"Caligula" starring Malcolm McDowell

[Maxirad]

Would it be sinful to merely watch an unrated version of that Caligula movie Malcolm McDowell made? Roger Ebert really hated a version he saw. I’ve watched an R-rated version, and (if my memory serves me correctly) I thought it was boring.

 

[LilyM]

Would it be sinful to merely watch an unrated version of that Caligula movie Malcolm McDowell made? Roger Ebert really hated a version he saw. I’ve watched an R-rated version, and (if my memory serves me correctly) I thought it was boring.

An unrated version is probably more explicit than an R rated version. And if it was boring, trust me it ain’t gonna be better without a rating.

 

[louisak]

I suppose it depends on what your reasons are for wanting to see the unrated version. If it’s just because you want to see more nudity/sex - then yes I would say it must be a sin.

Perhaps you could have another motive for wanting to see the unrated version, though I can’t guess what it might be.

 

[Dale_M]

An unrated version is probably more explicit than an R rated version. And if it was boring, trust me it ain’t gonna be better without a rating.

Those are my thoughts too. As I recall, it was a product of 1970s hedonist excess. The producer Bob Guccione was best known for being the publisher of a porn magazine called Penthouse. The movie was an attempt for him to branch out.

Sometimes, on rare occasions, you hear of a movie which was ruined during the editing. Caligula is not one of them.

 

[LilyM]

I suppose it depends on what your reasons are for wanting to see the unrated version. If it’s just because you want to see more nudity/sex - then yes I would say it must be a sin.

Perhaps you could have another motive for wanting to see the unrated version, though I can’t guess what it might be.

Especially not with that movie if memory serves - plenty of sex and violence and nothing redeeming about it.

 

[The_Scott]

I’d avoid it. It’s pretty much a high-budget pornographic film.

Even without the sex and nudity and controversy, it’s still a very mediocre film.

 

[triumphguy]

I saw it in the late 70’s or early 80’s - it was just nasty.

I wouldn’t watch it now, nor would I let my kids. I thought I was cool at the time.

 

[goforgoal]

I’ve only ever seen a Trailer of this Movie and even that is such a shock

Is this how Caligula really and truly lived?

Or did they just portray him as a tyrant?

I mean did they add in more violence and sex to this movie to sell it?

I watched a documentary of him on “Ancients behaving badly”

 

[triumphguy]

I’ve only ever seen a Trailer of this Movie and even that is such a shock

Is this how Caligula really and truly lived?

Or did they just portray him as a tyrant?

I mean did they add in more violence and sex to this movie to sell it?

I watched a documentary of him on “Ancients behaving badly”

He was greedy, insane, vicious, depraved, violent and extremely powerful - not a good mix!

WIKI says:

The contemporary sources, Philo of Alexandria and Seneca the Younger, describe an insane emperor who was self-absorbed, angry, killed on a whim, and who indulged in too much spending and sex.[95] He is accused of sleeping with other men’s wives and bragging about it,[96] killing for mere amusement,[97] deliberately wasting money on his bridge, causing starvation,[98] and wanting a statue of himself erected in the Temple of Jerusalem for his worship.[92] Once at some games at which he was presiding, he ordered his guards to throw an entire section of the crowd into the arena during intermission to be eaten by animals because there were no criminals to be prosecuted and he was bored.[99]

While repeating the earlier stories, the later sources of Suetonius and Cassius Dio provide additional tales of insanity. They accuse Caligula of incest with his sisters, Agrippina the Younger, Drusilla and Livilla, and say he prostituted them to other men.[100] They state he sent troops on illogical military exercises,[67][101] turned the palace into a brothel,[44] and, most famously, planned or promised to make his horse, Incitatus, a consul,[102] and actually appointed him a priest.[76]

 

[jpjd]

Could any movie made 40 years ago have anywhere close to the explicit sex/nudity that we have now? Not that I’m recommending you watch it, but I can’t imagine that whatever is in it could even approach what you would see in your basic R movie or even PG-13 movie today.

 

[triumphguy]

Could any movie made 40 years ago have anywhere close to the explicit sex/nudity that we have now? Not that I’m recommending you watch it, but I can’t imagine that whatever is in it could even approach what you would see in your basic R movie or even PG-13 movie today.

The innocence of youth!

You have no idea!

Think trapezes, with midgets and anatomy similar to pictures by Aubrey Beardsley (if you don’t know who he is DON’T Google him definitely NSFW).

