Caligula (1979) (The Imperial Edition)

[Surge92]

Originally Posted by mar3o

It's a shame we'll lose the opening titles and music. That was always a great intro.

Tell me about it. If there was something they should have left pretty much intact, it's the opening titles and music. "Dance of the Knights" is practically synonymous with Caligula.

[bigshot]

Originally Posted by mar3o

Lots of negativity considering we haven't even seen it yet. How about giving it a chance first and go into it with an open mind?

If a film is messed up by executive meddling, I don't want to see a recut making it more like the vision of the slimeball producer who messed it up in the first place. That's like reediting "Magnificent Ambersons" to make it closer to what the RKO execs wanted the film to be.

Brass made this film. Brass's vision is what matters. We have a cut that is as close as Brass got to achieving his intent as we're ever going to see. I don't want to see Gore Vidal's version of the film any more than I want to read Myra Breckinridge reworded and rewritten by the guy who directed the movie. And handing all the bits and pieces of the film to some guy whose IMDB page lists just one short film is absurd. Films are made by filmmakers. Brass is the only filmmaker in this bunch.

There's a tendency in home video forums to think the longest cut possible is the best version. That is completely wrong. The best cut is the director's cut, no matter if it is longer or shorter. If you think this is a good film, there is no reason to glue arms on the Venus de Milo to make it better. And if you think it's a horrible film, why polish a turd? This is clearly a no win situation.

The only way this film could be improved is to make it into something completely different, like "What's Up Tiger Lilly". I might actually watch that.

[drush9999]

At this point I just want a new 4K mastered BD or 4K of the 156min cut.

[albert_m2]

Many years ago, I got what I believe is the first DVD release and it looked like shit. I didn't even keep it.

About a decade later, I got the Imperial DVD set and it looked better. I did appreciate the extras on this set. I find the backstory of this movie pretty interesting. That said, I picked the Arrow blu ray a few years ago and it was the first release where the movie actually looked pretty good, all things considered.

I'm good with the Arrow, but if it's out of print, happy if it's released again for those who want it.... though not sure what to make of the comments regarding entirely different cut of the film, wow.

[dallywhitty]

While I agree that it would've been ideal for Brass to be involved, I'm a trifle confused by the peeps who think this'll be even less like what Brass wanted. For starters, it won't have any of the hardcore material shot by Guccione and Lui. And most importantly, the intent with this cut is to focus on the narrative and to recontextualise Caligula's motivation, which was made a bit muddy in Guccione's cut because important sequences wound up on the cutting room floor.

All that being said, I still love the 1979 cut and I'd very much welcome a 4K release, lol.

[bigshot]

Back further in the thread, the Penthouse editor says that they don't want to make Brass's cut. They want to take the bits and make their own version. If they wanted Brass's version, they would have hired Brass, or at the very least, consulted him and assembled his notes. They didn't do that. They had an editor who said he was going to follow Brass's editing style. They replaced him with a guy who said he couldn't do Brass. It's pretty clear what is happening here. This is reinvention and it sets a very bad precedent.

Imagine if someone at MGM decides that Kubrick's cutting style is too slow and his narrative flow isn't clear enough, so they decide to do an alternate version of 2001 using none of the same select takes, a new John Williams musical score (no more stuffy old classical music!), and a nice new animated title sequence with CGI apes in space suits floating around a baby planet... They can tell everyone it comes closer to the original book. It will appeal to ordinary folks! And the original version will still exist... no harm, no foul, right?!

The only reason that more people aren't screaming about a reinvented Caligula is because the original one was a failure. But the reason it was a failure wasn't because of Brass, it was because of Guccione, and his lawyers and accountants have discovered where the body is buried and they're digging it up to put a knife in its back again. It's one thing to use production photos in Greed to cover missing footage, and we can attempt to restore Welles's opening sequence of Touch of Evil with the music Welles planned to use... that is at least making an attempt to follow the director's wishes (however unsatisfying both of those attempts turned out to be). But here we have a corporate owner handing the work materials to a rock musician / art critic who has made one short film to do with as he pleases. I can't stretch my brain far enough to think of a way that can be a good thing.

