Avaliações de usuários

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.

It is sometimes said of London buses that you can wait ages for one and then two come along at once. So it is with films about Oscar Wilde. The world waited sixty years for a film about him, and then two came along in the same year, "The Trials of Oscar Wilde" starring Peter Finch and "Oscar Wilde" starring Robert Morley. There was, of course, a third version in the late nineties, "Wilde" starring Stephen Fry.

I have never seen the Morley film, but "The Trials" has a lot in common with "Wilde". Both tell the same story of Wilde's friendship with the handsome but spoilt young aristocrat Lord Alfred Douglas ("Bosie"), and of how Wilde was pressured into bringing an ill-advised libel suit against Bosie's father, the Marquess of Queensberry, who had accused him of sodomy. As a result of the failure of that lawsuit, Wilde was arrested, charged with gross indecency and sentenced to two years imprisonment. Although the two films acknowledge different source material, "Wilde" is clearly indebted to "The Trials"; the two films have a number of scenes in common. In places the dialogue is almost word-for-word the same.

There are, however, a number of differences of emphasis. "The Trials", as its name might suggest, places a greater emphasis on the legal aspects of Wilde's case, with a greater number of courtroom scenes. (The word "trials" clearly has two meanings here; it is used both in its legal sense and in the sense of "sufferings"). It omits, however, details of Wilde's life in Paris after his release, and places less emphasis on his relationship with his wife Constance and with his children.

There are some notable acting performances in "The Trials", especially from James Mason as Queensberry's lawyer Edward Carson and Lionel Jeffries as the splenetic Marquess himself, a man eaten up with rage and hatred; I preferred Jeffries to Tom Wilkinson who played this role in "Wilde". John Fraser, on the other hand, was not as good as Jude Law as Bosie. Peter Finch was a gifted actor, but I certainly preferred Fry's interpretation of the title role. Whereas Fry made Wilde witty, but also kindly, sensitive and generous, Finch's Wilde came across as too much the dandy, a man who, although capable of impulsive generosity, often used his wit as a mask to hide his true feelings. Only towards the end of the film, when he realises that he is in danger of imprisonment, does he become more emotional.

The greatest difference between the two films is that "The Trials" does not actually admit that Wilde was a homosexual. The impression is given that he may well have been the victim of unfounded gossip, of a deliberate conspiracy led by Queensberry to blacken his name and of perjured evidence given by the prosecution witnesses in court. In reality, there can be no doubt that Wilde was gay, and the Stephen Fry version of his life is quite explicit on this point. Queensberry's accusations were largely true, and in denying them Wilde perjured himself. It has become a received idea to say that he was the victim of the ignorant prejudices of the Victorian era and to congratulate ourselves (rather smugly) that we are today altogether more liberal and enlightened. This attitude, however, ignores the fact that for all his talents and his good qualities Wilde had a strongly self-destructive side to his nature. As some of his lovers were below the age of consent, if he were living in the first decade of the twenty-first century rather than the last decade of the nineteenth, he might actually receive, given contemporary anxieties about paedophilia, a longer prison term than two years. Even if he avoided a jail sentence for sex with minors, he would certainly receive one for perjury.

It is precisely because "Wilde" is more honest about its subject that it is the better film. Peter Finch's Wilde is the innocent victim of other men's villainy; Stephen Fry's Wilde is a tragic hero, a great man undone by a flaw in his character. Although he is more seriously flawed than Finch's character, however, he is also more human and lovable, and his story seems more tragic.

"The Trials", however, probably went as far as any film could in dealing with the subject of homosexuality. For many years it had been taboo in the cinema; a film on this subject would have been unthinkable in the Britain of, say, 1930, or even 1950. By the early sixties the moral climate had become slightly more liberal; the influential film "Victim", which some credit with helping to bring about the legalisation of homosexual acts between consenting adults, was to come out in 1961, a year after "The Trials". In 1960, however, homosexuality was still a criminal offence, and there was a limit to how far it could be freely discussed in the cinema. Seen in this light, "The Trials", although in some respects disappointing, can be seen as a brave attempt to tackle a sensitive topic. 7/10

Ken Hughes film 'The Trials of Oscar Wilde' may at first appear to be one of those cheesy Technicolor costume dramas when in fact it is a gripping and finely acted account of the appalling treatment Oscar Wilde received at the hands of the English justice system at the end of the 19th century.

Peter Finch is superb as the eponymous hero and is totally committed to the role and turns in one of his best performances on screen. The supporting cast is also quite good if more generalized in their characterizations, more a fault of the screenplay than the performers. There is one especially fine supporting performance from Lionel Jeffries as the maniacal Lord Queensbury. Jeffries plays Queensbury as a crazed brute, a type of man we can no longer countenance in these days, though I suspect they are still out there waiting for their chance to pounce on those who they fear and do not understand.

