"Caligula" starring Malcolm McDowell

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maxirad
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Maxirad said:
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?
Click to expand...
Should I go swim in a pool of raw sewerage regardless of whether I am doing so because I like being covered in excrement? Clearly not - unless some even higher necessity absolutely requires me to do so.

Unless it is absolutely essential for some reason that you see the film - say you work as a film critic or film censor and are assigned to work on that film or something - there is nothing that justifies watching such filth.
 
LilyM said:
Should I go swim in a pool of raw sewerage regardless of whether I am doing so because I like being covered in excrement? Clearly not - unless some even higher necessity absolutely requires me to do so.

Unless it is absolutely essential for some reason that you see the film - say you work as a film critic or film censor and are assigned to work on that film or something - there is nothing that justifies watching such filth.
Click to expand...
You said it well.

I can’t see justifying graphic sex in this movie (with or without arousal). It perverts something beautiful that God created for us.
 
Ron Conte, a gentleman who is a CAF member, has published a booklet called The Immorality of Pornography. On page 16, he says the following:
Even if the pornographic material is not used to commit gravely immoral sexual sins, the use of this material (e.g. by watching a pornographic movie, or reading a pornographic magazine or book, etc.) harms the human person. The acts portrayed in this material are often gravely immoral types of acts: fornication, adultery, masturbation, unnatural sexual acts. Viewing pornographic material harms the soul, the mind, and the heart, and causes the human person to be more likely to commit various sexual sins. Therefore, the use of pornography, even within marriage and even apart from particular intrinsically evil sexual sins, is immoral due to bad consequences of grave moral weight.
Click to expand...
Is it true that I would be putting my own soul on the line by merely watching a movie that’s two-plus hours in length with five minutes or so of footage showing actual sexual activity?
 
Maxirad said:
Ron Conte, a gentleman who is a CAF member, has published a booklet called The Immorality of Pornography. On page 16, he says the following:

Is it true that I would be putting my own soul on the line by merely watching a movie that’s two-plus hours in length with five minutes or so of footage showing actual sexual activity?
Click to expand...
It only takes a split second to sin mortally. The length of time doesn’t matter at all. Again, though, think of the purpose. Why is the sexual activity being shown? And why are you watching it? Mere entertainment? Well, how exactly is it befitting a Christian to entertain him or herself by watching strangers simulate sexual activity?

Besides which, we’re talking about Caligula here. There is a lot more than five minutes of objectionable material in it, material which is of a violent as well as sexual nature.
 
Maxirad said:
Ron Conte, a gentleman who is a CAF member, has published a booklet called The Immorality of Pornography. On page 16, he says the following:

Is it true that I would be putting my own soul on the line by merely watching a movie that’s two-plus hours in length with five minutes or so of footage showing actual sexual activity?
Click to expand...
All I can remember are the depraved bits - incest, bestiality, orgies, rape, graphic suicide, violence - there was no time for historical discourse, or dramatic niceties.

At the least this movie is a waste of your time. I think it’s just depraved, corrupt and morally wrong.
 
triumphguy said:
All I can remember are the depraved bits - incest, bestiality, orgies, rape, graphic suicide, violence - there was no time for historical discourse, or dramatic niceties.

At the least this movie is a waste of your time. I think it’s just depraved, corrupt and morally wrong.
Click to expand...
I certainly don’t remember the bestiality, but then I only saw part of the movie. I suppose there was an ahem intimate moment between Caligula and poor old Incitatus or something. Might just be my dark sense of humour, but I find the idea of putting bestiality into the movie quite funny in an absurd sort of way - as if it needed that sort of embellishment.
 
Maxirad said:
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?
Click to expand...
Yes.

You linked from the Catechism:

****QUOTE]2354 *Pornography *consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties. It offends against chastity because it perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to each other. It does grave injury to the dignity of its participants (actors, vendors, the public), since each one becomes an object of base pleasure and illicit profit for others. It immerses all who are involved in the illusion of a fantasy world. It is a grave offense. Civil authorities should prevent the production and distribution of pornographic materials.
]

Let’s break it down point by point

.*Pornography *consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties.

It offends against chastity because it perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to each other.

It does grave injury to the dignity of its participants (actors, vendors, the public), since each one becomes an object of base pleasure and illicit profit for others.

It immerses all who are involved in the illusion of a fantasy world. It is a grave offense.

Civil authorities should prevent the production and distribution of pornographic materials.

The Catechism gives various reasons why it is wrong.

This film fits the description of pornography. It is very graphic, very depraved.

Even the scenes with the legitimate actors,(for some reason Peter O’Toole and Helen Miiren are in this film, supposedly they were duped and the hardcore stuff was added after. I’ve read this claim, but do not know if it is true) not just the porn actors, show enough depravity that it would be considered pornographic.

