The Good, The Bad and the Ugly Films

On the podcast, we have talked several times about movies that could not be remade in any way similar to the original for multiple reasons -  this has come up whenever Blazing Saddles is mentioned for example. What is deemed socially acceptable, or politically correct has changed enough that there would not be much tolerance for much of the content should it be remade, but as a historic artifact it can be enjoyed.

Having made what many consider to be the definitive film adaptation of Romeo & Juliet, director Franco Zeffirelli returned to familiar territory with 1981’s Endless Love, bringing audiences the story of David & Jade, high school lovers torn apart by their families.

Timeless as the premise sounds, the execution, as well as the actions of several characters, is what would keep Endless Love out of contention for remaking in an age when the most vocal of the population cannot engage in a serious conversation about teen sex and believe that teens should be abstaining from sex – and certainly not idealizing it.

The films stars Brooke Shields as 15 year old Jade Butterfield. Shields at the time was considered a “sex symbol“, a term that has itself become antiquated. Endless Love was her third film of a strong sexual nature (the first two being Louis Malle’s Pretty Baby, and the shipwreck romance The Blue Lagoon), and as well as being the spokes model for Calvin Klein Jeans – it is hard to believe that she somehow maintained a squeaky-clean image. David Axelrod is played convincingly enough by new-comer Martin Hewitt. Also Starring in the film are Shirley Knight as Anne Butterfield, Don Murray as Hugh Butterfield, James Spader as Keith Butterfield, Richard Kiley as Arthur Axelrod and Academy Award Winner Beatrice Straight as Rose Axelrod.

Major Spoilers to Follow:

As the film opens, Jade and David are well into their new romance, spending much of their time together with Jade’s family. Jade’s Mother and father, Hugh and Anne Butterfield, are a bohemian pair – he a doctor, she a writer – who have encouraged their children to be open to new ideologies and experiences. They regularly host parties for their children where the alcohol flows freely and the weed is smoked in the open. It is following one of these parties that Anne gets up in the middle of the night and heads downstairs to discover Jade and David having sex in front of the fireplace. Anne’s reaction is not to break it up and throw David out, but to sit, unnoticed, on the stairs and watch them. Anne is mesmerized by what she has seen, later describing it to her husband as beautiful. Later, when Hugh stumbles across the post-coital pair, his reaction is more paternal, though still not what we would expect from the father of a 15 year old daughter having sex under his roof. He expresses his displeasure with the situation to Anne, who rebuffs his response by saying Jade is simply doing what he has always taught her to do, and that he should be happy that she is not being hypocritical by hiding it.

Meanwhile, we meet David’s parents, Aurthur and Rose Axelrod, lawyers and liberal activists who have little time for their son while they save the world. They have quiet reservations about David spending time at the Butterfield residence, “that house and what goes on there,” but not enough to stop him from going there, or even vocalizing their concerns until the fit hits the shan!

Upon witnessing an early morning exit by David from their house, Hugh discovers Jade raiding his medicines for sleeping pills, which seems to be the line crossed that Hugh cannot abide by. He puts a 30 day moratorium on the relationship, until school is out for the year. Obsessed and in love, this proves to be too much for David to handle, and inspired by a buddy’s story (Tom Cruise in his first film role), starts a fire at the Butterfield home in a effort to be the hero when he saves them from disaster. Disaster is what ends up happening and after the house goes up in flames, David goes to an asylum.

Two years later, when David is released, he skips out on his parole and tracks down the now-divorced Anne in New York in hopes of finding out where Jade is. Over wine and dinner, Anne tells David about seeing Jade and him having sex, and how she imagined it was herself he was making love to and proceeds to attempt to seduce him, but he tells her that he can not be with anyone but Jade. The next day, Hugh spots David in the street and goes after him, only to be struck by a car and killed. This of course brings Jade to New York and David asks Anne to tell Jade where he is. When Jade comes to David’s hotel room, she tells him what they had together happened at time when they were both not old enough to handle it, and turns to leave. David begs Jade not to leave and when she continues to exit, he pulls her back to the bed and holds her down until she relents and the two spend the night together. In the morning, it is revealed that David was at the scene when Hugh died. This results in David and Keith, Jade’s brother,  fighting in the hotel lobby. David is sent to jail for breaking his parole. In a brief scene, Jade professes her confusion, but continuing love for David to her mother. The film closes with Jade going to visit David in jail.

