Showing posts with label Malcolm McDowell. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Malcolm McDowell. Show all posts

Caligula (1979)


Title: Caligula (1979)

Director: Tinto Brass

Cast: Malcolm McDowall, Helen Mirren, Peter O Toole, John Gielgud

Review:

Caligula is a film whose production was about as excessive as the Romans it depicts in its moving images. The film took four whole years to film, extras had to organize a strike because they weren’t getting paid, veteran actors got angry when they learned that pornographic images were included in the final film, actresses sued the production because their careers where affected, the films costs went above the 17 million dollar mark, writers, producers and directors all fought for the final cut of the film…and then, the film was released, which opened up a whole other can of worms.


Producer/media mogul Bob Guccione (the same guy who founded Penthouse Magazine) wanted to give audiences a film they had never seen before; a film that would change the way motion pictures were made. I guess he mistook nudity for something no one had ever seen before. Still, Guccione was out to shock the hell out of everyone by including as much nudity as you’d find behind the covers of Penthouse magazine and along the way, sprinkle the film with copious amounts of gore and violence. Since it was Penthouse magazine that actually funded Caligula, all the hardcore nudity included in the film shouldn’t surprise anybody. Here was a film produced by a pornographer with millions upon millions to spend! Apparently Guccione was going to make the Gone With the Wind of porn films.


And yes my friends, make no mistake, this film includes explicit sex in its footage. In my book, Caligula is without a doubt, the biggest, most expensive porn film ever made. The production included lavish (albeit campy) sets, numerous wardrobe changes, and extras upon extras committing all sorts of lurid acts on film. I’m pretty sure that if you were to watch this film noting down every sexual act depicted or suggested, you’d end up with a pretty hefty list. It is a film that’s hell bent on depicting characters with no morale whatsoever, they will do whatever amuses them, whatever pleases them, as long as it saves them from boredom. And the nudity? It’s not erotic, it’s not sensual, its depraved, which I’m guessing was the filmmaker’s intent.


Caligula tells the tale of one Gaius Caesar Germanicus a.k.a ‘Caligula’, the most depraved of all emperors to ever get command over Rome, and that’s saying a lot because a lot of Roman Emperor’s were known for going overboard with their despotism and luridness. Caligula ruled for a very short time, yet that time was riddled with atrocity on top of atrocity. You see, Caligula thought himself a God, and so, as God, he had no one to answer to, he could do whatever he wanted to whomever he wanted to do it to and no one could tell him otherwise. Everyone would just approve, clap and bow down to his next command. And this is very well depicted on the film, Caligula and his followers all come of as a bunch of self centered egotists, only looking to satisfy themselves and their immediate pleasures. As rulers, they didn’t seek the benefit of the people, but rather, they looked for new ways to trick the people and take advantage of them. Through out this film, you never meet a decent character. You’ll hate everyone on this film, it is a story of people indulging in every sexual and violent desire known to man, and maybe inventing some new ones. It’s a story about an Emperor’s decent into madness; it’s a film about how power completely corrupted Caligula, transforming him into an Emperor known for his cruelty, his extravagance, and his perversity; an insane tyrant in every sense of the word.


In terms of production, Caligula walks a fine line between looking magnanimous, with huge statues, pillars, stairs, temples, and then doing a complete 360 and looking all campy and fake. Some scenes look impressive; others look like a set on the batman t.v. show. In an effort to titillate the viewer, almost everyone on the film is running around either completely naked or almost naked; 95% of the time these characters are right smack in the middle of having sex. Even in scenes where you wouldn’t expect it, nudity prevails. There are many versions of this film available out there, some without the nudity, others with the nudity, some R-rated others unrated. I saw the 156 minute version, which I think is one of the more complete versions that exist. And things do get pretty hardcore, so much so that it turns the film into the most expensive porn ever made. In this sense it reminded me of the seventies revenge film They Call Her One Eye (1973) a.k.a. Thriller: A Cruel Picture, the only other movie that I can recall including hardcore porn in it. Only Caligula is more persistent with its nude scenes.