Or rather don’t …:tsktsk:

Depravity was not invented in the late 20th century you know!

 

[Dwyer]

---

You should look for guidance at the movie classification reviews and movie classification ratings which are linked to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops website:

catholicnews.com/movies.htm

For less recent films:

old.usccb.org/movies/movieall.shtml

Main USCCB website:

usccb.org/

Catholic Movie Review of ‘Caligula’ (1981):

Caligula – The R-rated version of the X-rated original is no less a dreary exploitation movie awash with sex and violence.

Directed by Tinto Brass, it brings not a trace of insight to the historical figures of the Roman Empire or to this period of history. (O) (R) 1981

---

These movies have been evaluated for artistic merit and moral suitability by the media reviewing division of Catholic News Service. The reviews include the CNS rating, the Motion Picture Association of America rating, and a brief synopsis of the movie.

The classifications are as follows:

CNS classifications:

A-I — general patronage
A-II — adults and adolescents
A-III — adults
A-IV — adults, with reservations (this indicates films that, while not morally offensive in themselves, are not for casual viewing because they require some analysis and explanation in order to avoid false impressions and interpretations)
L — limited adult audiences, films whose problematic content many adults would find troubling (replaced A-IV classification Nov. 1, 2003)
**O — morally offensive **

Motion Picture Association of America ratings:

G — general audiences, all ages admitted
PG — parental guidance suggested, some material may not be suitable for children
PG-13 — parents are strongly cautioned. Some material may be inappropriate for children under 13
R — restricted, under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian
NC-17 — no one 17 and under admitted (age limit may vary in certain areas)

It’s a good idea to mainly stay away from Tinsletown and the junk movies it produces which exploit human sexuality and violence to sell movie tickets / rentals / DVDs for your $$$ CASH $$$.

Don’t buy it; don’t rent it; don’t give these people your $$ money $$; don’t borrow it; don’t watch it.:knight2: :bible1:

 

[LilyM]

Could any movie made 40 years ago have anywhere close to the explicit sex/nudity that we have now? Not that I’m recommending you watch it, but I can’t imagine that whatever is in it could even approach what you would see in your basic R movie or even PG-13 movie today.

Oh yes it can.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Could any movie made 40 years ago have anywhere close to the explicit sex/nudity that we have now? Not that I’m recommending you watch it, but I can’t imagine that whatever is in it could even approach what you would see in your basic R movie or even PG-13 movie today.

You obviously haven’t seen the movie. The original has pornographic scenes, and not of the type you will see see in an R rate movie.

The problems with movies like this is that it attempts to be mainstream with pornographic scenes, and ends up not selling well with either the mainstream or pornographic audience. I recommend passing on this one.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

It’s depraved. Really.

 

[prodigalson2011]

It was directed by a guy whose prior resume included nothing but pornography (Tinto Brass) and featured several porn stars, if I’m not mistaken. It’s essentially torture porn masquerading as art. There is no justifiable reason for a Catholic (or any Christian) to watch it. That’s my 2 cents, anyway.

 

[CatholicFireman]

I saw it in the late 70’s or early 80’s - it was just nasty.

I wouldn’t watch it now, nor would I let my kids. I thought I was cool at the time.

Same here. It’s porn, plain and simple. It was produced by Bob Guccione (founder of Penthouse Magazine) so that should be an indication.

 

[jpjd]

The innocence of youth!

You have no idea!

Think trapezes, with midgets and anatomy similar to pictures by Aubrey Beardsley (if you don’t know who he is DON’T Google him definitely NSFW).

Or rather don’t …:tsktsk:

Depravity was not invented in the late 20th century you know!

The innocence of youth?!?!?! Well, you made my day! I am 51 years old.

 

[Maxirad]

Same here. It’s porn, plain and simple. It was produced by Bob Guccione (founder of Penthouse Magazine) so that should be an indication.

Check this and this out. Would it be sinful to merely watch a version of Caligula that has footage of hardcore sexual activity regardless of whether or not one is doing so in order to get sexually aroused?

 

[empther]

I saw the movie in a Paris movie theater. I was stationed in Germany at the time.
It was a large theatre with easily a thousand people there. It was a full house.

Nobody seemed to enjoy the film. When we walked out everybody was dead silent.

Never mind the shock scenes.
Any movie that wants to be popular has to have some fun in it somewhere.
Caligula was no fun.