There have been several movies made since that have a twisted love affair at the heart of the film; like 9½ Weeks or Secretary, but there are points they hit that don’t happen in Endless love. These subsequent movies usually feature consenting adults, and usually the lovers are no longer together at the end, or at least appropriately punished or doomed. The anguish David puts the Butterfield family through should be enough to make being with him inconsiderable to Jade, yet they are together at the end of the film. But that isn’t the biggest problem a contemporary audience would have with the film…

Anne watching David and Jade in front of the fireplace is creepy and voyeuristic, especially considering she was getting her ya-yas from watching her kid have sex. Her resulting fixation with her daughter’s boyfriend pushes her into predatory-cougar status, the likes of which would not even amuse Stiffler’s Mom. Furthermore, Anne tries to shame Hugh for having issue with his 15 year old daughter being sexually active, and later in New York tries seducing the mentally unstable David. The character of Anne would be a huge obstacle for anyone trying to do a remake, as she is a Catholic League lightening rod! Hugh doesn’t fare much better, as he drunkenly wobbles up the stairs after his kids’ house party. Even after he decides to be a parent and puts the brakes on Jade’s and David’s relationship, he can be seen joyously smoking a joint at yet another party before the fire.

David’s parents turn out to be the typical movie construct of parents too busy for their children. David’s institutionalization appears to be the catalyst for their marriage dissolving, but Arthur confesses to David that when he saw David and Jade riding a bicycle together he was so struck by their beauty and love that he knew then he needed that back in his life, and he wasn’t getting it from Rose. Jeez, thanks Dad!

Finally there is the matter of the sex scene between David and Jade. Shields was, in fact, 16 years old in 1981 and famously used a body double for both this and The Blue Lagoon, but none-the-less was participant in these scenes. Today’s temper does not endorse the portrayal of teens having sex unless the words “Barely Legal” precede it. Okay, Okay – to be fair we do see this today on cable networks like Showtime’s Weeds, where there are no ratings restrictions (and so many taboos are being broken anyway), but not in major theatrical releases.

To that end, it should be noted that Universal Home video has not released Endless Love on DVD in North America in the format’s near 15 year life span, despite the relative success the film enjoyed theatrically. This alone should be indication enough that the studio knows the content of the film would not set well with current audiences. Even those who enjoyed the film in their youth, would not be willing to pass on the film to their children in the name of nostalgia the way they do with movies like Grease or Dirty Dancing.

While it would be ridiculous to say that any film would never be remade, a remake of Endless Love would have little resemblance to the original material, except perhaps the use of the hit theme song – which, of course, would be remade too.

Wow! What was going to be a quick recap of the Academy Awards and how we did on our Oscar predictions turned into a joy ride. With Johnny at work, join the three remaining movie junkies as they tear apart, yet still appreciate, the Holiest Night in the Church of the Cinema. Here’s some of what we talk about:

• New articles on the site to kick off our first week of having something new posted every day. John has his Oscar Worthy Animated Performance piece on Teddy from Artificial Intelligence: AI, and Ross has his article about why Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey could never be remade
• Coming up: Mark’s Oscar Worthy Animated Performance and Allen’s movie that will never be remade
• The opening number of the Academy Awards
• Fisher Stevens wins an Oscar!
• Oscar’s “Kanye” Incident
• We recount the wins and see how we did in our predictions (see below for the chart)
• Horror Film Tribute fiasco
• Technical Awards 30 second acknowledgement
• In Memorium – who did they forget?

GBU List – The Oscars

As you can see, we all had a different idea of what to do for this. Allen went “all time”, Ross used the whole show and I focused on just the wins. Heh. Did you have a Good Bad Ugly list for the Oscars? We’d like to hear about it. Reply to this post or click the Contact Us link at the top of this page.

The movie we reviewed this week was Michael Moore’s Capitalism: A Love Story. It lists all the depressing economic problems facing America today and how it got to this point. There’s the usual Michael Moore shenanigans involving Big Business and some touching moments when the little guys actually make it. Allen: GOOD- Mark: GOOD- Ross: BAD+ Have you seen it? Care to share what your opinions on it were? Fire us off an email to podcast@goodbaduglyfilms.com or leave a voicemail via Skype to tell us what you think of Michael Moore and/or this movie.

