Les procès d'Oscar Wilde

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.

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

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.

The relationship between Oscar Wilde and Bosie, has already developed and is in full flow when this film begins, so we are almost immediately immersed into the war of hate between Bosie and his homophobic and severely disapproving father. Bosie's father appears to disapprove of his son merely because of his son's lack of manliness, and despises Oscar Wilde because of what he perceives as Wilde's role in perverting his son. But the resentment is also clearly due to the fact that Bosie's father just cannot connect with his son on any level (well portrayed in this film) and it is Wilde that appears to steel that genuine place in Bosie's heart. This just eats away at Bosie's father, and so he attempts to destroy the relationship between Bosie & Wilde in any way he can. But the more he tries, the more he pushes his son away, into the arms of Wilde.

Peter Finch plays Oscar Wilde admirably and he convinced me that this could have been the real Oscar Wilde. John Fraser plays Bosie acceptably - although i think it's his clean 'nice boy' looks that help him pull this role off more than his acting talent. Bosie's father, the Marquis of Queensbury is played by Lionel Jeffreys and he displays the cantankerous side of the character well. The courtroom scenes could have been tenser, and i dont think James Mason (as one of the barristers) delivers his lines with quite the same passion of some barristers I've seen. It is in one of the courtroom scenes, that quite apart from his relationship with Bosie, the true extent of Wilde's promiscuity with regard to young men is exposed, which was the one point for me in the film that I felt slight disgust at Wilde, although his promiscuity still didn't justify in my opinion what then happened to him. I'm just glad that society has become more tolerant nowadays, in some parts of the world.

The film is approximately two hours long, is packed with Oscar Wilde witty one liners, which made the film very funny at times. On second viewing, the film was even more enjoyable. Shot in 1960, I watched it for the first time here in the UK on Monday 7th Jan 2002 on Channel 4 who played it as an afternoon matinee, and the quality of the copy they played was superb - crystal clear. All in all, the film was a joy to watch.

I would highly recommend it, as it illustrates the relative intolerance of the times in England at that time. There are no sensual scenes in the film, so its 'safe' to watch for everyone. I say this because I know that a friend of mine recently stopped watching the latest Oscar Wilde film (with Stephen Fry, released 1997) as soon as he realised that it contained some male nudity & stuff, which he said he was personally uncomfortable with. And the 1960 film doesn't lose anything for not having any sexual stuff in it, believe me. Please watch it, if you get the chance.

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.