Unremarkable and uninformative Here's what I learned from this movie: Oscar Wilde was gay.
That's it.
Never mind that he was a brilliant writer, an astute observer of society's foibles, a witty convesationalist, and a darn interesting guy. Because he was gay, and apparently that's the only thing that anyone should care about.
Sadly, the film doesn't explore any other aspect of Wilde's life. I wonder if he'd been heterosexual if the filmmakers would have felt the need to subject us to so many graphic and pointless sex scenes. Doubtful. These scenes are not distasteful, just unnecessary. How many times must I watch Oscar fondle a young boy before it just becomes redundant? Ironically, while making a solid case that Wilde was a victim of a rigid, unforgiving society, the film itself falls victim to its own good intentions. Where once Wilde was villified for his sexual preferences, here he is nothing but his sexual preferences.
I wanted more. I wanted to experience Oscar Wilde as a full human being, not just a gay man. Even this falls flat. His relationship with his young male lover is surprisingly shallow and uninvolving.
Oh, well, Oscar. Maybe they'll make another movie in a hundred years, and we'll all be uninterested enough in who Wilde was having sex with to actually learn something about his life.
Too Sexually Explicit??? I really am puzzled by the number of people who somehow find the sexual aspect of a story concerning one of the most celebrated gay men in history too explicit. I mean, what did they expect?
First let me offer my review of Wilde - every moment of this film is brilliant. It perfectly articulates the shame behind a supreme waste of talent and the unjust imprisonment of one of the great literary geniuses of the English language. The sets, costumes and dialogue all manage to faithfully invoke the manners and attitudes of Victorian England. Stephen Frye gives a performance that is nothing less than incredible, and his physical resemblance to the real Oscar Wilde is downright spooky. The supporting cast is perfect, and the script pretty much says all that needs to be said about his trial, conviction and downfall. So what's not to like?
Some have complained that the film has focused too much on Wilde's sexuality and not enough on his literary accomplishments. But the purpose of the film is clearly to illustrate the travesty of justice that robbed the world of one of literatures greatest figures. Those who are interested in knowing what a fine writer Wilde was need only to acquire a book of his collected works or seek out a production of one of his theatre pieces. The purpose of this film is to show how Victorian morality cruelly destroyed the life of a great man.
Now let's talk about the "graphic sex scenes"...
I recently heard a "liberal" commentator on a radio show discussing the film Brokeback Mountain. He said, and I quote, "I am all for gay liberation. I support the right of gays to marry, and leave their property to their partners. I will sign your petitions, march in your parades, write my legislators pleading for laws to protect you, and argue with my conservative relatives on your behalf. But I cannot see Brokeback Mountain. Please don't ask me to. I just can't look at explicit gay sex. I'm sorry, but I am just not comfortable with it".
For him, and those who have the same reaction to "Wilde" I have but two words - grow up!
I am a 51 year old gay man. As a movie lover, I have sat through literally thousands of cinematic heterosexual love scenes in my life. I have watched men and women "suck face" and caress each other's naked bodies until I was fairly nauseous. For the record, I do not enjoy watching heterosexuals make love. While it doesn't exactly revolt me, it certainly isn't something I find appealing, either, but I have had to put up with it as long as I can remember. After all, one cannot go to a movie or turn on the television without seeing endless examples of graphic heterosexual lovemaking. And guess what? For all the sexually explicit straight love scenes I've sat through, I've managed to get through them intact. My eyeballs haven't fallen out, my penis hasn't shriveled up and blown away, and I have not turned heterosexual from watching all that straight sex. I would suggest to those who "support gay rights" but are "uncomfortable" with explicit gay sex scenes that they purchase a DVD of a gay film with about as much sexually graphic content as they think they can stand, and then watch it over and over and over until they are no longer uncomfortable with gay sex scenes. I think that would be fair; after all, I have been forced to acclimate myself to straight love scenes to the point where they no longer make me uncomfortable. But in renting such a film, I would NOT suggest Brokeback Mountain - I saw it last week. The "graphic" sex scenes last all of 60 seconds, and the same sex kissing scene (there is only one) takes up even less screen time than that.