OSCAR PREDICTION RESULTS

It was a close race, but it looks like Johnny and I came out on top. If I would have actually given an answer for Best Picture, the totals might be a little bit different. -Mark

Download this episode here

There seems to be two ways to enter Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey…

1) Drop some acid and prepare to trip balls! Or…

2) Open your mind and prepare to be challenged.

To those taking route #1 – have fun! For the rest of us, 2001 is a puzzle that some get, and others (like myself) keep poking and twisting at without ever solving.

Enter Kubrick 2001: The Space Odyssey Explained. This flash presentation found at www.kubrick2001.com graciously tries to simplify and explain the film to simpletons like me, moving through the film in four chapters designed to expose the overall theme of the film. I gotta say, for the most part it does a great job. However, like the film, the fourth chapter still leaves me with questions – questions, I think, that will remain unanswered since Kubrick is no longer with us (no chance now of ever having the audio commentary I so desperately want for this film!).

The presentation opens with a quote from Kubrick:

You are free to speculate, as you wish, about the philosophical and allegorical meaning of the film

Of 2001, Kubrick also said:

"I tried to create a visual experience, one that bypasses verbalized pigeonholing with an emotional and philosophical content. I intended the film to be an intensely subjective experience that reaches the viewer at an inner level of consciousness, just as music does."

That is great, but I just want some answers, damn it! ¦¬)

Check out www.kubrick2001.com

Check out Ross’ Never Be Remade post on 2001: A Space Odyssey

This is the first in a personal series on films that hit at the right moment. Films that had a huge impact on my life, and my tastes. They may not be considered classics, or even good. But their impact on me, at that time and place, makes them milestones. Why these films so important? Do I still feel the same today? We’ll start this off with the dark reimagining that is Tim Burton’s Batman.

Tim Burton’s 1989 Batman isn’t much loved by most critics. Ebert calls it depressing. The New York Times calls it a corporate product, devoid of soul. To me, these responses are nothing but alien. This film was magical to me. Watching it, I think, must be very much equivalent to the memories of Gen-Xers who sat down in the theatre for Star Wars in 1977. I was ten, and I remember the details of that afternoon to this day. My Mom took us on what must have been the second weekend it was open, to a matinee. It was all four of the kids, too. I saw it at a now defunct theater in Pointe-Claire, Quebec. Going to the theater was a real novelty to us, as my parents had gleaned the fiscal advantage of a VHS deck by 1983, so it was normal for me to wait until a film was out on video before watching it. This was special.

In retrospect, the excitement me and my brothers and sister had for the film was very much the result of corporate grooming. There was an extensive ad campaign, showing off the great sets, awesome costumes, and incredible action that was to await us. There was a soundtrack that was a marketing campaign all its own; Batdance was a number one single by this point. Every cool kid at school was sporting a black and yellow Batman T, with Joker ones following as a subversive second. I went into the theater fully expecting this film to be awesome.

To me, it was. Maybe there are some massive rose colored glasses going on here, but I loved the 1989 Batmobile. So modern and sleek. I really liked Michael Keaton as Batman and Bruce Wayne, too. His quiet and meek Batman was nothing like the ridiculous Adam West Batman I was only casually familiar with from the occasional Saturday morning airing. This is a film which captivated me, with its dark, moody city, and its evocative (and anachronistic) use of period gear, clothing, and sets. Nicholson’s Joker will always be my favorite depiction of the character, just as I’m sure those (horrendously scarred?) kids that grew up with Druggy McGee as Joker in The Dark Knight will always identify him with that character.

The cast is eccentric and varied. Kim Basinger’s turn as Vicki Vale has been said, in secret circles, to be the true reason for her Oscar win. Jack Palance is memorable as the eccentric crime boss, and Nicholson’s Joker bridges the line almost perfectly between Cesar Romero and The Dark Knight’s interpretations. Robert Wuhl has an odd role as the comic relief in the film, sometimes aided by Michael Gough, and even the sets themselves. One of the most charming scenes in the film is an awkward dinner between Wayne and Vale, where the chemistry of the two actors is offset by a ridiculously long table. Also great is the scene stealing Billy Dee Williams as the up-and-coming Harvey Dent.

