Pink Narcissus

Beautiful cinematography, beautiful subject, dreamy homoerotic confection. Makes me almost wish I still did drugs so I could watch it on acid. Given the wonderfully weird & underground feeling, it would have fit in well in the midnight movie scene in the 70's (maybe it did, but I was in Oklahoma at the time & I'm pretty sure it never played there).

This is basically just a set of wonderfully choreographed narcissistic fantasies, with lots of searlingly saturated color, glittery, cartoony, piss-elegant sets & props, and a stunning boy who you don't get to see quite enough of, if you know what I mean and I'm sure you do. But you do get to see more than you probably thought you would in a pre-Stonewall movie (OK, technically it's not pre-Stonewall, but it definitely reflects that era more than the post- era).

Fundies should probably stay away, as should those looking for plot, action (yeah, I know, but you know what I mean), or dialog; kids whose parents might react violently; guys looking for high-octane boner fuel (this is more like smoldering scented oil than gasoline); and hyper-butch queers who are embarrassed by things like gilded telephones and paste-jeweled goblets. But if you're looking for a gay erotic dream-romp through the senses, get this puppy before it goes out of print!

A beautifully imagined gay erotic film from the psychedelic era Although release date is given as 1971...Images & photo sets appeared on the market& gay interest magazines as far back as 1964...Film involves a young beautiful gay mans fantasies...involving moslty himself with mirror images of nude & semi nude model,Bobby Kendall. The young man invisions himself in many erotic beautifully photographed sequences.. many with the psychedelic colors etc of the 1960s.. Young man envisions himself in as a matador, as a roman slave, in an middle east sultans tent.. etc.. all scenes involving simulated sex and masturbation are beautifully & tastefully photographed... Definitely for adults !! and mature audiences only..Very happy that this gay early erotic film has been resurrected, and released on VHS & DVD thanks to Strand distributors! Not just nostalgia however,It is a beautifully done erotic film which should be seen by mature audiences.. Credits are not clear? writer ,director, photographer are listed as anonymous only Style is remindful of the type of film Andy Warhol was making at the time..known than as "underground" movies...Recommended highly for mature audiences who have an interest in psychedelia, & early gay films!

Have little doubt, like it or loathe it, Pink Narcissus is a classic of the cult variety, lauded for its high artistic cinematic quality, position and production. It is a visual fantasia of expression, colour, eroticism, sexuality and stimulating contemporary artistry. Pink Narcissus is no shrinking violet, no wilting wallflower, it is a full on meadow in full bloom. This low budget film took a number of years to complete and filmed, mostly, within the tight confines of writer and director James Bidgood's New York apartment. There is little in the way of plot lines or subplots, the story is as flimsy as Dick Van Dyke's accent, dialogue is virtually non-existent for this 1971 offering is all about the erotic images fostering themselves on the screen.

Bobby Kendall plays the 'kept boy' who whiles away his hours waiting for his master by dreaming of various things, he seems a young fellow obsessed with his own beauty and physical appearance, but maybe you guessed that already by the title? He envisions himself as a Turkish prince, a Roman slave, a wood nymph, a matador and even a kept boy in some far off sheiks harem. Everything is so incredulously heavy on the design front, bejewelled and stylised to excess. It is that excess, that visually expressiveness that has made this little independent movie become a landmark of gay cinema as well as a statement of contemporary art.

It still stands the test of time as classic of the art of gay movie making.

Read more and find out where this film made it in the Top 50 Most Influential Gay Movies of All Time book, search on Amazon for Top 50 Most Influential Gay Movies of All Time, or visit - http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B007FU7HPO

The first thing that struck me about the imagery in this film was how much the art of Pierre et Gilles owes to it. Oversaturated color, pink, blue, and yellow gels, and every object gilded and bejeweled within an inch of its life. Add chiffon, satin, and skin-tight chinos, and almost any still from this movie could be misconstrued as Pierre et Gilles.

As much as those French artists have borrowed from PN, the film itself reaches for a lot of gay iconography of the time. The street scenes seemed to be trying to animate Paul Cadmus canvases, e.g., with a pinch of Tom of Finland thrown in.

Another reviewer mentions that while the film is dated 1971, images from it appeared as early as 1964. I was a teenager in 1964, and the first thing that struck me was how early 60s Bobby Kendall (the lead) looked vis a vis hairstyle and clothes. And the props, such as they are, would now be called Hollywood Regency, and that wouldn't be far wrong. From our current perspective, I would say it's a good look back at what openly gay men looked like--or aspired to--immediately before Stonewall, and before the hippie aesthetic took over the 60s.

Correct, the film is free-form, nonlinear, yet seems to be trying to get some point across. I'm not exactly sure what that point is. It's pretty much fill-in-the-blank, it's so generalized. Something about gayness and self-revelation, but perhaps it was too early in the century for the filmmaker to be able to give us something with more emotional impact.

This isn't especially a good film, but it is an ambitious one. And it's early in gay culture. For that reason, I think it deserves to be seen, but keep your expectations low. If it had been trimmed by at least half of its 110 minutes it probably would be more highly respected today as a work of art. But then a 45 minute film wouldn't have made it into the art houses of the 70s....

I don't know why the rating for this is so low -- well, that's not true, I do know: it's arty, it's got no dialogue (we have radio weather forecasts in lieu of that), it's in grainy pink, and it doesn't have a story. But it is a successful glimpse into a gay dream, and a successful passing on of that experience -- and the title character, a wonderfully objectified youth, is the perfect gay ideal: pouty lips, messy brown hair, dark features, a fantastic and well-exploited rear, and a sculpted body. And he's unclothed for most of it, a Caravaggio boy.

The film is a good example of ingenuity on the director's part -- it's a small-scale melodrama not unlike those of Guy Maddin, if Maddin was more lushly sensual and less manically comic. It's not a porno, but it is extreme gayness, and the mere essence of that is enough for some people to get it up. But regardless, it is very erotic; a number of scenes (stripping the boy's undies off, sucking his own fingers, slowly humping the ground in nature) push the right buttons. There are some inventive scenes, like the boy getting a beejay from a leather man swimming in a milky liquid (and then after that a urinal-fetish scene). I haven't seen "Un chant d'amour," so I don't know the degree to which this is influenced by Genet, but it does have its parallels to the Genet-inspired third of "Poison." 9/10