This is just plain wrong headed. It doesn't matter that the original film was a failure. Caligula can't be fixed. It is what it is and it was made to be what it is by the director. Go make another brand new film that is successful. Don't try to fix the failure by cutting it up like a Frankenstein monster and reassembling it to suit your own tastes.

[bigshot]

As an example... There's a famous film that had been taken away from the director by the completion bond company and crapped out. The final film consisted of incredible footage by the original director, patched together with bad new scenes designed to bridge the narrative holes. The completion bond company chopped out footage and changed the soundtrack and dialogue too. It was a real mess.

Well, I served on the board of a non-profit film society and news came to us that someone was gathering up work prints in an effort to try to create a cut of the film that followed the original director's intent. Film fans were excited and buzzing. Everyone wanted to see that new cut. It was mentioned that our film society should host a screening of it. I hadn't heard much about it so I asked if the director would like to attend. I was told that he had washed his hands of the film and moved on. The recut was done independently by a film fan. Immediately red flags and sirens started going off in my head. I argued that without the director involved, our organization shouldn't put our seal of approval on it by hosting a screening. There was some debate, with people on the board saying that fans were clamoring to see it and the director hadn't publicly commented on it, but eventually the idea of the screening was tabled.

A few months later, word came back that the director had been teaching a master class and someone in the audience asked him about the "restored" cut of his film. The director turned bright red and said something to the effect of... "That isn't MY film. It isn't anything like my film. If I could get ahold of the guy who spliced all that stuff together and claimed it was mine, I would strangle him." When I heard that, I breathed a sigh of relief. My organization had ducked a bullet.

Fans of Caligula see things in the film that they like and stuff they don't like. As a fan, and not as a filmmaker, the tendency is to think, "All you have to do is cut out the bad stuff and put in all the good stuff that didn't make it in the cut originally." But that isn't how movie making works. A director has intent, and every piece of the puzzle is designed to follow that intent. If the puzzle pieces don't fit together properly the first time, pulling it all apart and putting it together again isn't going to make it all fit.

The reasons that Caligula was a failure have nothing to do with the clarity of the cutting. Cutting it like a TV movie with nice neat setups and payoffs isn't going to improve it. It's blatantly obvious why the film wasn't successful, and the quote from Malcom McDowell earlier in this thread puts a finger on it. Just cutting out Guccione's cheesy sex scenes isn't going to fix it. That has been done and the film is just as unacceptable as it ever was. Adding more footage and alternate takes won't change that.

[snipemonkey]

So, essentially it's the equivalent of a YouTube fan-edit, just with access to the original materials. Ugh. No thanks.

I can't imagine there's anyone sitting around going, "Gee, I wonder what my orthodontist's version of Lawrence of Arabia would look like? I need to scrape together some financing so we can find out! The world needs to know!!!!!" That's how these kinds of things always strike me. Just because you technically can doesn't mean you should.

[Protozoid]

Originally Posted by dallywhitty

While I agree that it would've been ideal for Brass to be involved, I'm a trifle confused by the peeps who think this'll be even less like what Brass wanted. For starters, it won't have any of the hardcore material shot by Guccione and Lui. And most importantly, the intent with this cut is to focus on the narrative and to recontextualise Caligula's motivation, which was made a bit muddy in Guccione's cut because important sequences wound up on the cutting room floor.

Just to clarify, I do expect this will be a better cut of the movie than what we've seen before. But the bar is very low.

My criticism is not even necessarily at Negovan, who sounds like an intelligent person with good intentions who did the best he could to please all of the parties involved. I appreciate his efforts and I'm sure he's in a tough spot.

What I was attempting to express was my bewilderment that Penthouse has completely misunderstood the narrative leading up to the present moment. They are addressing the wrong complaint. The narrative around this movie is that of a grave injustice committed against Tinto Brass. And by not having him involved, there was no reason for a new cut at all. Nobody wants to see another Penthouse cut. There's no demand for that. The ending people wanted to have for this story was Brass and Tuschinski finally finishing Brass's movie decades later. That would have been a huge moment in cinema history. Perhaps Penthouse had a valid reason to part ways with those gentleman, but it's hard to imagine one.