Even now, I had wished that Burton’s projected direction for the sequel had surfaced. Williams as Two-Face would have been a much more logical path for the franchise, as well as being downright incredible. Instead we get a sequel with not enough Batman, nowhere near enough of Pfieffer’s Catwoman, and far, far too much Christopher Walken.

The film had a joy, and it was in the perverse world constructed by Burton. Batman may be understated, but he still was a likeable hero, and the Keaton’s take on him was the best of the four that have tackled the role in the past twenty-one years. It’s a tricky role to get right, because he’s not a dweeb like Clark Kent. Everything about this film was top-notch, as befits its hefty budget. The sets are only eclipsed, perhaps, by the even more fantastically realized Gotham of its less approachable sequel, Batman Returns. But this one is more coherent and focused. And it easily trumps anything that Joel Schumacher attempted in his misguided turns at the wheel. I’ve seen this film a few dozen times, and to me the special effects are – for the most part – flawless. Much is practical, or accomplished with detailed miniatures. No mid-90s CG to ruin it. There are a few instances of Burton-esque stop motion animation that does date the film (the bullet-proof armor on the Batmobile is a glaring example) but otherwise this is a film that stands up as a superior example of pre-computer craftsmanship in blockbusters.

This is a meticulously crafted film, something that its middle-aged critics are eager to point out. It is a machine-fabricated, plasticized and soulless, they say. Yes, this doesn’t have the same lively joy that seeing Ward and West camping it out in the 60s brought you. But you know what? You were ten then, as well.

Maybe the soul that I see in this movie is the one that my boyhood self projects onto it, and that’s fine.

We would be remiss should we start a retrospective of 1975 without starting with Steven Spielberg’s Jaws. From there we move into the other films that topped the box office, and then into our good and bad lists. 1975 was an interesting year – a year for looking back it seems as there is an usual amount of period films.

Good

John

The Rocky Horror Picture Show

Tommy

Escape From Witch Mountain

Return of the Pink Panther

Mark

A Boy and His Dog

The Great Waldo Pepper

Dog Day Afternoon

Three Days of the Condor

Rooster Cogburn

Ross

Jeder für sich und Gott gegen alle (aka The Enigma of Kaspar Hauser)

Picnic at Hanging Rock

Rollerball

Switchblade Sisters

Dog Day Afternoon

Allen

A Boy and His Dog

Dog Day Afternoon

Deep Red

The Stepford Wives

Swept Away

Bad

Mark

Supervixens

The Fortune

Ross

Salo: The 120 Days of Sodom

A Boy and His Dog

Cleopatra Jones and the Casino of Gold

The Hindenburg

Legend of the Werewolf

Allen

Shivers (aka They Came From Within)

Mahogany

Shampoo

The Other Side of the Mountain

Race With the Devil

John

Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Three Days of the Condor

Funny Lady

Download This Episode Here

I admit it. I stumped myself thinking of animated performances that were worthy of an Oscar. My first thought was scouring over Disney canon; there are some large performances there, but were any truly Oscar worthy? The best were the villains. Scar from the Lion King was just an effeminate Brit, really, though Jeremy Irons did have fun with the role. Gaston from Beauty and the Beast was really only fleshed out through one song. My enjoyment of Wizards wasn’t exactly due to the disconnected, airy performances within it. A close second to my choice would be the late Elizabeth Hartman for her role as Mrs. Brisby in Don Bluth’s Secret of NIMH, a touching and quiet performance in one of the most adult, poignant, and disturbing animated children films ever made.

Although not technically animated, in the end I went with the Spielberg-Kubrick coproduction of A.I.: Artificial Intelligence, and the computer animated and practical robotics rendered Teddy, voiced by a then 69 year old Jack Angel. Teddy acts both as a guide and conscience for the Haley Joel Osmont role of David, a robotic boy created to replace the injured son of a wealthy family. As with much of the film, his role echoes that of Jiminy Cricket in Pinocchio. This is one of many textual and sub textual references to the Italian story and its later Disney adaptation, but the tone and delivery of the role could not be any different. Jiminy was hopeful and encouraging, while Teddy, already a damaged and discarded toy, speaks with a sad pessimism towards David’s eventual fate.

