The Trials of Oscar Wilde

source: The Trials of Oscar Wilde

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.

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.

I think that this is a brilliant film with Morley's "Oscar Wilde" not that far behind but enough has already been said about the merits of both. Could I just correct a few errors in both threads to the effect that there were gaps of one or two years between them. No there were not. They were released almost simultaneously in the Spring of 1960, Morley's having a West End premiere and Finch's not. I have often wondered about the (slightly unseemly) race to be first or even why there needed to be even one film on the subject at all just then and can only assume that it had something to do with the fact that the releases coincided (almost) with the sixtieth anniversary of Wilde's death, on 30 November, in Paris.

Finch won the bafta for best actor, and the film was nominated for several more. Peter finch as oscar wilde, who was a brilliant playwright in the 1890s. Wilde happened to be very close to the lord queensberry's son, which just wasn't done at the time. Making things worse, his son alfred (john fraser) refused to stop spending time with wilde. When queensberry called wilde a sodomite, wilde brought queensberry (lionel jeffries) up on charges of libel; unfortunately, there were many witnesses who may have been able to back up queensberry's statement; after instigating the legal activity, wilde himself was tried. The awesome james mason is carson, defending queensberry. Pretty serious account; very few of wilde's clever sayings are included here. Directed by ken hughes, who had also done chitty chitty bang bang, casino royale. Very different stories, indeed.

This film is a highly complex and well-made biopic of Oscar Wilde, the brilliantly talented, but overly egotistical playright from England, who had a series of successful plays at the end of the 19th century. His talent as a writer and a wit are unchallenged. However, his talent could not salvage his reckless judgement of taking legal action against a moral foe, the Marquess De Queensbury, who, ironically, was the inventor of rules for boxing matches. His talent was obviously tricking his opponent into a losing situation, much like the philosophy of Sun Tzu, the great Chinese military tactician who is studied at all three major military academies in the US: "Battles are won and lost before they take place", and "the key to victory in battle is deception". The Marquess seems to have mastered these principles of war, and, consequently, was able to defeat Wilde soundly in two legal cases in court. Wilde made the mistake of going after the Marquess in court, knowing fully that he was guilty of serveral of the charges made by the Marquess. This led to a successful countersuit and trial which the Marquess emerged victorious. Peter Finch gives the best performance of his lifetime, for which he was rewarded with an Academy Award for his role in Network, several years later. The film is not a slick Hollywood production, but a very good account of the actual facts of Wilde's life (according to the data on Wikipedia). The production values are first-rate and the British have a much better feel for these types of films than Hollywood. This is a film far ahead of its time. The gay community should use this film as its standard bearer; this and The Boys in the Band, seem to be the only two films that genuinely examine the world of homosexuality in an honest fashion.

I don't always have high hopes for older British films, but once in a while along comes a gem that surprises me, and this was one. It's quite an absorbing telling of the trials (literally) and tribulations of Oscar Wilde that resulted in his imprisonment and death. The only issue I have is whether or not the producers achieved their goals. Specifically, if they are trying to present a sympathetic portrayal of Wilde at this period of his life, and thus condemn his sentencing to prison, then I think they failed. Or perhaps they're just being accurate. One of the two is true, but my impression about Wilde from this film is mostly negative. Not because he was gay. But because he appeared to be insufferable. And that insufferability led to his own demise. A Another problem here is that Wilde appears to be pretty straight; I doubt that's the way it was. But despite these shortcomings (if they are shortcomings), the production is an impressive one. Sets are locations are lush and well-filmed. Peter Finch is excellent as Wilde, assuming you buy the premise of a rather straight Wilde. Yvonne Mitchell is very good as his wife. James Mason is around briefly as an opposing attorney. Nigel Patrick is excellent as one of Wilde's attorneys. Lionel Jeffries plays the abominable Marquis of Queensbury. John Fraser plays the gay young man whose father (Queensbury) sends Wilde to prison. It would have been good had they provided a couple of interesting points at the close of the film. 1. Queensbury ended up dying before WIlde. 2. He apparently died from syphilis, ironic since he was so appalled by Wilde's sinfulness. An interesting and well-produced version of Wilde's darkest period.