What this feels like is Penthouse is very, very unfriendly to directors.

I feel bad for Negovan and his team because this cut is going to be remembered as another injustice towards Brass. Even if it's closer to what Brass wanted (which is not their stated intent, given their marketing is focused on Vidal), it just raises the question of why they fired Tinto Brass a second time from the task of making a Tinto Brass film.

I'm interested to see the new cut, but two wrongs don't make a right.

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by albert_m2

Many years ago, I got what I believe is the first DVD release and it looked like shit. I didn't even keep it.

About a decade later, I got the Imperial DVD set and it looked better. I did appreciate the extras on this set. I find the backstory of this movie pretty interesting. That said, I picked the Arrow blu ray a few years ago and it was the first release where the movie actually looked pretty good, all things considered.

I'm good with the Arrow, but if it's out of print, happy if it's released again for those who want it.... though not sure what to make of the comments regarding entirely different cut of the film, wow.

The French remastered blu-ray was a nice improvement over the Arrow release. Much better colors and better detail. Yeah, the original DVD didn't look any better than the VHS really. I remember the days of renting it on VHS. I still wonder if the original "official" VHS tape was a bootleg. The image even wobbled.

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by bigshot

Back further in the thread, the Penthouse editor says that they don't want to make Brass's cut. They want to take the bits and make their own version. If they wanted Brass's version, they would have hired Brass, or at the very least, consulted him and assembled his notes. They didn't do that. They had an editor who said he was going to follow Brass's editing style. They replaced him with a guy who said he couldn't do Brass. It's pretty clear what is happening here. This is reinvention and it sets a very bad precedent.

Imagine if someone at MGM decides that Kubrick's cutting style is too slow and his narrative flow isn't clear enough, so they decide to do an alternate version of 2001 using none of the same select takes, a new John Williams musical score (no more stuffy old classical music!), and a nice new animated title sequence with CGI apes in space suits floating around a baby planet... They can tell everyone it comes closer to the original book. It will appeal to ordinary folks! And the original version will still exist... no harm, no foul, right?!

The only reason that more people aren't screaming about a reinvented Caligula is because the original one was a failure. But the reason it was a failure wasn't because of Brass, it was because of Guccione, and his lawyers and accountants have discovered where the body is buried and they're digging it up to put a knife in its back again. It's one thing to use production photos in Greed to cover missing footage, and we can attempt to restore Welles's opening sequence of Touch of Evil with the music Welles planned to use... that is at least making an attempt to follow the director's wishes (however unsatisfying both of those attempts turned out to be). But here we have a corporate owner handing the work materials to a rock musician / art critic who has made one short film to do with as he pleases. I can't stretch my brain far enough to think of a way that can be a good thing.

This is just plain wrong headed. It doesn't matter that the original film was a failure. Caligula can't be fixed. It is what it is and it was made to be what it is by the director. Go make another brand new film that is successful. Don't try to fix the failure by cutting it up like a Frankenstein monster and reassembling it to suit your own tastes.

No, the reason more people aren't upset over this is not that the original film was a failure, it's because the film was already messed up so badly with all the changes that were made before it was even released that nobody has ever seen the version that was intended. So people feel like there's no harm in seeing somebody else take a crack at it. Again, at the very least we'll see some interesting footage. This wasn't some masterpiece we're talking about - it was a film with some great potential, wrecked by a bunch of poor decisions. So I see no harm in giving another cut a chance. It's a shame people were let go that were originally working on this. It's puzzling because for a while it seemed like everyone was all in for this, then things changed for whatever reasons. I'm still very interested in seeing how it turned out.