The path for Teddy is what he was programmed to do, guide and educate a child. He knows that David is not a real child, and this robotic kinship makes him seemingly more protective. He knows what’s going to happen, seemingly from the start. The Swinton’s real child, Martin, miraculously awakes from his coma and returns home, rendering David’s role as a surrogate pointless. After the sibling rivalry between them turns twisted and very nearly deadly, David is sent to die, but is instead abandoned by his human mother – with whom he is programmed to forever love. The film itself is on the schizophrenic side: the touching story of a robotic child created to love crashes head first into the second half of the film, where the boy is on his own, caught up in the destructive underground of discarded robotics. It fluctuates between Spielberg and Kubrick repeatedly, especially in the extended finale which is at once tortuous, tragic, and sentimental. Teddy is there for all of this, and is the one who can articulate the thoughts that David can’t.

Both characters, David and Teddy, are cursed with thoughtless gifts of intellect. While the movement of the film unravels the ramifications of creating a being who is only built to love, Teddy has his own burden: he was built to be intelligent. While Angel’s Teddy doesn’t love, he does care for David, and you can tell with his comments that he is trying, quietly, to shield the boy from the truth. His performance is the most memorable in a film packed with much more vivid and larger characters pushed forth by more famous actors. It was a role that could have been played with insufferable cuteness and optimism, but the muted voice of Angel rarely chides, and only serves as a quiet confidant and advisor.

Now that I think about it, the two animated performances that I admire most on film both come from perspectives not usually seen in films. They are neither histrionic or overly farcical. Hartman’s Mrs. Brisby and Angel’s Teddy both quietly observe the world, and are both characters eager to get away from a life of danger and adventure. They aren’t chariacatures, and their voices aren’t hammy or exaggerated. Both are fragile and timid; Mrs. Brisby could easily be killed by any of the creatures she encounters, and is very much aware of it. Teddy is self-aware of his own uselessness and abandonment, but cannot help but follow his programming to be a guide for the lost David.

Both great roles, but my official nod does have to go to Teddy.

Also: Angel did a voice in Killer7. That game is incredible.

I’ve pretty much resigned to the fact there cannot be some twit, some where, who is attempting to crank out a screenplay based on some previous film. I was originally planning to call this article “Why they’ll never Remake ‘Star Wars’”, but there’s this tiny unsettling in my stomach about this –  small tremor in the Force – One day Star Wars WILL get remade. Whether it be animated, or in stop motion, or some other silly novelty, Star Wars will be released upon the masses once again. It’s even starting now… With pretty much every conceivable story thread filmed and released on fan websites, amateur directors are now assembling fan-edits of the original films. There’s one being assembled right now that has each contributor donate 15 seconds of one scene. Some of the results are pretty cool, others are downright bad.

I had to go to a old friend of mine here on GBUF: Stanley Kubrick. I’d like to say NO Stanley Kubrick film could get a remake, but so far, there’s been a surprisingly lot of remakes. Here’s my short list of Kubrick films, and their remake status:

“Lolita” : Adrian Lyne remade this film in the late 90s. It wasn’t well received and was a considerable flop. The subject matter had a lot to do with this.

“Spartacus” series on STARZ TV. I haven’t seen “Blood and Sand”, and does it really follow a remake mold? Spartacus was an actual historical figure. Do they borrow lots of story from the Kubrick film? I’ll need to follow up on this one.

“Dr. Strangeglove”. Nothing done yet with this property, but I have a feeling there will be something in the future. Probably starring Somebody like Mike Myers in the Peter Sellers role (s).

A Clockwork Orange”. Too topical to bury forever. I feel we’ll get a remake eventually… probably as a BBC mini-series.

“The Shining”: Remade in 1997 with the dude from ‘Wings’ going batshit crazy. This is one film that deserved to be remade, as the source material (Stephen King’s 1979 tome) deviated considerably from what Kubrick brought to the screen in 1980. Although we were treated to a more definitive literary translation, we begin to realize why Kubrick excised certain stuff (killer topiary).

That leaves a few others like “Barry Lyndon”, “Full Metal Jacket”, and “Eyes Wide Shut”. Sure these could get remade some day, but I’m not devoting an article to something so far out that it’s all speculative. I needed a film that would work as a remake today BUT would never get remade.