Does Hellen Mirren look great as a Roman or what??

Technically speaking, the film is a mess though. I mean, this is a film that has obviously been tinkered to death by its producers. It was a film that was taken from its director, who chose to eliminate his name from the credits. Guccione, the producer, wanted the nudity to be sexier, while Tinto Brass, the director, wanted fat, ugly, deformed, old people, which he shot by the way, but Guccione wanted sexier nudity! So he shot the infamous additional six minutes of explicit sex. Gore Vidal, the writer responsible for the original script the film is based on distanced himself from the project as well. He was afraid to be associated with a project that was so out of control. As you can see my friends, Caligula is a film that distanced itself almost entirely from the writer and director’s original visions! This is probably the reason why some scenes are an incongruent mess. Following the plot of Caligula is not an easy task, most of the dialog is badly dubbed, you can tell this was the reason why many of the scenes chosen for the final cut of the film are scenes that were shot from far away, so they could dub whatever dialog they wanted in a take. Yes ladies and gentlemen, this was one expensive mess of a film.


Malcom McDowell (A Clockwork Orange, If…) was the actor chose to play Caligula, a risky role to play if you ask me. Just being in this film was a risky move for many of the actors involved, four of which where seasoned veterans like Peter O Toole and John Gielgud. They all claim that they never knew that there were going to be explicit sex scenes included in the final picture. This is a believable claim sense the most explicit scenes (six minutes in total) were filmed much later in the production. McDowell played Caligula like a demented nutcase, drunk with power. To him, life is one big joke, nothing is sacred, except for himself. It was a very demanding role, one that called for him to put himself in many a sexual situation. Now, you know a film has gone to far when during production an actor utters the words “I’m not going to do that!” yet, this is exactly what happened in one scene that called for Caligula to interrupt a couple of newlyweds, right in the middle of their wedding celebration. The scene called for Caligula to rape the virginal wife and then proceed to rape her husband as well. McDowell said he would not film the raping of the husband, so he instead went with fisting him. In my opinion, the scene ended up being even more disturbing.


Upon the films release, the critics went crazy with this one. The depraved time of the Romans had long passed. Now, The Conservative Audiences of our time had taken over, and so people where enraged by this film. It had a limited release, which spelled certain doom for a 17 million dollar production like this one. Still, even with its limited release, and its negative response with certain critics, people lined up to see this circus of freaks. The film barely made its money back, but it didn’t loose money either. Some loved it, most hated it. For example, Roger Ebert wrote in his review for it that a lady next to him said that the film “was the biggest piece of shit” she had ever seen. Ebert himself said the film was “sickening, utterly worthless, shameful thrash” and he walked out of the movie at the two hour mark! But even with the media backlash, the film was perverse enough to get audiences in theaters, I mean, at the time, the films notoriety had grown to legendary proportions! This was the film people were daring each other to go see. Still to this day, the film has this mystique of evil and perversity wrapped around it. I told a friend I was watching Caligula and the reply I got was “pervert!”


I wouldn’t go as far as saying that Caligula is the worst film ever made. I have seen far worse pictures. I see the sleaze factor, yeah, how can you miss it? Caligula and his entourage are a bunch of depraved characters that you could never get to like, and two and a half hours of depravity after depravity can get to be a bit much. But I guess the film does have an educational side. I mean, after all, the film is depicting Caligula and his life of excesses; of course it wasn’t going to be pretty. This was after all the guy who proclaimed himself a living god. This was the guy who had a love affair with his sister! And slept with his horse! Chances are that what went on in the real Roman Empire was far worse then whatever these filmmakers chose to show us in in this film. But at least the film exposes us to those crazy days.  And yes, Caligula is a sleazy film ever step of the way. For example, it's got this really graphic lesbian scene that comes right out of nowhere and apparently has no more purpose then to shock us. But in the end,  Caligula also serves as an example of a film gone overboard and out of control, and it's always fun to watch one of those. The film and its production represents excess as much as the Romans it depicts. If you can take that, plus lots of ugly nudity and gory violence, you should be fine. I mean whats the big deal? It's only a little porn, who hasn't seen that?

