Oscar Wilde

I am a fan of both Oscar and Robert but am very disappointed in Morley's portrayal of Wilde. Physically, he is both too old, too short, too plain and too fat to capture the magnificent physical presence of Oscar. I had trouble also with the script which practically obliterates Oscar's homosexuality. John Neville is too old and stilted to give us the beauty and appeal of Bosie. Oscar's well known sardonic wit is also missed in this interpretation. I much preferred Stephen Fry's later performance. When I think of Oscar, I think of glamour, vanity, beauty, genius, all of which is missing in this 1959 attempt. 5 out of 10 for Phyllis Calvert and Ralph Richardson.

Unlike the stiff and flashy Peter Finch film released a year later,this film is a gem. Robert Morely more than captures the wit,pain and humanity of Oscar Wilde. The film is very daring for its time,not only by presenting Wilde's trials for Gross Indecency on film,but for its loving and sympathetic portrayal of the man.

John Neville is also wonderful as Bosie Douglass,Wilde's lover,and Sir Ralph Richardson as Edward Carson illuminates the trial scenes. The interrogation of Morley by Richardson,and Morley's witty comebacks are not only tyhe highlight of the film,but possibly could be one of filmdom's greatest trial scenes.

Where the Finch film glossed over the surface of the events,this film takes you into the real people involved,Phyliss Calvert as Wilde's Wife,Constance and Dennis Price as his friend Robbie Ross are also wonderful in their role. Its a shame this film is not yet available on video for all to cherish.

Without a doubt, this is the film to see if you are deeply interested in this unconventional and fabulous writer that was Oscar Wilde. Two other films about him were shot: "the Trials of Oscar Wilde" and Brian Gilbert's work in 1997 but they aren't found wanting to Gregory Ratoff's version.

Of course, it's indisputable that Ratoff's film was made with restricted means as the cheap scenery testify. It sometimes gives way to drawbacks like in the very last sequence which shows Wilde after his lost trial sitting at the terrace of a Parisian café and next to him, one can hear a musician playing the accordion. A perfect cliché about France. But it's minor quibble and anyway, given the means Ratoff had at his disposal, was there another way to show the audience that Wilde was in Paris under the pseudonym of Sébastien Melmott? Anyway, one can eminently forget the scenery and admire how Ratoff conceived his film. First, he eschewed many traps of the biopic film including the following one: to relate all Wilde's life from his childhood. He chose to steer his film on the period of his life which began with the relationship Wilde developed with his young protégé Lord Alfred Douglas. In a nutshell, this scandalous love (for the time) was the beginning of the end for the witty writer who fell foul of the chic, posh Victorian society. As everyone knows, homosexuality was banned in this very conservative, ossified society and it could only end up as a trial for Wilde. A trial he could only lose but during which he showed a stalwart courage thanks to his own witty answers. This trial is the pinnacle of the film and Ratoff succeeds in incorporating elements of Wilde's anterior life like the introduction at the outset of his wondrous novel "the Picture of Dorian Gray" (1889). And one can only admire his style to film the evolution of this trial and the verbal exchanges between Wilde and sir Edward Carson. At first, Wilde seems sure of himself and his cues make the audience laugh but bit by bit confidence leaves him as he is dwarfed by dogged Carson's ruthless questions. In the long run, Ratoff weaves a stifling atmosphere and it's impossible not to feel it.

All you have to do is to sit and admire the quality of the dialogs and also of the actors. Robert Morley confers to his main character the wit and wisdom which made Wilde famous. And Ralph Richardson equally delivers a prime performance. But John Neville seems too old for the role Lord Alfred Douglas. In the most recent version, Jude Law was a better choice thanks to his relatively young age.

Of course, this film will never supersede a good book about one of the most crucial writers who existed on this planet but Ratoff's work makes him justice.