I don’t know of a version in existence that would be ok to watch. (Just acting with no bad parts)

Don’t watch.
 
I’ve never seen it (never will), but it’s infamous not only for it’s nudity and sex, but for just being terrible. Critics gave it the lowest possible ratings and walked out. And these are secular critics who are used to seeing raunchy movies (and see no problem with them).
 
A poster had used the word “simulated sex”. Trust me, one thing I do remember about that film is it was not simulated. Graphic. Period. :eek:
 
LilyM said:
I certainly don’t remember the bestiality, but then I only saw part of the movie. I suppose there was an ahem intimate moment between Caligula and poor old Incitatus or something. Might just be my dark sense of humour, but I find the idea of putting bestiality into the movie quite funny in an absurd sort of way - as if it needed that sort of embellishment.
Click to expand...
There’s about 10 different versions of the movie.

I saw it in London in an “art” theatre. I imagine I saw one of the more explicit versions.:o
 
It sounds like it was pretty disturbing to work on, too - Numerous actors walked off the set when they realized how cheesy it was going to be, and I just heard a podcast interview with Malcolm McDowell, wherein he said Sir John Gielgud spent most of the movie hanging out on the set during any porn scenes and ogling the naked boys in it. Brrrr… Gore Vidal even wanted his name removed from the script (not because of the depravity of the hardcore porn scenes that Guccione filmed, but the poor editing and tampering with his script.) Roger Ebert famously walked out of the theater in which it was showing.
 
triumphguy said:
He was greedy, insane, vicious, depraved, violent and extremely powerful - not a good mix!
Click to expand...
So, he was a tyrant after all?

Did any of the Disciplies intervene when Caligula and his ancestors “ruled” Rome?
 
On the Decent Films Guide page on Facebook, someone asked a question concerning Caligula. Here is Steven D. Greydanus’ reply to the question:
[Name redacted]: Several issues to parse out here.
Click to expand...
First, obviously, choosing to watch anything for the sake of base pleasure, or deliberately taking base pleasure in erotic or provocative imagery, is always objectively sinful. Explicit depictions of sexuality always raise the danger, if not always the reality, of near occasion of sin. Near occasions of sin are to be avoided. When the occasion of sin is sufficiently proximate, it is never acceptable recreational viewing.
Click to expand...
In the case of CALIGULA, there is the added issue of real sex acts on film. Real sex acts displayed to third parties always gravely offend against the dignity of the performers. Totally apart from the question of near occasions of sin, they are never acceptable recreational viewing. For this reason alone, there is content in CALIGULA that one could never knowingly choose to watch recreationally (or continue watching after its nature has become clear) without grave objective sin.
Click to expand...
I say “recreational viewing” because I’m not sure I can exclude the possibility that it might legitimately be someone’s duty to endure some measure of unacceptably explicit sexual imagery or even pornographic imagery. For instance, a censor, or persons acting in an official capacity in an obscenity case, might have to endure some level of imagery that one should not choose to watch recreationally.
Click to expand...
Even in that case, when the content crosses a certain threshold of unacceptability, I should think it would normally no longer be necessary to continue to watch it, at least until the content in question is over. Even if in particular cases there were little risk of occasion of sin, out of respect for the dignity of the actors one should at least turn one’s eyes (and if possible ears) from gravely exploitative imagery, if there is no better way to skip it. And certainly if the material becomes too great an occasion of sin, then one’s duty not to sin always takes precedence over other considerations.
Click to expand...
I can imagine other reasons one might have legitimate cause to watch a film that contains some level objectionable content, if the objectionable content itself could be skipped in some way. For instance, great and important films might be a necessary part of the education of those engaged in film studies, even if they were partially objectionable, if sufficiently objectionable content could be bypassed.
Click to expand...
In the case of CALIGULA, I would say that the general duty to avoid films of its reputed ilk is sufficiently great that it to watch it for any reason whatsoever would be at least gravely suspect. You would never, ever get me to watch such a film, though I might conceivably watch selected excerpts, given sufficient reason.
Click to expand...
Does that help?
Click to expand...
 
Thanks but

hmmmm, Benedict Gift Shop only shows all silver, not two tone.
Could it be the pic is just some pic off the internet?
 
Beeline said:
Thanks but

hmmmm, Benedict Gift Shop only shows all silver, not two tone.
Could it be the pic is just some pic off the internet?
Click to expand...
No. They have since changed the photo. Originally I too thought it was two toned but I think it was the lighting of the photo. The ring was sold at another site but it has since disappeared. Maybe they change the photo because it was misleading? I thought it was originally gold. :o

I actually have a silver celtic wedding ring like this. The Irish knots are raised but the recessed parts have that black dye look .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top