AT A GLANCE

Caligula: The Ultimate Cut (Unobstructed View)

Edited by: Thomas Negovan (using recently discovered footage captured during the original shoot)

Starring: Malcolm McDowell, Helen Mirren, Peter O’Toole, and John Gielgud

Available: Releasing on Blu-ray and DVD Sept. 17; video on demand Oct. 18; 4k box set available Oct. 22

For decades, Caligula has called to film lovers with its unfulfilled promise and audacity. The work began with a respected, avant-garde director, a famous writer, a cast including some of the finest actors in Britain and financing from a wealthy American pornographer. The masses were told that Caligula would blend graphic sexuality with fine artistry, proving the two can comfortably coexist in mainstream cinema.

Alas, production problems and spats between the creatives and financier produced a picture that became a cult classic, but largely for the wrong reasons. The semi-new Caligula: The Ultimate Cut does nothing to change this.

This new Caligula, re-edited by Thomas Negovan using 96 hours of recently discovered footage, remains a bizarre mix of pretension, melodrama, historic liberties and pornography, punctuated by memorable (yet mostly poor) performances from Malcolm McDowell, Helen Mirren, Peter O’Toole, and John Gielgud.

Is it fascinating to watch such fine actors ham it up in scanty clothing, sometimes with writhing orgies punctuated by over-the-top moans in the background? Absolutely. Has the movie’s new form made it a worthy piece of art? Absolutely not. Caligula is as it was in 1979: a debaucherous and largely pointless oddity filled with near-constant sex.

Making things worse is the fact that the pornographic elements of Caligula are not sensual. Rather, they are often intercut with sequences of sadism and violence. The orgies are an assault on the senses rather than anything arousing. One might say this befits a historical figure like Caligula, often portrayed as a depraved madman. Alas, some historians argue that this reading of the Roman leader is oversimplified and that the depths of Caligula’s debauchery was as much legend as reality. While filmmakers are certainly welcome to reflect on such things, it’s tough to see artistic merit in embellishing possible falsehoods for shock value. 

After all, it’s the political intrigue that should dominate a story about Rome’s third emperor, especially a young one who was assassinated within five years of taking power. To be fair, these elements exist, but they are largely overshadowed by pornographic sequences seeming to argue that the early Romans did nothing but drink and have sex, often in semi-public spaces. 

It is possible, I suppose, for a viewer to point to the movie’s elaborate art direction, flashy costuming, extravagant sets and ever-present symbolism as artistic merits. The problem is, these things, although often impressive, are too rarely used to make noteworthy points. One might watch the entirety of Caligula and come away convinced only that the title character was a Roman tyrant who suffered from mental illness and surrounded himself with as many naked bodies as possible. Although that is something, it’s a something you were able to ascertain from the previous sentence while avoiding nearly three hours of perverse, cinematic excess.

Is Caligula shocking? Yes. It is shocking that the film was made and that many people ventured to see it some 45 years ago. It is also shocking that anyone bothered to recut it.

All this said, the movie is historically interesting … for those who study film as opposed to Roman history. Caligula made headlines even before its release, and original screenwriter Gore Vidal sued to have his name removed. Also, producer Bob Guccione, founder of the pornographic magazine Penthouse, covertly shot unsimulated sex scenes and spliced them into the film without the cast or director knowing his cut would reach theaters.  These things don’t happen every day, so an awareness of Caligula is worthwhile. That said, the Ultimate Cut removes Guccione’s hardcore additions and uses shots unavailable to viewers in prior versions. This, also, is technically fascinating, but the resulting film is not good.

Should you invest the three hours required to watch this new cut? Only if you have never seen the original picture, are unbearably curious about the new edit, or hope to watch as one might a guilty pleasure, laughing at the flaws and marveling that so many incredible talents could produce such a disaster. How close this new cut is to what director Tinto Brass had imagined is hard to say. In a Guardian interview, Negovan claims close, although he re-edited the film only using the newly found footage.

McDowell’s performance is so over the top and hammy that it was clearly a choice, either by him or Brass. But it isn’t a choice that works. Caligula seems intentionally operatic. Just as one should be swept away by the symphonic sounds backing an overacting tenor at the theater, viewers are apparently supposed to overlook McDowell repeatedly jamming a thumbs up at the camera while grinning maniacally. O’Toole’s work is equally bombastic. Mirren is dialed back by comparison, but all subtleties in her performance are frequently undercut by edits that deliver jarring changes in her character’s mood. Hey, even the greats get it wrong sometimes -- particularly when guided by the wrong captain.

Mirren has famously called the movie “an irresistible mix of art and genitals.” One wonders if she was looking to excuse a painfully low (but oft remembered) point in her career or if she actually finds the work palatable. She might as well have said, “Hey, it’s not so bad if you like naked bodies.” Thing is, even that assessment would be false. It is possible to unearth erotic art of merit, but one must dig well past Caligula.

Author Bio:

Forrest Hartman is Highbrow Magazine’s chief film critic.

For Highbrow Magazine