Rating: 3 1/2 out of 5


Caligula (The Unrated Edition)Caligula (Three-Disc Imperial Edition)Thriller - A Cruel Picture

If... (1968)


Title: If… (1968)

Director: Lindsay Anderson

Cast: Malcolm McDowell

Review:

Last January, I did a three day long blog collaboration with my buddy Neil Fulwood from the excellent film blog, The Agitation of the Mind. The collaboration gave us the opportunity to explore the theme of revolution on films; films on which ‘the people’ strike back against ‘the system’. Many films where mentioned, reviewed and suggested during those three days of VIVA LA REVOLUTION! During one of his articles, Neil mentioned an English film called If…(1968) from director Lindsay Anderson. Little did I know that If… was going to end up being the perfect embodiment of the kind of film I wanted to talk about in that collaboration. It captures perfectly the reasons for e rebellion, why it happens, and how it’s done.


If… takes place inside of a traditional British Public School where the youth of the nation get educated on religion, morale, sports, war and politics. The school is run by a group of individuals who are extreme conservatives. With them everything is a rule, a regulation. The rulers of this educational institution lead their lives according to the states laws and according to old traditions. It goes without saying that religion plays a very important part of their lives, they sing and pray at the church everyday. In this educational institution, there’s even an assigned time for shutting down the lights! So basically, these kids live in a prison. Problem is, not everyone in the school agrees with living this rigid, boring lifestyle filled with rules and regulations. There is a group of students who enjoy going out every once in a while and having some fun, enjoying their freedom, cutting loose and actually living their lives. They’ve been restrained long enough and they’ve decided they are young, and they will have their day in the sun. How will the system react to this rebellious behavior?


If you ask me, I’d say that this is the nadir of revolutionary films, it’s the grand daddy of all of them, showcasing truly intense moments of complete and utter anarchy! The first half of the film is a set up; we get to see how this all boy school treats its youngsters, the future of the nation. We get to see these kids go through intense indoctrination in regards to both religion and politics. “Jesus Christ is our commanding officer, and if we desert Him, we can expect no mercy. And- we are all deserters” preaches the sermon given at the school church. The students are even trained for war in this school by participating in a simulated war in which they have to wear uniforms and use guns with blanks. If you do not follow the strict rules and regulations of the school you get reprimanded. If you go full blown rebel, smirking at and disrespecting authority, then you get a firmer form of discipline. Basically they take you into a room and whip your ass senseless until you cry. Worst part is after they beat your ass to a bloody pulp with a stick, and squeeze a couple of tears from you, you have to walk up to these bastards, shake their fucking hands and say ‘thank you’. Making you forcefully accept that you needed the discipline, that you were getting out of hand and that you should be thankful that your superiors brought you down from that cloud. These scenes reminded me of Alex DeLarge’s forced rehabilitation in Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange (1971). When you don’t play by societies rules, then you are forced to play by their rules.


The school in If…is extremely representative of how many governments operate. I’ve personally seen the techniques used by the school masters in If…being used in my own country. Anyone with long hair and a beard is immediately labeled as a hippy, or a rebel. If you complaint to much or too loudly, you are taken away. Youth in general is trampled upon in the media; the headlines are always degrading young people, labeling them as drunkards, drug addicts and civil disobedients with no direction in life. Just the other day, the government sent a bunch of police officers to literally hit all the young people hanging out on the streets, drinking a beer with their friends. I mean, literally, cops came, formed a freaking line and proceeded to whip young kids senseless with their clubs. They didn’t even look at who they were bludgeoning with their clubs! Then of course there was the gas and the pepper spray. I personally saw one cop running at ramming speed towards a crowd, knocking a bunch of kids down with his body, like a bunch of bowling pins. It was such a nauseating show of force! That was only the beginning of what would be a never ending battle (that continues to this day) between the ‘conservatives’ and the new generation. This open attack on the younger generations can only mean one thing. The powers that be see the younger generation as a threat. And it’s with every right they feel this way; it’s the youth of the world that is telling older generations they are wrong. Look at what’s going on in Egypt, its mostly young men who are out on the streets angry at how their government is running things.


