Sick Product of a Sick System

Beautiful, moving film.

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

The acting in this movie is really good.

There have been several renditions of the trials (and tribulations) of Oscar Wilde but this is the best. "Oscar Wilde," starring Robert Morley, had appeared two years earlier and was more typical of the way films had to stomp history into a Procrustean bed in order to fit the time slot and please the audience. As Wilde, Morley isn't a pouf but a sensitive soul. He's put on trial and spouts all the apothegms of Wilde's characters as if they were appearing for the first time, improvised on the spot.This version, "The Trials of Oscar Wilde", is longer, more demanding, more historically true, and generally superior. It's informative too. There wasn't "a" trial of Oscar Wilde; there were three trials all in all, one in which he was the plaintiff, one in which the crown prosecuted him and ended in a mistrial, and a third in which he was convicted and sent to Reading gaol ("jail", folks) for two years, during which he lost his wealth, his social status, and his family, and went into exile in Paris.It's not a comedy. At the height of his powers, Wilde has a pretty wife and two children whom he loves. He's also having an affair with the handsome young Lord Alfred Douglas ("Bosie"), son of the Marquis of Queensberry. Whether the affair is Platonic or assumes more physical dimensions, we never find out. Nor in the end does it matter.We don't get to hear the evidence brought against Wilde by four or five scalawags whose integrity is in doubt. Presumably their testimony involved sodomy, delicately expressed. But their stories are tainted enough that we can conclude Wilde was convicted because he LOOKED and ACTED queer. He was tried in the press and was guilty. This was in 1893 in Victoria's notoriously prudent England, but it happens all the time. We're quick to leap on the suggestion of guilt in popular figures. America has just done it now in the case of a once popular entertainer, Bill Cosby. "Schadenfreude" was Freud's word for it, the pleasure taken in seeing others suffer.Most of the characters are given two dimensions except perhaps for the Marquis of Queensberry, the reliable Lionel Jeffries, who is a flat-out, half-deranged sadist. The proximate cause of Wilde's trials, the extraordinarily handsome Bosie, John Fraser, is a moral imbecile, a psychopath, but like other psychopaths he's good at scanning others and generating sympathy for himself. All that's keeping him from being thoroughly "evil" is a German umlaut.Two events are understandably left out. One is Wilde's experience in prison. He did hard time in the sense of back-busting physical labor. Yet he managed to produce one of his better-known poems, "The Ballad of Reading Gaol," from which we get lines like: "Yet each man kills the things he loves" Another absentee is Wilde's death in a modest Paris lodging house, a place he loathed. A visitor found him dying in his bed, staring at the wall. And Wilde said, "Either this wallpaper has to go or I do." He's buried in Père Lachaise Cemetery along with Chopin, Molière, Jim Morrison, and (most aptly) Helois and Abelarde.I found the acting, the writing, and the direction all pretty much above what I'd expected. As Wilde, Peter Finch has to be very careful, as if walking a tightrope. He never acts effeminate except in dire situations, threatened by a knife or pummeled by unwanted visitors. As Bosie, Fraser is a perfectly spoiled and selfish brat. James Mason makes a brief appearance as the court's prosecutor, the guy who was Wilde's classmate at Oxford. ("No doubt he'll treat me with all the bitterness of an old friend.") It's hard to recall a better written summary of the defense than that given by Nigel Patrick as Wilde's barrister and it's difficult to beat Wilde's definition of "the love that dare not speak its name" while on the stand.It's a superior movie.