That leaves the grand-daddy of Kubrick films – the 1968 classic “2001 – A Space Odyssey”. It has everything modern audiences plop their asses into seats for. Lets look at a few things…

Killer Robots: Hal 2000

People can’t get enough of killer robots nowadays. Hal 2000 bridged the gap from the classic mindless automaton from 1950s classics such as Robot Monster to the devious and conniving contraptions we’ve seen in Transformers and Terminator. The cool and empathetic voice of Hal lent a personable quality to its character; not the twangy and electronic voices of past.

Outer Space Setting

Not just spaceships – But cool, realistic stuff that felt like we could actually climb into and fly around. For big box office, space IS the place.

Alien Mythology

The eerie Monoliths in 2001 were a remnant of an old alien race. This concept has been done countless times in the subsequent decades. The Good (Alien), the Bad (Mission to Mars), and the Ugly (Kingdom of the Crystal Skull).

So why can’t I see 2001 getting a remake? First of all, the iconic value of the imagery that has been ingrained in our minds. How could someone possibly try to remake the Monoliths, or the beautifully simplistic design of HAL 2000, or even the Discovery One space craft. Any attempt would be impossible due to our connection to the originals. Add to this an unforgettable soundtrack that is as famous as the film itself.

Let’s pretend someone got around the imagery and soundtrack hurdle and actual started to put a new 2001 together (and yes, it would have to be called something like 2030 due to us passing the original date). Would the overlying story work with today’s audiences? The answer is unquestionably ‘No’. 2001 is about the Dawn of space travel, and space travel takes a really long time to get anywhere. 2001 was basically one long ride to Jupiter, and audiences were willing to go for that ride back in 1968 because space was so fresh and unexplored. Everything about space was new and exciting – Heck, the moon landing wouldn’t even happen for another year. This was before internet and Entertainment Tonight; audiences would go into this film with little preview of the images. They were curious. They were excited to embark on this new discovery. That was 1968.

Remember the film “Apollo 13” (1995). How even by the early 70s, people began to become bored of the moon missions. Television viewership of NASA missions dropped to epic lows since the first moon landing. Space exploration was no longer interesting. Releasing 2001 a few years later would have had similar effect on its popularity. I think its 1968 release was the best time it could ever have come out.

We’ve seen films come out with similar themes. “2010: The Year We Make Contact” (1984) tried to follow the story arc laid out by 2001 writer Arthur C Clarke. It has much of the same elements, but never reached a large fan base.

What do you think? Could there be a remake of 2001? Let me know your thoughts and I’ll add them to this article.

This podcast was recorded late at night and everyone was a bit giddy with lack of sleep. Strap yourself in for a fun, 50 minute ride through all the changes, movie news we found interesting and a couple of movie reviews. Here’s a rundown on everything we talk about:

Changes to the website – Daily Content!

Mon – Allen’s Caligula Blu Dip article
Tue – This podcast right here
Wed – Remake Analysis of Kubrick films by Ross
Thu – Oscar Worthy Animated Performance by John
Fri – Part one of 1975 year in review

Keep your eyes peeled to the website for more  articles coming up. We’ll try to give you a heads up as to what’s about to be posted, but you never know when something else might slip through.

• Mark finally updated his BIO!
• Box Office totals
• Avatar DVD and Blu Ray to arrive on Earth Day
• This week in Carla Gugino
• Question posed by Cinematical: What movie would you like to see again for the first time?
• Hollywood Stock Exchange
• Angelina Jolie not doing Wanted 2
• Pirates of the Caribbean 4
• Shane Black and what’s on his plate
• Allen tries to talk about superheroes
• Very quick Transformers 3 news

Our GBU List for this week: Buddy Cop Movies (COP OUT)

The movies we review this week are 2012 and Gentlemen Broncos. There are some pretty diametrically opposed opinions here, you should listen to our reasons why we have them. Basically though, John and Allen were obviously smoking crack. Here’s the score:

Allen – Ugly		Allen – Good
John – Ugly		John – Good
Ross – Bad		Ross – Bad
Mark – Bad+		Mark – Ugly

If you think that Allen and John are waaaay off in their reviews of these movies, or want to add your two cents in to anything we’ve talked about here, please feel free to leave a comment right here. You can also send us your opinions to podcast@goodbaduglyfilms.com, or leave us a voicemail via Skype. We may play your voicemail or read your email on the podcast. Fame and fortune await!