Oscar Wilde reputation is set for all time. He was a brilliant, witty writer of graceful style. He was also a bi-sexual, whose affair with Lord Alfred Douglas led to a tragic final fall when exposed in court. What most people forget is that the trial where he was exposed was a libel suit against Lord Alfred's brutal and mad father the Marquess of Queensbury (the one who gave us the rules for boxing). Queensbury hated his sons and their mother, and his antics helped lead to the suicide of one of the sons (the private secretary of Prime Minister, Lord Roseberry). Queensbury disliked Wilde for his influence over Lord Alfred and his unspeakable homosexual affair with his son. He sent him a note on a card, "To Oscar Wilde, disguised as a "somdomite"." The Marquess presumed that by misspelling sodomite he was protecting himself but smearing Wilde. Wilde had an opportunity then to ignore the slur and go abroad for awhile (which most men in his position would have done). He decided to sue - goaded into it by Lord Alfred (who saw this as a safe opportunity to hit at his father). Never has such a critically important legal decision been made on such a stupid basis.

The barrister for Queensbury was Edward Carson, one of England's greatest lawyers. He is the model for the barrister played by Robert Donat in "The Winslow Boy" (based on Carson's defense of young Archer-Shee in the 1911 legal action). Carson was a master of cross-examination, and he had plenty of information that Queensbury (and Wilde's many enemies) had gathered about his sexual activities. But Wilde was able to fend off the attack for hours, until he reached a series of questions about a telegraph boy who was available for sex for hire. Carson had been unable to make a dent into Wilde's hide so far, and then out of sheer desperation asked, "Did you kiss him?" Wilde was amazed - the question did throw him. "Did I kiss him?", he repeated. "Yes", answered Carson with a lack of real interest. Wilde had been trumping Carson with one-liners that left the court in stitches. Instead of saying, "Of course not!" or "How dare you!", which would have helped, Wilde quipped the sentence in the summary line above. And Carson saw the light at the end of the tunnel. Wilde never recovered after that.

The jury was able to absolve Queensbury of libel (after all, it was shown that Wilde was homosexual). The authorities now held back for nearly twelve hours from going after Wilde. They simply hoped he would flee to the continent. Instead, Wilde decided to stay and fight. It is the second trial that really demolished him. He was now on trial of committing sodomy, and the evidence was too overwhelming. Found guilty, he was sentenced to three years in prison. He left prison and lived in France until he died in Paris, a broken, impoverished wreck, in 1900.

If you are a homosexual, Wilde is one of the great martyr's to the cause. If you love good writing his end is a dismal tragedy. All the films of his life retell it's denouement. It never gets any better in the retelling - there is no repaired last act. Even (historically) a "reformed", right-wing supporting Lord Alfred rejected the image of his "Bosie" period in later years - claiming he never was a homosexual. One ends just pitying Wilde, unless one is just a reactionary type or a mindless idiot like Queensbury.

Robert Morley never gave a better dramatic performance on film (as opposed to his comic performances) than in this film. Witness his moment on the witness stand, when he realizes the result of his blunder. The cast of John Neville, Ralph Richardson, Edward Chapman, and Dennis Price do equally well in this tale of talent that was shot down so stupidly. I certainly recommend watching it...and then reading "Dorian Gray", "The Importance of Being Earnest", "Salome", "The Ballad of the Reading Gaol", to get a glimmer of the talent that was smashed beyond repair.

In Victorian England, with homosexuality forbidden and punishable by up to two years in prison, celebrated playwright and author Oscar Wilde finds himself defending his lifestyle in court after initiating a libel suit against the Marquis of Queensberry--also the tyrannical father of Wilde's young lover, who has accused the two men of "unnatural acts". Director Gregory Ratoff, working from Jo Eisinger's screenplay adaptation of Leslie and Sewell Stokes' 1936 play, gets a wonderful rhythm going in the film's early sequences--aided by Robert Morley's superb reprisal of his stage role as Wilde. Still, the later trial sequences (though well-performed and necessarily claustrophobic) are hardly suspenseful or exciting. Morley's Wilde is put through the proverbial legal wringer, while his useless counsel seems to want nothing more than to concede defeat. The finale, too, with Wilde freed but destitute and delusional, is disheartening. The Oscar Wilde story is certainly one of high drama and decadence, yet this document just scratches the surface of its possibilities. **1/2 from ****