As for Wilde, several heterosexual reviewers on this site complained that the "sex scenes" were far too graphic for them and their friends. Some even went to far as to claim that "half the movie" contained sexual content. My initial reaction to these comments was, HUH??? Gay sex? WHAT gay sex? I have seen this film three times, and I don't remember any gay sex scenes in it. At all. So I just went back and watched it a fourth time, with a notepad and a stopwatch. Gee, it turns out there is some gay sex in it. What follows is a complete description of everything in the film that could even remotely be called a "sex scene":
Fourteen minutes into the film, Oscar Wilde is seduced by the character of Robbie. Robbie kisses Oscar, then removes his own shirt, pulls down his pants, and places Oscar's hands on his exposed buttocks. They embrace. The scene fades. No actual sex is shown, and the scene lasts a total of one minute, exactly.
Two minutes later, there is a depiction of Oscar and Robbie in bed. Robbie is shirtless; Oscar has his arms around him. They kiss. There is no suggestion of actual sex. The scene fades after a total of 45 seconds.
A few minutes later, Oscar meets a young man at an art exhibit. They leave together. The next scene shows the young man shirtless and sitting on a sofa. Oscar is standing above him. He pulls Oscar down to the sofa, while kissing him. The scene fades; it has lasted exactly 15 seconds, and has not shown any actual sex.
Twenty-five minutes into the film, Oscar meets Bosie, played by Jude Law. Thirty-one minutes into the film, we see Bosie's naked torso, he is clearly in the throws of passion. He thrusts once, as though climaxing. The camera pans to reveal he is on top of Oscar, who appears to be nude. They kiss. The scene fades. It has lasted 50 seconds, and is the first and only time we see Oscar undressed. Although there is the suggestion that sex has taken place between them, no sex is actually shown.
Forty minutes into the film, Bosie takes Oscar to a male brothel, where Bosie puts his arms around a male prostitute; both are clothed. Their intimacy lasts about 4 seconds. There is no suggested or actual depiction of sex.
At one hour and seven minutes into the film, we see Bosie in bed with another "rent boy" while Oscar sits in a chair watching, fully clothed. We see the couple in bed through a mirror; it is a long shot, but Bosie's buttocks are clearly visible, and he is thrusting his body as though in sexual coitus. This is the only scene in the entire film that I would label "sexually graphic" and it lasts exactly 6 seconds. It is also the last "sex" scene in the film, which continues for an additional 50 minutes.
Of all the "sex" scenes in the film, none show genitalia, or depict contact with genitalia. In all but one scene Oscar is fully dressed. The on-screen same-sex kisses last less than one minute, total, and, all told, the sex scenes described above - if one could really call them that - last a TOTAL of exactly three minutes; only 6 seconds of those sex scenes could be described as "graphic" - out of one hour and fifty-seven minutes of screen time. Hardly "half the movie" as one reviewer put it.
After reading some of the reviews posted here, I wonder if these people saw the same film I did. Because all the "gay sex" they complain about is hardly there. The only "graphic" sex scene lasts six seconds, yet one would think from reading those reviews that this film was hardcore pornography. Can these reviewers really be that hung up on gay sex that they see graphic images where almost none exist?
I have seen hundreds of "mainstream" films with far more explicit sex scenes involving heterosexuals in my day, many of which were truly gratuitous and excessive. If I were to cry and whine, "Look what me and my poor gay friends had to witness" every time I saw a tasteless straight sex scene, I'd never stop crying and whining.
Just once I wish straight people could see things from my view. I have had heterosexual romance shoved down my throat all my life. If you are straight and are reading this, my advice is: don't be such a sissy. Straight sex scenes never harmed me, and gay sex scenes aren't going to hurt you, either. If you want to see a good dramatic film about a famous homosexual, be prepared to expect a little gay sex, and PLEASE don't get hung up about it. Very powerful Very powerful, by all means. I think it is a movie that will be enjoyed by many. Cast is amazing from Redgrave to Fry. I think this was by far one of the best performances by Jude Law as the lover of Wilde. i always thought that all his performances turn out to be powerful, honest, but very similar to each other in general. But here, he molds himself around such a different personality, it is very hard to pass his existence and influence to the story even in the scenes that he was not present.
Both Jude Law, and Jennifer Ehle (the wife) could turn out to be 2 dimensional whatever characters, but they were much more than that. they were not dry, and their relationships with Fry were just written, acted, and depicted wonderfully.
A good script, very powerful performances, never loses momentum, decisiveness, or its artistic strength. Plus, many young talents as Orlando Bloom, Ioan Gruffudd, Adam Garcia, Tom Wilkinson etc. can be seen in small roles which makes the movie seem even more decadent and rich.