-Mark

Download This Episode Here

no·to·ri·ous [noh-tawr-ee-uhs, -tohr-, nuh-]  –adjective
1. widely and unfavorably known
2. publicly or generally known, as for a particular trait

Tinto Brass’ Caligula is nothing if not notorious. It is a film whose reputation preceded it before its release, and has followed it ever since. Surrounded with controversy and rumours, it is fair to wonder if it has ever been judged simply on its merits, or lack thereof. Upon its release Roger Ebert gave it Zero Stars and said, ""Caligula" is sickening, utterly worthless, shameful trash. If it is not the worst film I have ever seen, that makes it all the more shameful…" Lighten up Rog, it ain’t that bad!

Scripted by Gore Vidal, directed  by Tinto Brass and produced by Penthouse Magazine publisher Bob Guccione, the movie was at odds with itself from the beginning of production, as all three men had distinctively different visions of what the final film would be. Vidal saw it as a sweeping epic, Brass saw something a little more playful, and Guccione saw an opportunity to bring porn to the masses with an international A-list cast. Vidal had his name removed from the film. Brass had the film taken away from him at editing. And Guccione got final cut, inserting his commissioned scenes of hardcore sex into an already sexually extreme film.

I have always had a little affection for the film. My first viewing was of the 146 minute R-Rated cut. All of the hardcore sex and much of the extreme violence was excised from the film to garner its "R" rating, and the remains were enough to entertain and leave me curious about all that missing footage.

Caligula: Complete Unedited, Unrated Version (DVD)

This 1999 release was my first exposure to the complete version of Caligula, including all the porn and violence. To be honest, this 156 minute cut of the film really does little to improve the film. The inserted porn scenes, to me, don’t stand out all that much since the sexual content of the film was so high to begin with – and to my eyes, being no virgins to porn, the inclusion was certainly not shocking. The fact that some of them run so long is actually problematic. Lingering on the sex scenes only serves to slow down the pace of the narrative. Guccione could have gotten away with the inclusion of the hardcore sex had he edited it as tightly as the rest of the film. Certainly other films have, like 9 Songs, by treating the sex like any other part of the film, instead of leering at the acts like a naughty schoolboy.  Bearing in mind that the movie was filmed in 1976, much of the explicit violence isn’t as cringe-inducing as expected since the effects are all practical and we have seen much more sophisticated effects in the time since the release of the film.

The special features on the disk amount to some old EPK (Electronic Press Kit) materials, and not much of that, with some clips from other Penthouse titles. So if you want a lot of soft-core to go with a little hardcore, this is your collection. Otherwise, this edition was just about having the Unrated version on DVD.

Caligula: The Imperial Edition (Blu-Ray)

Following Guccione losing the rights to Caligula, Image Entertainment stepped in and lovingly produced this edition first released in 2007 exclusively on DVD and ported over to Blu-Ray in 2009. Take a look at what you get…

• The Unrated, Uncensored feature film
• An alternate pre-release version of the film, never before seen
• Full length audio commentary with Malcolm McDowell
• Full length audio commentary with Helen Mirren
• Audio commentary with writer/reporter Ernest Volkman
• Video interview with director Tinto Brass
• Video interview with supporting star John Steiner
• Video interview with supporting star and Penthouse Pet Lori Wagner
• 2 Making of Caligula documentaries from the original release
• Hundreds of photographs
• Gore Vidal’s original screenplay (DVD-ROM)
• 3 Penthouse magazine features (DVD-ROM)
• Print interview with Bob Guccione (DVD-ROM)
• Deleted and alternate scenes
• Theatrical Trailers and more

In terms of the feature itself, the greatest addition to this release is the 153 minute alternate version, which does not include the hardcore sex, but does correct some continuity issues the unrated version has. For example, the scene that opens the unrated version with Caligula and his sister frolicking in the woods doesn’t appear until about an hour into the alternate version where it belongs. This alternate cut really shows Caligula in its best light, with focus on the narrative while maintaining much of the bits that make it so notorious.

The commentaries are played over the alternate cut, and are themselves worth the price of this collection.

