This movie deserves to be watched, first because it is a rare item, and also because the topic is daring, and also may be disturbing for selected audiences. Adapted from a Jean Genet novel, it speaks of homosexuality behind bars. It could have been made, and by the way I am sure it was, for stage plays. Jean Genet is not Jose Giovanni, Edward Bunker nor Auguste Le breton, where you had never gay characters in their novels. On the contrary it was also poignant and realistic, but gritty, brutal, emphasizing on manhood at two hundred percent. But gay atmosphere also means great sensibility in character study and relationship, very subtle and rewarding for those who can read between the lines. I got this important point, but I am not brilliant enough to totally feel gay relationship from the bottom of my mind my soul. Friendship yes, but not homosexuality. This movie however, I repeat, deserves to be discovered.
4 Reviews
Overwrought prison drama, homoerotic and yet...
jenniolson5 October 2007
Warning: Spoilers
This film is certainly of historic interest but it is a relentlessly overwrought, stagey theatrical (it IS from a Genet play) prison cell melodrama which ultimately wears thin while revolving around the violent interactions between three clichéd characters. Paul Mazursky's pock-marked, effeminate Maurice is as stereotypical as they come and, in typical 1960s fashion for gay characters, has to die in the end. Leonard Nimoy stretches his acting chops a bit as the jewel thief, but it is Michael Forest as the volatile, tattooed, muscle-bound (and so poetically named) murderer, Greeneyes, who steals the show. The homoeroticism of the story is not fully exploited (would love to see a contemporary remake, well maybe love is too strong a word), there are tantalizing homo moments but they are thwarted by the continual return to discussion of Greeneyes' "woman."
Crisply shot, nicely edited and with some interesting cinematic moments (arty subjective camera-work and double exposures).
Crisply shot, nicely edited and with some interesting cinematic moments (arty subjective camera-work and double exposures).
Wanna be art film
mls418229 December 2021
This feels more like the filming of an acting class. The writing is awful. It is so vague in plot, situations and character motivation. It is also overacted.
This is pointless and unrealistic even for a 1965 movie. I'm sure the play was much more hard hitting and realistic since a gay character is in the mix. I suppose all the guts were taken out if it to get the meager financing to make it.
This is pointless and unrealistic even for a 1965 movie. I'm sure the play was much more hard hitting and realistic since a gay character is in the mix. I suppose all the guts were taken out if it to get the meager financing to make it.
Even for the 60s , this is weird
kellyhedgeskw31 December 2018
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
