Wilde
(1997)
In 1991, when I started working for a movie theater
for the first time, I became interested in Oscar Wilde.
I'm not even sure why. I bought a biography of him by
Richard Ellmann at a bargain basement book store and
began to read it between rushes at the cinema. Wilde's
story enchanted me. A wit, vivant and extremely popular
writer, Wilde later became the first "outed" homosexual
in modern history - and a martyr for the cause. Most
of his story is captured quite well in "Wilde."
This isn't the first time Wilde's story has been brought
to the silver screen, but it is the first production
of it in color and with modern sensibilities. By that,
I mean, that men are shown kissing and in naked embrace
and that four- letter words are used here and there,
although only sparingly and when seemingly appropriate,
mainly in the angry dialogue of Lord Alfred Douglas,
Wilde's youthful but mainly platonic lover.
"Wilde" begins where Wilde's real story as a celebrity
begins, in America. Wilde traveled the continent giving
lectures long before he was truly famous and was a cause
celeb abroad. The opening sequence in the film, where
he speaks to silver miners in Arizona is quite humorous
and a wonderful beginning to the film for it shows how
Wilde's charm, intellect and wit could win over anyone,
even the most supposedly backwards of the proletarian.
The story continues through Wilde's discovering of
his homosexual impulses with a family friend in his
30's to his affair with another youth and into the relationship
with Douglas. Although a knowledge of Wilde's story
is surely helpful, it is not necessary. The film sure
does interesting things with his story. It shows his
love for his wife and children quite clearly and uses
one of the children's stories Wilde wrote quite successfully
as a parable told in narration. It shows how Wilde could
have had any boy he wanted, really, yet somehow magically
and inexplicably fell in love with one of the most tumultuous,
Douglas. It shows how Wilde loved Douglas almost unconditionally
and how Douglas desperately needed that love, even if
he didn't know how wonderful it was. It shows Wilde's
subsequent run-in with the lad's father resulting in
his most famous court case. It shows, quite effectively,
his imprisonment. It shows Wilde for what I believe
he truly was: It makes him a sad martyr ruined by the
man he loved, a youth who truly did not understand the
full implications of his effects on the great elder
man's life. It's a wonderful and passionate film.
What makes it all work, of course, is the actors.
Stephen Fry is superb as Wilde giving the man true heart,
true intellect and true charm. Not all that attractive
in reality, as was Wilde's lot, Fry brings us a character
we can truly care about. And we find it easy to understand
why all these young men care for him too. We understand
why Wilde's longtime friend Robbie Ross (a superb and
adorable Michael Sheen) not only seduces him, but remains
his most loyal friend for all time. We understand how
he loves his wife (Jennifer Ehle) and children. We see
this in Fry's eyes and in his manner towards them. And
we understand his love for Douglas, as well. Make no
mistake, the script by Julian Mitchell (based on Ellmann's
biography) is full of wonder as well, but it is Fry
who brings it to life. And he is helped by an extraordinary
actor playing Douglas.
Jude Law is so much like Wilde's beloved Bosie, the
petulant Lord Douglas, that it is as if the man was
resurrected and brought to the silver screen. Law takes
what could be a one- dimensional characterization and
brings us a full-bodied, passionate and brilliant performance
that shows both the child and the young man of Wilde's
eye, struggling to overcome his father's long arm. Law
is so superb as to make us actually feel sorry for the
youth. When he first meets Fry, as Wilde, it is a remarkable
screen moment. Played for all it's worth by director
Brian Gilbert, the moment is rife with all the passion
and drama that is forthcoming. And we see what Wilde
first saw in Bosie (his overwhelming languid beauty)
as well as what kept him with the boy (his unconditional
love and care for him). This is the most wonderful and
complex relationship brought to the screen in many a
year and the two actors here are outstanding in their
ability to make it seem so clear to us watching the
story unfold.
Gilbert is an adequate director here, although he
uses few camera tricks to tell the story. He simply
lets the pictures tell the tale. He works well with
the story-telling that becomes narration that is obviously
parable. And he is most adept at brining us the appearance,
clothes and styles of the timeframe (1880-1898 or so).
Gilbert's main attribution to the film is his ability
to make the love between Wilde and Douglas seem wonderful
and not unnatural at all. It's odd because Wilde's first
few homosexual encounters on film seem strained and
nervous. They don't quite work and seem sordid in a
way. The kisses seem phony and forced. One fears the
film will fail because it seems unable to make homosexuality
seem natural and relaxed. And then Wilde meets Douglas
and all that changes. A particularly quiet and affecting
moment comes when Wilde is sleeping on the couch and
Bosie comes and lays beside him, placing his head on
the great man's back. It is magical and sweet, symbolic
and perfect. If Gilbert makes any mistake at all here,
it is his decision to use a score by Debbie Wiseman
that is much to overwrought and dramatic for the piece.
The music sometimes overpowers the emotion on screen
and reaches for nuances that don't belong there at times,
it seems.
In fact, many critics will and have condemned the film
for showing the rather angst-filled and torturous moments
of Wilde's life in this supposed over-wrought manner.
I guess a film about Wilde's successes only, which are
surely covered well here, might be interesting. Knowing
more about how Wilde acquired his education and his
wit is surely an interesting notion for a film. But
that isn't where the true drama of the piece, of course,
lies. And I'm sure many gays will disparage it for showing
another homosexual as victim, a theme that Wilde's life
should surely and intrinsically rebel against. But I
don't feel that way. Wilde is a hero to me. He may have
started with poor intentions, when beginning his court
case (and certainly up until that point the film is
rather rosy, even with Bosie's outbursts) but Wilde
eventually stood up for himself and his beliefs. He
did this not to shock or outrage, and certainly not
to be a celebrity (it made him an outcast and a subject
of public scorn), but because it was righteous and he
knew in his heart it was so. He spoke up for us, for
all gay men, almost 100 years ago now. He called an
older man's love for another, younger man "beautiful"
and "fine." He took the "love that dare not speak it's
name" and he spoke it. He went to prison for it. In
reality, since prison ruined his health, he died for
it. Now that's my idea of a hero.
"Wilde" isn't a film. It's scripture.
Note: Also with Vanessa Redgrave (rather wasted as
Wilde's mother Speranza), Zoe Wanamaker and Tom Wilkinson.
An unusual aspect of the film is it's lack of time
spent in the courtroom. The key moment, where Wilde
truly lost the case by saying he would not kiss a boy
because he was ugly (and not because he didn't kiss
boys), is not even included. However, Wilde's answer
to the question about a line from a poem by Bosie ("Love
that dare not speak it's name") is included. Here, from
Ellmann's book, is a partial part of the answer from
court transcripts:
"The 'Love that dare not speak it's name' in this
century is such a great affection of an elder for a
younger man... It is in this century misunderstood,
so much misunderstood that it may be described as the
'Love that dare not speak it's name,' and on account
of it I am placed where I am now. It is beautiful. It
is fine. It is the noblest form of affection. There
is nothing unnatural about it. It is intellectual, and
it repeatedly exists between an elder and younger man,
when the elder man has intellect and the younger man
has all the joy, hope and glamour of the life before
him. That is should be so the world does not understand.
The world mocks it and sometimes puts one in the pillory
for it."
The budget for the film was $10 million.
Though made in 1997, the film was not released in
the US until 1998.
Review written in 1998
More
of Lodger's reviews indexed alphabetically! Just click
your favorite letter to go there.
a
b c
d e
f g
h i
j k
l m
n o
p q
r s
t u
v w
x y
z
HOME
|
In
Association with:
|
Posters From!
|
|
Please Visit
|
|
