4/10
Libelous
6 July 2020
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.
1 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed