Victim

This is the story of Melville Farr, a high-ranking English barrister who has just been offered an appointment to be a Queen's Counselor. But Farr is gay, and in investigating who has been blackmailing a friend he is exposed to being blackmailed himself. How Farr deals with this and the impact it has on his career and marriage makes for a quality drama.

I was thinking that in order to appreciate this film you had to put yourself back in the time when homosexuality was against the law in England, since we have now come such a long way from that time to where some elected officials are now openly gay. On the other hand, the basic theme of this movie still plays. A closeted high-ranking lawyer with a reputation as an upstanding family man could still be open to blackmail. People are still "accused" or "suspicioned" of being gay and often feel the need to defend themselves against such charges, as if there were something inherently wrong with it. Acceptance of differences comes slowly.

The performances are good, particularly Bogard and Syms. Lovers of skillfully filmed high contrast black and white will appreciate this - it's an art form that has pretty much disappeared. The first half hour, before you really know what's going on, is particularly engrossing. It plays in the style of a film noir thriller.

The one thing I found a bit bothersome was the apparent need for the characters to vocalize their plight, with statements like "Don't they understand that we are just like anyone else," and "Why are we singled out," and so forth. The plot makes these points well enough, what with a suicide, a heart attack, ruined careers, and multiple blackmails.

However, it probably took a fair amount of courage at the time just to make this film, which was clearly a plea for legal reform. Reform that came six years later in 1967.

Set in 1950's Britain at a time when homosexuality is against the law, a top Barrister ( Dirk Bogarde) puts his career on the line to tackle the outrageous blackmail of London's homosexuals.

Impressive cast and outstanding performance by Dirk Bogarde as the troubled barrister whose anguish and pain one can see in his face throughout the film. Watching this now in the 21st century, it seems unbelievable to think that homosexuality was illegal here forty years ago. This is not to say that homophobia is not a concern now, because it still is, however there have been large strides forward for the acceptance and tolerance of homosexuals in mainstream society.

This film is an excellent historical snippet at a time of contentious laws as well as being a fine piece of art. Basil Dearden directs brilliantly and the script maintains a gripping interest throughout. In addition it was nice to see many parts of London as they were in the fifties before factories were knocked down and the hordes of yuppie apartments where built along the Thames.

Straightforward, non-sensationalized British film, an original from screenwriters Janet Green and John McCormick, has a ring of blackmailers taking advantage of the laws prohibiting homosexuality in England and threatening to 'out' certain parties if they don't pay up; after one victim commits suicide, a former friend--and married lawyer--decides to play detective and expose the blackmailers, at the risk of ruining his own career and marriage. Dirk Bogarde is excellent in the lead; his grimace of both humility and humiliation is rather touching, and very human. The victims are the usual lot (an actor, a hairdresser, etc.), but the film is exceptionally engrossing and well-made, neatly camouflaging its plea for tolerance under the guise of a suspense drama (and the denouement is nicely staged). Director Basil Dearden includes a few intentionally sardonic visuals, and he isn't afraid to knock down walls (though any male-to-male intimacy stays off-screen). Still, a watermark for gay cinema. *** from ****

1961 in England. Homosexuals were routinely jailed just because they were homosexuals. It was still the love that dare not speak its name.

Blackmailers had a terrific open season on gays - extorting funds for silence. It is incredible that this movie was made - on two levels. One being the obvious, who would want to star in such a controversial film?

Enter one Dirk Bogarde, putting both his reputation and his career on the line. He moved deliberately beyond his "Doctor in the House" series of light romantic leading men to make this benchmark film.

It may seem dated today to some eyes, but it captures an authentic London of 1961 and is filmed on location in the streets for most of it. One can see the barriers, goofophiles, holding the passersby back from the location shooting! "Flower Drum Song" is featured on a marquee in one of the scenes.

The suspense is carried along beautifully, you are never sure how it is all going to turn out, there are no easy solutions, there are some wonderful sub-plots, unexpected little surprises, like the childhood friend of a victim staunchly loyal against his wife's homophobic wishes.

The husband and wife story is beautifully depicted and completely non-formulaic. I love the rush and buzz of London surrounding the taut, tense story. Groundbreaking film. 8 out 10.

It would be easy to view this movie as nothing more than a somewhat dated film. However, for it's time, this movie was ground-breaking, for any number of reasons, including its superb acting. Dirk Bogarde and Sylvia Syms, in particular, were perfect in their parts.

What many don't realize is that this movie is credited with helping to decriminalize homosexuality in Britain. When "Victim" was released, it started a nationwide discussion about homosexuality and associated blackmail. At the time, approximately 90% of all blackmail cases involved homosexuals, and Bogarde's character was a classic example of a blackmail "victim". The point of the movie wasn't that all homosexuals were victims, but they could only be victims so long as the law permitted it. The blackmail wasn't merely because they were homosexual, but due to the harsh prison sentences a homosexual could (and often did) receive. How often does a movie get the opportunity to help create such a profound change in society?