Moderated very well by Alan Jones and James Chaffin, Helen Mirren’s commentary is an absolute joy. Informative and fun, Mirren appears to have many pleasant memories of the production which she seemed to see as an opportunity to make some of the best money she had ever made while hanging out with pal Malcolm McDowell and touring around Italy, seeing the sights. Mirren is very non-plussed by the sexuality and nudity in the film, taking it all in stride, yet had to look away during the killing machine scene. Her memories are startlingly crisp and detailed, even inferring that the alleged "secret" night porn shoots that all of her co-stars maintain their ignorance of knowing about, was perhaps not such a big secret after all. What really struck my interest was when she would speak of the inevitable censorship problems Caligula would face, she also talks about the tribulations The Cook, The Thief, His Wife and Her Lover faced in comparison – one of my all time favorite films.

Malcolm McDowell’s commentary, moderated by Nick Redman, is less detailed, as McDowell’s memories seem more vague than Mirren’s regarding parts of the production, but makes up for these lapses with some great stories about the senior members of the cast; John Geilgud and Peter O’Toole. McDowell’s attitudes toward the film are more strained. Considering McDowell’s body of work he comes off quite prudish, though he has moments of … I dunno… passive lewdishness? Wrap your head around that one. ¦¬) His distain for Guccione comes across loud and clear though and it seems he has not made his peace with the film as yet.

Moderated by Nathaniel Thompson, Ernest Volkman’s commentary seems less a commentary per se than it is a phone interview played over the the first 95 minutes of the film. Volkman was hired by Guccione to document the making of the film for later articles in Penthouse, and seemed to have access to all participants of the production. This is definitely an entertaining and informative piece of the disk, and gives insight to the motivations and machinations of Guccione in particular whose voice is absent from the new materials on the collection.

John Steiner, in his interview, gives a much different perspective on the production than those aforementioned. Playing the supporting role of Longinus, Steiner was not garnered the same star treatment as the above-the-title actors and thus the production comes off more laboured from his stance.

Penthouse Pet Lori Wagner chimes in about her experiences on the film. Playing Agrippina, her biggest contributions to the film was pretty much to be naked as often as possible, and to film the lesbian scene with fellow Pet, Anneka Di Lorenzo. Feeling she was not getting as much screen time as she deserved, she volunteered to urinate on the corpse of Proculus after he is murdered by Caligula’s guards. Now that’s acting!!! As tempting as it is to lay into this piece of work, let’s just say “bimbo” and move on.

Director Tinto Brass gives an excellent, candid interview about the making of the film, and the personal ordeal that followed when the film was taken from him. Brass comes off very likable and engaging – a full audio commentary with him would have been an outstanding addition to this collection.

"Caligula: The Imperial Edition" does what collections like the "Alien Quadrilogy" or the "Blade Runner: Ultimate Collector’s Edition" do… show the importance of Home Video, whatever your format of choice may be… It provides a 360 degree oral history of the making of the film, with the people that were involved in the making and candidly sharing their unique perspectives and recollections.

Caligula: Unrated – BAD

Caligula: Alternate Cut – Oh-so-close to GOOD

Caligula: The Imperial Edition as a whole – blows the roof off GOOD

We finish up our 2003 retrospective with the best of the best, and the worst of the worst of the year. Of course all choices are subjective and cause dissention even amongst us (Identity… Ugly?… Really?!?). Be sure to contact us if you agree or disagree with our picks, and include those you think we have missed – and of course, enjoy the podcast!

Ugly

Ross

House of Sand and Fog

Cold Mountain

Big Fish

Gothika

Darkness Falls

Allen

The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen

Boat Trip

Cheaper By the Dozen

Brown Bunny

Mona Lisa Smile

John

House of the Dead

Identity

Terminator III

Tomb Raider II

S.W.A.T.

Top Five

Allen

1. In America

2. Capturing the Friedmans

3. Swimming Pool

4. Under the Tuscan Sun

5. The Mudge Boy

John

1. Kill Bill Vol. 1

2. A Mighty WInd

3. Barbarian Invasions

4. Lost in Translation

5. The Triplets of Belleville

Ross

1. Capturing the Friedmans

2. Old Boy

3. Kill Bill Vol.1

4. The Triplets of Belleville

5. 21 Grams

Coming up Next in the Spotlight…

The year we all became afraid of the water…

1975

Download this Episode Here