The portrait of a world more than the image of a great writer. the motif - the subtle, fine performance of Peter Finch and the chance to have as partner Lionel Jeffreys. because the purpose is not only to give a film about errors or sins or judgement but about the spirit of a world, looking to give to appearences the lead importance. it is not the picture of a victim but the exploration of the mechanism of a society. that could be the motif for who you feel the work of Peter Finch as more than the exposure of Oscar Wilde life traits. it is a proposition for understand. the forms and rules and expectations of a world defined by strong rules . and an existence less than idealistic you imagine. but loyal, too loyal to his principles. a must see film. for performances, for story. and, maybe, for the subtle moral behind the first impressions.

A twin film, along with "Oscar Wilde" (1960) released at the same time, about the eponymous wordsmith and the trials that eventually sentenced him to prison, ruined his career and probably killed him in the end. The mental gymnastics of bigotry and cognitive dissonance these filmmakers went through, especially the ones of this version, to portray Wilde as a martyr while simultaneously denying his homosexuality is an astounding indictment in itself. "The Trials of Oscar Wilde" is even worse than the other because that film, at least, employed the word "gay," with both its meanings at the time, to slyly suggest an undermining of its otherwise homophobic depiction. No such luck here; this is a straightforward--emphasis on "straight"--whitewash. It's an insidious melodrama that itself is quite libelous. Indeed, the production values are entirely better, or at least more posh, otherwise than the other "Oscar Wilde," including expanding the production design beyond a filmed play, being filmed in color instead of black and white, better acting, and the insertion of more natural dialogue for scenes where Wilde speaks with friends and family--as opposed to the usual epigrams employed for his public appearances. Ironic, given that this version includes more of the playwright's writing of "The Importance of Being Earnest," however, that the picture obstructs precisely what is important. The other play-within-the-play of both versions is "Lady Windermere's Fan," which serves the dubious purpose of suggesting Wilde's plight to be akin to that of Mrs. Erlynne, whose scandals turn out to be entirely a fiction and that she is actually a "good woman." Regardless, "The Trials of Oscar Wilde" is classist as well as homophobic. The boys or men who testify against Wilde in his "indecency" trials, along with Wilde's lover Bosie, are dismissed as impoverished criminals either mooching from or extorting the educated and upper-class Wilde. The most negative depiction, however, is reserved for the Marquess of Queensberry, the subject of the hasty libel charges Wilde brought against him (for the words "posing" as a "Sodomite"), the same guy who lent his name to the modern rules of boxing. The hunched, balding characterization here is quite the brutish and sniveling baddie--the sort so extreme it's as though the producers expect the audience to hiss at him. I'm not saying anything regarding the character of the real John Douglas here--that hardly matters to me--but his portrayal here is excessive. It's the sort of bad writing and poor direction that's part of the overblown and overlong histrionics of the entire production. It's such a violent melodrama; Bosie even threatens Wilde with a knife while the author is bedridden. It would've been better had the filmmakers toned down such over-compensating for their imprisoning Wilde in the closet.

Beautifully Filmed in Technicolor with a Script that Incorporates Many of Wilde's Famous Witticisms. Peter Finch is Not Physically what One Conjures when an Image of the Successful Playwright and Author Comes in the Mind, but He is Playing the Gay Martyr as the Man in His Forties and Not the Flamboyant Peacock of His Early Manhood. It is a Daring Film for its Time and was Predictably Shunned by Some Theatres and had No Air Time on American TV for Decades. But it is All Done with a Subtlety and Sensitivity that is Palatable for Any Audience and is a Heartfelt and Sad Rendition of what led to Oscar Wilde's Imprisonment for Two Years for the Crime of Practicing Homosexuality. The Acting is Superb All Around with Lionel Jeffries as Lord Queensberry (yes, of boxing rules fame) as a Villain Worth Hating and by All Accounts Fairly Accurate. The Movie Moves Along at a Steady Pace and is Informative and Entertaining but Ultimately Downbeat. It is Only a Small Portion of the Life of Oscar Wilde and is this Slice that was Decidedly Devastating. Not Only for His Hard Labor Prison Term but the Insensitivity of His Wife that Forbade Oscar from Ever Seeing His Children Again. He Never Recovered and Died Penniless. The Film Ends as He is Released from Incarceration and Never goes into the Post Traumatic Downfall. The Trials both Personally and Judicially were Enough Sadness in an Otherwise "Gay" Life (happy and carefree) and Lifestyle (Bisexual) of the Most Quoted Man of His Era.