishies," then move to another level where he brutally tortures and executes a young soldier for drinking on duty.
But all of this manages only to elevate CALIGULA from a fiasco to an interesting failure. CALIGULA's main problem is what I call the Take advantage of/Taken Advantage of Syndrome, That's when the filmmakers set out to take advantage of some resource that wasn't available to others before them, and end up being taken advantage of by that very resource, because it takes over. In CALIGULA, the resource is the aforementioned explicitness that was prohibited in earlier times. So much attention is devoted to portraying the depravity and debauchery of the times that precious little is paid to anything else --
Like making the point that was originally intended. I'm guessing CALIGULA was SUPPOSED to argue that the combination of debauched society and absolute power enabled and nurtured the worst facets of Caligula's character, ultimately making him a monster. This argument was then supposed to raise the question of what you or I, or any normal person we know, might become under the same circumstances. Instead, CALIGULA waffles between two contradictory but equally simplistic assertions -- "Society was to blame," and "He was a sadistic wacko." If only CALIGULA had tried a bit harder to convince us that there was some other, more positive, side to Caligula's nature that Roman society suppressed.
And if only a major historical event hadn't been conspicuous by its absence. If I've got my history correct, Jesus was crucified at about the same time Tiberius was assassinated, which means that the Apostle Paul would have shown up in Rome during Caligula's reign to say, "Hey remember that guy you THOUGHT you got rid of?" The Good News would have been both significant and disturbing to Caligula, since he believed he was God Incarnate. (This issue is dealt with in THE ROBE.) This omission might not have jumped out at me if the movie hadn't begun by putting Mark 8:36 on the screen. Still, one positive thing I can say from a Christian perspective is that CALIGULA lays out in very graphic terms what the first Christians were up against.
Even if there had been a better balance between the graphic sex and violence and the other elements of CALIGULA, there's another problem that still might have proved fatal -- trying to have it both ways. Part of Guccione's stated intention was to combine two genres, the grand Hollywood epic and the underground adult film. And I think there might be a third genre in the mix -- the deliberately "sick" movie, epitomized by PINK FLAMINGOS. Well, as other filmmakers have found when trying to combine disparate genres, the audience that's interested in one will hate the other, so that everyone will hate the movie as a whole. Those who want to see serious historical drama don't want to watch lesbian sex scenes, and vice versa. And I bet neither faction wants to watch someone vomit blood -- in slow motion.
But again, I wouldn't dismiss CALIGULA as a rip-off. It's an experiment that didn't work, partly because of poor judgment, and partly because it may have been doomed to failure. As such, it deserves some kind of recognition for trying to break new ground. I do, however, think Guccione needs to get off his high horse (or maybe he's in bed with his high horse?) and stop trying to convince us this is great art. If he would admit his experiment didn't work, maybe Mr. General Public would be more sympathetic to his having tried it.
And by the way -- did that horse still respect Malcolm McDowell in the morning?
0 out of 2 found this helpful.
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Tell Your Friends