Sonia Dresdel is Lady Wilde, Oscar's dotty mother at the end of her life. It's a small part but is quietly powerful. Other people in Wilde's life, Constance, his wife, and Ada Leverson, his stalwart friend and life-long supporter, are tantalizingly glimpsed but little is revealed of their inner workings. But this isn't a film about them but about the actual trials and much of the film is spent in courtrooms. This might sound boring but it isn't.

James Mason appears in the first trial as the defending witness, for Lord Queensbury, and a more vicious, narrow-minded lawyer could hardly be found, even these days.

The technical credits are competent if nothing special; the music, melodramatic in a soap-opera-ish way, the sets plush and too clean. But somehow the power and tragedy of Wilde's story comes through all the gilding of the script, peppered with some of Wilde's wiser quotes, well-placed, naturally, in the text. There is nothing preachy or moralistic which is a relief, compared to the highly politicized scripts being written since this film was made.

It is interesting to note Nicholas Roeg as the camera operator. He wasn't the cinematographer but I detected a few Roeg-ish touches in a couple of the more meditative scenes.

This is not a film to be sluffed off as old-fashioned simply because there are no sex scenes or vulgar language or violence. The psychic violence suffered by Oscar Wilde was quite sufficient enough and this is a memorable film, worth having in the collection.

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.

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.

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 had heard of Oscar Wilde before but i didn't know who he was. I had seen the 1945 version of The picture of dorion Gray but i didn't know he wrote it. This movie has Wilde being put on trial for having homosexual relations, there's more to it but I'm too lazy to put it down. Peter Finch does a good job and James Mason is the main reason i wanted this, but i didn't know he was basically only in one long scene as the defense attorney.

This film is at least as good as the Stephen Fry effort made nearly four decades on, and has the added attraction of having no intimate scenes of perverted sex; homosexual acts between consenting adults were still illegal in 1960, even on film! Having said that, it starts in the middle, so for those not familiar with the story of Wilde's downfall, a little imagination is required, though to be fair it is specifically about his trials, which start at around one hour in.

Strangely, the note Queensbury delivered to Wilde's club appears with the classic spelling mistake corrected. Normally the spelling he used - somdomite - is offered as proof of him being an illiterate brute rather than a man who was concerned about his son's perverted relationship with a much older man. The note is extant.

The Wilde of Peter Finch is also more deserving of sympathy that that of Fry because he comes across more of a fool than a tortured artist, as indeed he was, throwing away everything for a man who ultimately cared only for himself.

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.

One never quite believes the character given a rather masculine portrayal by Peter Finch is involved in a love affair with the young Lord Alfred Douglas, but the tentative treatment of the film's subject matter is understandable since homosexuality was still illegal in Britain at the time of its release. More importantly, however, is how effectively the film relates the story of a man who is ruined by a society which can be so hateful. Although Wilde is portrayed at first as an arrogant and indulgent celebrity, as his love for his family and his torn loyalties are revealed it becomes hard for one to feel no sadness as he is made to pay with public disgrace and a jail sentence. John Fraser is perfectly cast as the spoilt and manipulative Douglas.

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.

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.

It has been many years since I saw this film, but after the credits rolled to one of the best musical scores I have ever heard I realised that the film is a ' lost ' masterpiece. In my opinion Ken Hughes made a visually beautiful film and had some of the finest actors of the time to support him, and Peter Finch gave a performance that should again in my opinion be considered as one of the greatest on film. With superb support from John Fraser as Lord Alfred Douglas the Oscar Wilde story unfolds. Not one scene is wasted in the telling, as we go through Wilde's marriage to Constance, his love for his children and his destructive relationship with Alfred Douglas. The searing scene of both of them in the holiday resort of Brighton where Douglas tears Wilde apart is one of the most tragic emotionally on film, and is for me the highlight scenes in this masterpiece of film making. The trial scenes themselves are diluted, perhaps due to the censorship of the time, and we never hear the evidence of the young men. Despite that the three trials are moving and heart breaking to watch. No spoilers but the ending is brutal and compelling and shows almost unbelievable cruelty. Finally a film that should be treasured for what it is; a love story brilliantly conceived and that should never be forgotten.

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.

The moral witch hunt that destroyed Oscar Wilde remains one of the most stunning examples of the hypocrisy of Victorian England. In today's world of same sex marriage, openly gay politicians, rock stars, artists, comedians and writers, it is hard to believe that a little over a century ago men could be sent to prison for being gay. Interestingly, female homosexuality was not a crime, but then Queen Victoria reckoned that it simply didn't exist!

Oscar Wilde fell from grace in 1895. At that time he was a mega celebrity, famous and much loved for his novels, short stories, poetry, wit, and plays - the most successful of the latter being 'The Importance of Being Earnest' staged in London just before his spectacular downfall.

