Os Crimes de Oscar Wilde

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.