I mention all these real life rebellious events because If…is a film that uses its premise as a microcosm for society. The rebellious students in the film represent the rebels of society, fighting against the status quo, fighting for the liberty to do whatever it is they want to do with their lives. Trying to have fun, to enjoy themselves, to laugh, to party, to have sex; which by the way these students have to go out of the school and get, because it’s prohibited. It is an all boy school after all. The fight is against loosing humanity, against loosing freedom. The whole first half of If…shows us how the Headmaster of the school and his prefects abuse and drive the kids of the school crazy with all their excessive rules and their discipline. Of course the young kids feel the abuse and the oppression; one feels that their acts of rebellion are completely justified. And this is why the first half of the film is absolutely necessary; it explores the ‘why’ in the rebellious equation. When a part of a society rebels, the other half, the conservative half, sees them as ‘crazy’ people, immediately labeling them as civil disobedients, quickly dismissing their behavior as a nuisance. Why don’t they ask themselves instead why such a thing as a rebel exists within their society? Why don’t they ask themselves where all that anger and discontent comes from? Aren’t rebels simply a symptom of a much larger ailment in society? Aren’t rebels after all a sign that things are being done right?


And this film has the biggest rebel of all in the character of Mick Travis, played by Malcolm McDowell. From the very beginning we see a character who is always going against the rules. In the first day of class, Mick walks in with a mustache, a big no-no in this school. His friends refer to him as Guy Fawkes, he breaks out of the school every now and then to go out into the real world and wreck some havoc. And he even has some followers, willing to go into full blown anarchy with him. After seeing McDowell’s performance on this film, its easy to see why Stanley Kubrick chose him to star in A Clockwork Orange. Mick Travis embodies rebellion; Alex DeLarge was the embodiment of that rebellious nature, and then some. Another way in which If… was influential is because it served as the blue print for one of my favorite comedies ever: Monty Python’s The Meaning of Life (1983). In that brilliant comedy/musical, the film is also divided into chapters, just like If…, and it plays with many of the same themes and situations, only in an extremely funny way.


If… ends violently, and many saw the film as an outright “incitement to revolution”. By the way that quote comes from Paramount Pictures, the very studio that distributed the film in the United States. Cant say I blame these guys for thinking this way, after all the film ends with a bunch of kids shooting at everybody with machine guns from the schools rooftop and shooting the Headmaster of the school right in the forehead. Then the film fades to black, followed by the words If…on the screen. The ending is positively chilling, and daring. The words If... on screen appear there, as if asking us, what if this was to happen? What if? In my opinion, the theme of rebellion is one that should be explored as much as any other theme in films. Why is it suddenly wrong to do a movie about kids rebelling? Doesn’t this happen in our society when it has to? Why should it not be represented and explored in a film? Rebellion is something people resort to whenever their governments prove to be oppressive, abusive and murderous. It is not a taboo subject not to be mentioned, it should be explored. And If… does just that. But when the film came out, it caused uproar. Half of the critics loved it and called it a masterpiece, not to be missed. The other half called it “an insult to the nation”, yet it won the Palm d’Or at Cannes Film Festival in 1969. It was only natural for audiences to divide, over this film; after all, its main themes are politics and religion, two of the most dividing forces on the planet.

Rating: 5 out of 5


If... (The Criterion Collection)A Clockwork Orange (Two-Disc Special Edition)A Clockwork Orange
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...