It forms the opening scene of 'The Trials of Oscar Wilde', a 1960 movie directed by Ken Hughes and featuring Peter Finch as Oscar Wilde. The setting - in London's St James's Theatre - is brilliant, with magnificent costumes and convincing patrons singing the praises of the play and its talented author. The play is a huge hit and the action moves to London's Cafe Royal, showing Wilde surrounded by a group of admirers at the peak of his success.

I feel there was no better choice than Peter Finch to play Oscar Wilde. Peter brilliantly portrays Oscar's kindness, humanity and wit. He is very much in love with his wife, Constance (Yvonne Mitchell), and a devoted father to his two sons. Constance is relieved when he returns home late, because the boys will not go to sleep until he tells them a story - which turns out to be one of his most delightful fairy stories, 'The Happy Prince'.

It is one of many contradictions in Wilde's character that this epic movie brings out so well. The gentle fairy story is in marked contrast to his violent and homoerotic novel 'The Picture of Dorian Gray'.

John Fraser is very convincing as Lord Alfred Douglas, the beautiful young man that Oscar falls in love with - known by his family nickname 'Bosie'. Did his friendship with 'Bosie' awaken what became a preference for same sex relationships? Or was he always bisexual? Many people - male and female - have 'come out' as homosexual, after many years of heterosexual marriage. So maybe Oscar was not that unusual.

Bosie introduces him to several male prostitutes (known as 'rent boys') in London- a degenerate group of wretched young men who sell their bodies, very often to wealthy upper class males. In one scene, Wilde's defence counsel (Sir Edward Clarke, played very effectively by Nigel Patrick) puzzles over why a man of Wilde's intelligence, talent and breeding could possibly get involved with such dreadful characters.

Wilde described his proclivities in that direction as 'feasting with panthers'. And again, history is littered with men who have been turned on by associating with what became termed as 'rough trade' - with both boys and girls.

Bosie's father, the Marquess of Queensbury is disgusted by his son's openly gay antics with Wilde, who he publicly incorrectly identifies as a 'somdomite'. Oscar takes the dangerous decision to bring an action for criminal libel, assuring his defence counsel, Sir Edward Clarke, that the accusation is totally without foundation.

Lionel Jefferies gives a powerful performance as the violent, angry, gay hating Marquess of Queensbury, who becomes increasingly obsessed with bringing down Wilde. Bosie refuses to split with Oscar, and gets beaten up by his father in consequence.

During Queensbury's trial for criminal libel Oscar is subjected to a penetrating cross examination by Sir Edward Carson (James Mason), who proceeds to assemble a group of 'rent boys' who all testify to acts of indecency with Wilde. Queensbury is found not guilty, while Oscar is arrested and sentenced to two years imprisonment with hard labour, leaving him a broken man.

It is a sad movie and a very lamentable reflection on the hypocrisy and cruelty of British justice during the Victorian era. It also shows the mob mentality at its worst. Wilde is publicly reviled and spat upon by a jeering gang of bullies on his way to Reading gaol. Queensbury and his sadistic mates take great pleasure in hounding him in London, forcing him to take refuge in his mother's house.

Constance leaves the country, taking the two boys with her and refusing Oscar access to them, while he is left to face the savagery of a British gaol. Constance does pay him a visit - but only to tell him of the death of his beloved mother.

'The Trials of 'Oscar Wilde is compulsive viewing for anybody interested in the lives of great writers, and for students of English literature and social history. It also penetrates the more shameful aspects of human behaviour. In 2017, the British government issued a pardon to any males previously prosecuted and punished for being gay. But it still remains punishable in many countries throughout the world, in some carrying the death sentence. 'The Trials of Oscar Wilde' is a salutary reminder that Oscar Wilde could still be in trouble tday.

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.

A year before Basil Dearden's groundbreaking "Victim" Ken Hughes gave us "The Trials of Oscar Wilde" and while the word 'homosexual' is never uttered no other mainstream film before it tackled the subject with such a degree of frankness, leaving audiences in no doubt as to what the film was 'about' from the very opening scene. Of course, Wilde's 'trials' are of great historical importance in that, not only was the reputation of a great artist destroyed, but subsequently the case opened up a debate of homosexuality that lasted for several decades. It could even be argued that this film, as much as "Victim", was tantamount in helping change the law in the UK.

It is a deeply serious film with none of the anachronisms we usually associate with biopics and historical dramas and it's beautifully acted by the entire cast. Peter Finch is a superb Wilde, (he won a BAFTA for his performance), John Fraser. A perfectly petulant Bosie, Nigel Patrick, a suitably sardonic defender and Yvonne Mitchell, a wonderfully underplayed Constance while James Mason is brilliant as Sir Edward Carson, defender of the Marquis of Queensbury in the initial case, (his cross-examination of Wilde is a tour-de-force).

It is also a beautiful looking film, superbly photographed in widescreen by Ted Moore and designed by Ken Adam. At exactly the same time as the Hughes film came out there was another version of the same events simply entitled "Oscar Wilde" with Robert Morley in the title role and while Morley was splendidly cast the film itself was vastly inferior.