The one movie Roger Ebert deemed to be “sickening, shameless trash”
Knowing which critic to lend your ear to is a difficult thing to land on. While you can, of course, listen to friends and family about their opinions on the finer things in your cinematic life, the best bet is to follow the advice of a seasoned professional. It’s fair to say that most cinephiles would trust the opinion of Roger Ebert.
After all, he was arguably the most well-respected critic of the 20th Century (and part of the 21st). Known for his humanitarian and populist ideals, Ebert is perhaps the only exception to the old adage that they “don’t build statues of critics”. The wondrous writer created one of the deepest banks of reviews ever massed and has changed the way movie writers approach their subjects.
Browsing through some of his reviews gives us a good idea of what we should and should not spend our valuable time watching. The writer was more than happy to doll out his five star reviews when necessary, however, he was also ready to deliver a powerful putdown if he felt the need.
As a critic, Ebert championed the very notion of cinema as an entertaining force rather than simply an art form. It means his review were neatly placed within the realm of populist opinion. But he did have more than a few though words to share. One film that Ebert stresses that we should not bother with is Tinto Brass’ 1979 erotic historical drama, Caligula.
While the story was written by the legendary author Gore Vidal, the picture never got off the ground. Rather than be a seismic moment on the cinematic landscape, the movie was routinely lambasted for being a pitiful attempt at creating controversy for controversy’s sake.
In his review of the film, Ebert wastes no time in putting Caligula to the sword. He claims it to be “sickening, utterly worthless, shameful trash,” adding, “If it is not the worst film I have ever seen, that makes it all the more shameful: People with talent allowed themselves to participate in this travesty.”
In fact, Ebert was so unimpressed by the movie that he didn’t even finish watching it. He walked out after just two hours of its almost three-hour runtime, “disgusted and unspeakably depressed”. As he writes, the film did boast a talented cast, including Malcolm McDowell, Helen Mirren, Peter O’Toole and John Gielgud. However, the talents of the cast were not put to good use, and, according to Ebert, Brass’ film is little more than glorified softcore porn. Not even “good porn” and certainly not “good cinema,” he writes.
The legendary film critic is keen to stress, though, that he is certainly not a prude and not against “eroticism in movies”. However, he argues that Caligula does not use the erotic to any degree of artistic value but rather uses it to create “a nauseating excursion into base and sad fantasies”.
Perhaps it is unsurprising to learn then that Tinto Brass actually removed his name from the director’s credit and instead credited himself as ‘principal photographer’, seeing as Ebert felt “that the makers of Caligula have long since lost touch with any possible common erotic denominator”, and that “they are jaded, perverse and cruel human beings”. It’s the kind of scything criticism that, despite his decades in the business, Ebert can only attest to have dished out on a handful of occasions.
Specifically, Ebert was particularly mortified by the following scenes: “A man whose urinary tract is closed, and who has gallons of wine poured down his throat. His bursting stomach is punctured with a sword”, he continues, “a scene in which a man is emasculated, and his genitals thrown to dogs, who eagerly eat them on the screen” and “scenes of decapitation, evisceration, rape, bestiality, sadomasochism, necrophilia.”
Interestingly enough, Gore Vidal wrote the screenplay, although Brass extensively modified it, which led to Vidal removing himself from the project. The film sounds like an absolute mess and certainly would not run by today’s standards, nor, apparently, in the eyes of Roger Ebert back then.