And the only reason that footage was saved was because of the desire to use that footage to hopefully put together a new edit. So if nothing else, that footage has been saved due to the efforts of those who previously rushed in to save it. If this versions sucks, we're no worse off than before, and maybe it could even spark up the possibility of a new 4k of the original unrated release. At least we have some new footage, and not just cutting-room floor "lost footage" quality - fully restored. That's huge. I just don't get all the hate around this title in here.

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by bigshot

As an example... There's a famous film that had been taken away from the director by the completion bond company and crapped out. The final film consisted of incredible footage by the original director, patched together with bad new scenes designed to bridge the narrative holes. The completion bond company chopped out footage and changed the soundtrack and dialogue too. It was a real mess.

Well, I served on the board of a non-profit film society and news came to us that someone was gathering up work prints in an effort to try to create a cut of the film that followed the original director's intent. Film fans were excited and buzzing. Everyone wanted to see that new cut. It was mentioned that our film society should host a screening of it. I hadn't heard much about it so I asked if the director would like to attend. I was told that he had washed his hands of the film and moved on. The recut was done independently by a film fan. Immediately red flags and sirens started going off in my head. I argued that without the director involved, our organization shouldn't put our seal of approval on it by hosting a screening. There was some debate, with people on the board saying that fans were clamoring to see it and the director hadn't publicly commented on it, but eventually the idea of the screening was tabled.

A few months later, word came back that the director had been teaching a master class and someone in the audience asked him about the "restored" cut of his film. The director turned bright red and said something to the effect of... "That isn't MY film. It isn't anything like my film. If I could get ahold of the guy who spliced all that stuff together and claimed it was mine, I would strangle him." When I heard that, I breathed a sigh of relief. My organization had ducked a bullet.

Fans of Caligula see things in the film that they like and stuff they don't like. As a fan, and not as a filmmaker, the tendency is to think, "All you have to do is cut out the bad stuff and put in all the good stuff that didn't make it in the cut originally." But that isn't how movie making works. A director has intent, and every piece of the puzzle is designed to follow that intent. If the puzzle pieces don't fit together properly the first time, pulling it all apart and putting it together again isn't going to make it all fit.

The reasons that Caligula was a failure have nothing to do with the clarity of the cutting. Cutting it like a TV movie with nice neat setups and payoffs isn't going to improve it. It's blatantly obvious why the film wasn't successful, and the quote from Malcom McDowell earlier in this thread puts a finger on it. Just cutting out Guccione's cheesy sex scenes isn't going to fix it. That has been done and the film is just as unacceptable as it ever was. Adding more footage and alternate takes won't change that.

Again - we don't know that yet, because we haven't seen it.

There are lots of movies that are very good regardless of which version you watch, and many films have multiple versions that all have their own merit. Heck, Dawn of the Dead was released with a cut by Dario Argento and it has merit, even though it's a different cut with different scenes. Films are not jigsaw puzzles that only work if you have everything literally cut one exact way. Films can survive having scenes cut and added. This has been proven many times over the decades. Sometimes new edits work, sometimes they don't. But films are literally just clips of footage sewn together. There's no one single solution. You can pull out scenes that don't work and put in scenes that do and that can absolutely improve the film. That's what director's editions often do.

[bigshot]

Originally Posted by mar3o

people feel like there's no harm in seeing somebody else take a crack at it.

As I said, tell that to Orson Welles when you get a rock musician / art critic to finish Ambersons for him. Honestly, you would get a pop in the nose from any film maker that you might suggest letting someone else "take a crack" at their failures.

There's a fundamental misunderstanding about how films are made here. A director has an idea of how he wants to tell the story from the very beginning. He shoots the film with that idea. It isn't like dailies are some sort of raw material that can be made into whatever you want it to be, like wood can be made into a piano or a house. The way Brass shot the film dictated how it could be edited. Now it certainly could be edited in a ham handed manner and messed up, but that isn't the problem with Caligula. Once the opening scene is put back in order, the film plays.

The reason Caligula is such a failure is because it has such an over the top tone that only a small fraction of the audience will tolerate, and even fewer will enjoy its excesses. The problem with the film wasn't Bob Guccione's hardcore insert scenes. The blu-ray I have has the opening scene the way Brass wanted it and no insert scenes. It plays as good as this film is going to play.

