Fortune and Men's Eyes

Fortune And Men's Eyes is another one of those works that could never have been filmed until after the Stonewall Rebellion and certainly not while the Code was in place in Hollywood. Now the fact of homosexuality in prison is simply a given, but when you think of all the great prison films in the classic Hollywood studio age like The Big House, Each Dawn I Die, or Brute Force, you'd think these men had simply turned off the sexual energy once incarcerated. If there is homosexuality it is very subtly implied.

This is more than implied it's the result of incarcerated people having no other outlet. Seems perfectly reasonable now, but back in the day, a most taboo subject.

The original play was done within the confines of a single cell that housed four different prisoners and it's their story being told. Zooey Hall rules the cell and he's got his eyes on new inmate Wendell Burton just arrived. Also in the cell are Danny Freedman who is a weak kid without anyone to protect him. As a result he's victimized by everyone and that includes the guards. Presiding over it all is Queenie, a most flamboyant gay man who's discovered that prison could be an interesting place to be if sex is used properly and withheld occasionally. Michael Greer is Queenie and Greer originated the role off Broadway.

Incarcerated people don't cease being sexual beings even when they're incarcerated is the simple message of Fortune In Men's Eyes. Of course it took gays and lesbians coming out of the closet to get that message out to the general public. It's the reasons why some states and prisons have adopted a policy of conjugal visits. If not to cease the practice of rape in prison, at least to lessen it.

This is not limited to men. Although there is certainly implied lesbianism in the MGM classic Caged about a woman's prison, can you imagine how explicit a modern remake would be? In fact I'm surprised that film hasn't been remade.

Fortune And Men's Eyes is still a film with quite a revealing message that will sear your soul. Watch it, but not if you're squeamish.

I saw some friends talking about this film on the internet, and decided to see if I could find it anywhere. It's not available at all on DVD, but my state library system does have it on VHS tape. I have no VHS tape player, as I got rid of it years ago. BUT, someone mentioned that it's available online. free.. The resolution isn't very good, but it's watchable!

I saw this film shortly after its release, when I was around 18 years old, and many of the scenes went right over my head. Watching it again now, I am amazed at how many scenes have stuck in my mind (especially the harrowing ending). Although (not surprisingly) dated, and clearly made on a very low budget, this film has a remarkable way of pacing the action and building tension: for instance, the almost-hallucinatory prison Xmas party seems to be going on forever until it suddenly erupts in violence.

In 1971, people were excited (or outraged) about the homosexual scenes, but I think it would be wrong to think that the film is "about" homosexuality. For me, it is about power structures in what Goffmann has called a "total institution". Sexuality, or rather rape, is just another tool to maintain power, along with violence and trade in tobacco and drugs.

It's a raw, brutal and uncomfortable film, and well worth watching.

It was a good thing they had a cast-audience group discussion following off-Broadway weekend performances of "Fortune and Men's Eyes."

That way whatever questions may have been on attendees' minds could be fielded directly to cast members and director, which were seated across the proscenium.

After the performance I had the pleasure of attending, I was struck by the candor of that production's "working family." Somehow, the intimate nature of the play appeared to make for great cast cohesiveness, and the discussion was lively and informative. It also provided greater clarity as to what both Playwright John Herbert had in mind and what the director was trying to express.

Unfortunately, in the film version (scripted by the playwright) there was something missing. Despite a fine cast delivering thoroughly thoughtful performances, an unrelenting downbeat pall seems to hover over everything.

It's been reported that the film's producers wanted the sensational qualities emphasized; they got their wish--probably at the expense of a broader, more poetic and philosophical statement of the human condition.

Michael Greer offered an outstanding Queenie, a character that is quite convincing. However, it's a bitter, sardonic soul whose surface sense of humor's only a cover for a wounded interior.

Zooey Hall's Rocky is likewise expertly rendered and completely believable--yet a crafty and cold individual with few redeeming qualities.

Wendell Burton's Smitty is the most empathetic character, yet a "pothead" and "looser"--not at all the "innocent" he purports to be.

Harvey Hart's & Jules Schwerin's codirection is adequate, given their parameters. Yet the entire production fails to rise much above the norm, despite many powerful and effective expose scenes.

It's interesting to note the careers of the above three lead actors: Burton had the most work, yet roles were few and far between, and he retired from acting at the early age of 40. Hall, despite his good looks and fine talent, only did three more films after this. Greer likewise had a very limited film career (his Queenie role perhaps seriously type casting him).

Though I never saw Sal Mineo's stage production, I heard that it was even more controversial and sensational than either of the above two versions.

And that's going some.

Cold, grainy picture made in Canada follows naïve drug-user (Wendell Burton, excellent here as he was in "The Sterile Cuckoo") through rigors of prison life. Adapted from John Herbert's autobiographical play, originally performed in Los Angeles with Sal Mineo as producer, the movie is a curiosity piece, what with a sadly outré drag show and the usual homosexual content handled in somewhat sensational manner. Reportedly a troubled production, it is occasionally gripping and intense, yet impossibly downbeat. Several of the key supporting players are very good, and the narrative and scenario are more solid here than in the not-dissimilar "Short Eyes". ** from ****