One should always consider the possibility that had Oscar Fingal O'Flaherty Wills Wilde not fallen inconveniently in love with Lord Alfred Douglas he might now be remembered only as a relatively minor Irish playwright with a propensity for presenting other people's bon mots as his own.His ascent to his unassailable position as the Theatre's great gay martyr is at least to some extent the result of his treatment at the hands of the British judicial system. As unpleasing as it may be to sophisticated 21st century thought,the "homosexual act" -as gay love was referred to in Victorian law books - was considered a crime and the "abominable crime of buggery" was punishable by Life Imprisonment.Queen Victoria refused to endorse laws proscribing Lesbianism because she not only had never heard of it but she refused to believe its existence.Aware of all those facts Oscar Wilde chose to sue his lover's father for libel after the Marquess of Queensberry referred to him as a "somdomite" (sic).It says much for his chutzpah if not his intelligence. Mr P.Finch is a fine,sensitive if rather louche Oscar,clearly besotted with the pretty but insubstantial John Fraser.Mr L. Jeffries pushes the boat out a bit as the Marquess of Queensberry,very much an aristocrat of his time with a zealot's hatred of homosexuality as only an old public school man can have.Mr J.Mason is suitably ruthless as his barrister,cold of heart,tongue and eye. This is a handsome film,a typical superior British product of its era, requiring its audience to stay awake and keep off their mobile phones. If you require an instant fix it isn't for you. Wilde may ultimately have been a victim of his own ego,but the Marquess of Quennsberry must be spinning in his grave over his own contribution to his old enemy's immortality.

For a movie made in 1960, The Trials of Oscar Wilde was probably ahead of its time, given the general taboo against open discussion of homosexuality in that era. Just guessing, but it also may have gained the inordinate attention of the censors (such as the old Catholic Legion of Decency). I first became aware of it only the other day (Sept. 2005), when it was shown on Turner Classic Movies here in the USA. I can't believe this was the first time that a relatively tame, 45-year-old movie has been shown on American TV, but I wonder. The movie tiptoes diplomatically around the "elephant in the room," but its central theme and the intent of the producers are clear enough for adult moviegoers. (I can't remember the word "homosexual" being uttered in the dialogue, but there were unmistakable surrogates, such as "sodomite.") As a heterosexual, far be it from me to ask this question, but notwithstanding Peter Finch's fine performance in the lead role, isn't his movie "Wilde" a more masculine portrayal than the historical Wilde? Perhaps this was also a necessary concession to the time in which it was made. In any case, I also offer this spelling nitpick: the Encyclopaedia Britannica (1982) refers to Wilde's nemesis as the "Marquess of Queensberry," not "Queensbury." Also, the rules of boxing are the "Marquess of Queensberry rules."

First of all I like the way the authentic witticisms of Oscar Wilde have been woven into the script. His sarcastic and pointed remarks derived from a keen observation of the morals, pomposity and hypocrisy of late Victorian England make for intelligent and amusing dialogue between the characters.Peter Finch (Oscar Wilde) delivers lines with a certain flourish, but I think he could be even more flamboyant for such a man was Wilde. John Fraser plays the moody Bosie as Oscar's current lover with a balanced mixture of effeminate charm and petulance. Best acting role is that of Lionel Jeffreys as the Marquis of Queensbury. Make no mistake his character comes through loud and clear. He gives a remarkable portrayal of his utter disgust when his 21 year old son Bosie defies him and continues his relationship with Oscar, a man of middle age and married. All London is gossiping and there is much clicking of tongues. Mrs. Wilde played by beautiful Yvonne Mitchell stands by in utter dismay and disapproval.The courtroom scene gives Oscar the opportunity to deliver more witty lines and to describe his inner feelings about true love...interesting because one is not too sure what he is about to say next. One gets the feeling that Oscar has chosen the path of self-destruction...or is he just being his theatrical self?After he does his prison sentence with hard labour he is supposed to look tired and ill, but I fail to notice much of a change in his demeanour. He should be much paler with a worn down look. This would command more sympathy. Oscar's sexual adventures around the streets of London are not discussed to any extent nor portrayed in this film. If they had been given more prominence we would perhaps have felt justified in agreeing with the jury's decision. As it is , the sordid details of his sexual encounters are played down and because the film is presented in this way we feel rather sad that this great playwright both loving and generous should suffer so much at the hands of those who tried to destroy him.