You can reedit the film over and over, and let everyone and their brother "take a crack" at Brass's film, but it isn't going to get any better. You can make it longer, or you can make it shorter. You can use different takes. You can add in stuff that got trimmed out. It won't be better. It will just be different. Argento didn't improve Dawn of the Dead. He just made a different cut.

Penthouse is uniquely unqualified to supervise a project like this. We'll be lucky if it is just different. I think it's going to royally suck.

[russweiss1]

Originally Posted by bigshot

There's a fundamental misunderstanding about how films are made here. A director has an idea of how he wants to tell the story from the very beginning. He shoots the film with that idea.

I agree with most of what you've been saying with this exception. Often a director has to answer to the film's producer(s) and doesn't have autonomy.

[bigshot]

That happens, but that isn't the way it should be. And it isn't how great films are made. The job of producers is to the assemble the financing, assemble the team and oversee the management of the production. The job of a director is to make the creative decisions to ensure a unified vision for the film.

Guccione didn't understand this, and apparently the lawyers and accountants that follow him don't either.

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by bigshot

As I said, tell that to Orson Welles when you get a rock musician / art critic to finish Ambersons for him. Honestly, you would get a pop in the nose from any film maker that you might suggest letting someone else "take a crack" at their failures.

There's a fundamental misunderstanding about how films are made here. A director has an idea of how he wants to tell the story from the very beginning. He shoots the film with that idea. It isn't like dailies are some sort of raw material that can be made into whatever you want it to be, like wood can be made into a piano or a house. The way Brass shot the film dictated how it could be edited. Now it certainly could be edited in a ham handed manner and messed up, but that isn't the problem with Caligula. Once the opening scene is put back in order, the film plays.

The reason Caligula is such a failure is because it has such an over the top tone that only a small fraction of the audience will tolerate, and even fewer will enjoy its excesses. The problem with the film wasn't Bob Guccione's hardcore insert scenes. The blu-ray I have has the opening scene the way Brass wanted it and no insert scenes. It plays as good as this film is going to play.

You can reedit the film over and over, and let everyone and their brother "take a crack" at Brass's film, but it isn't going to get any better. You can make it longer, or you can make it shorter. You can use different takes. You can add in stuff that got trimmed out. It won't be better. It will just be different. Argento didn't improve Dawn of the Dead. He just made a different cut.

Penthouse is uniquely unqualified to supervise a project like this. We'll be lucky if it is just different. I think it's going to royally suck.

You've made that abundantly clear. Some of us are still excited to see how it turns out, because even if it's infinitely worse than the original releases, any Caligula fan should be thrilled at the very least just to see hours of alternate footage never seen before. More than anything, I'm looking at this as a curiosity - the original film is what it is and nothing will ever change that now. But I can still at least be grateful this footage was saved and restored and we will get a chance to see an alternate "what if things had been different back then" look at the film.

[bigshot]

I'm not a Caligula fan. I admire Tinto Brass for how he directed Caligula. It was audacious and brave, and even though it didn't entirely work with general audiences, I can appreciate it for what it is. The film reflects his revolutionary approach in the current cut. I don't need anyone to "fix" it. I especially don't need a version edited by people who have no business messing with someone else's film. I respect filmmakers too much for that.

This is an extreme film *by design*. It's going to be offensive to some people. Honestly, if people think that reediting Caligula will fix it, do they think that reediting will make Happiness, Lisztomania, Birth of a Nation or Pink Flamingos more acceptable? All of these films are fine as they are. No need to hire a rock musician / art critic to monkey with them.

And it definitely isn't going to show us "what if things had been different back then" without the participation of and respect for Tinto Brass.

[Kyle15]

The best stuff isn't for general audiences anyway tbh.

[dallywhitty]

Originally Posted by bigshot

I especially don't need a version edited by people who have no business messing with someone else's film. I respect filmmakers too much for that.

But that's exactly what happened to the existing version of the film.

[bigshot]

So doing it again will be better?