The Trials of Oscar Wilde

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.

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.

I initially rented The Trials of Oscar Wilde because it was James Mason's time as Star of the Week. Somehow, in the 1960s, he got second billing in a bunch of movies but was only in them for fifteen minutes. Long before James even showed up, I realized this was a very high quality movie, one that was going to be enjoyed instead of just being useful.

Peter Finch played Oscar Wilde, and he gave an incredible, fantastic, multi-layered performance that, of course, was completely ignored by the academy. Thankfully at the BAFTAs, he won Best Actor, and the film was nominated for picture, screenplay, and supporting actor. Back in 1960, it was a big risk to play a homosexual, and Peter treated the role with dignity and much more motivation than plain flamboyance. This is an internal performance, one that shows years of pain underneath the famous quips. If you like to laugh at Oscar Wilde's barbs, or if you like over-the-top parodies of gay characters, rent the remake Wilde. For a more realistic interpretation of the emotional turmoil of a gay man in the 1890s, rent this one.

The story is pretty upsetting to watch, mostly because it's not possible to slough off afterwards and tell yourself it's only fiction. This is a true story and shows the horror and hatred of human nature. Don't pop this in for a fun-filled movie night; watch it when you're in the mood for a very heavy drama.

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."

I can't find fault with one thing. My favourite film. I love Wilde, and this really just captured everything. I found this accurate, witty and touching. The court case in particular moved me, as did Finch's portrayal of the man himself. This is excellent and has stood the test of time.