Pastel scenes, nude bodies, LGBT theme and freedom of choice are not a modern teenage novel, but a twentieth-century BBC film. Each era carries contradictions; this film tells about a very paradoxical person who lived two centuries ago, but became a cult and won the hearts of many. The film "Wilde" shows the end of the life of the Irish writer Oscar Wilde. Already held in his career, but not dealt with his personal life, the writer is shown at his most critical moment. Those who are not familiar with the biography of Oscar Wilde can understand the main tragedy from the film. The famous influential playwright changes people’s consciousness with his works, is one of the key figures of aestheticism, but faces the condemnation of society. He departs from the moral principles of the XIX century, being bisexual, meets with young people.
A little-known director, Brian Gilbert, directed the feature-biographical film Wilde and released it in 1997. The picture was allocated 10 million dollars, but they did not pay off. It is possible that the budget went to the scenery and costumes, because the recreated Victorian style looks luxurious. In the cast, you can single out only one star of the late 90s - Stephen Fry (Oscar). In addition to him, the film was remembered for the debut roles of Jude Law (Alfred Douglas) and Orlando Bloom (episodic role).
The film transports the viewer to the era of balls, gentlemen, moral ethics, hard work, economics and conservative views. In the foreground is the respectable Wilde family. Oscar marries Constance Lloyd, raises two sons, reads them fairy tales of his own composition, has authority. But almost immediately the viewer is shown the true essence of the writer - he is not a family man, but a man of free morals and actions. In recent years, Oscar has been dating young people. The role of a soft, attractive, charismatic writer Stephen Fry played wonderfully, his appeal is conveyed through the screen, and adds honesty pastel scenes, which are not few in the picture. His partner, Bosi, looks no less attractive, but much more eccentric. His abrupt transitions from an inexperienced young man to a mentally unstable and selfish man are too quick. The viewer does not have time to penetrate the hero, to sympathize with his fate as Oscar Wilde. The rest of the acting is quite decent.
Back to the entourage: gilded furniture, lush dresses, starched collars, satin costumes, wigs, cigars - the director focused on the outside and paid little attention to the inside. Heroes often visit public places, change locations, but all their dialogues seem to be taken out of context, somewhere unproven, somewhere unfinished. The viewer sees only external experiences, and all psychology is left behind. Directing work or the weak play of actors is not for us to judge, but the film does not convey the entire tragedy of the writer’s life.
The film “Wilde” will introduce you to the author of “Portrait of Dorian Gray”, will tell you a little about the creative path, show your personal life, but will not give a detailed answer about who Oscar Wilde is. Suitable for evening viewing and getting acquainted with the writer, but it is advisable to use several channels of information to get acquainted with Wilde. The film is recommended for viewing.
Beautifully designed film in the best traditions of the BBC
Wilde. The title of the film already indicates the direction of the plot. Wilde is translated from English as Wild. And the screen story begins in the Wild, Wild American West, where ordinary guys quickly solve complex issues. Don’t shoot a pianist, he plays his best. A film about the wild side of a creative highly educated man, the famous writer Oscar Wald.
From free wild America, the film moves into the exquisite interiors of rich English homes, where one must conform to the etiquette and sanctimonious morality of the Victorian era. This framework leads to the desire to look like a decent person in the eyes of society. Oscar Wilde tries to forget his wild side. Married, having two children. He was not 100% homosexual.
Throughout the film, somerset Maugham was remembered for his 25 percent love of women and 75 percent love of men. Apparently, some femininity in a man adds to his sensitivity and a more acute sense of life. This does not mean that every creative man is a homosexual. And vice versa.
As for the film, and some quite frank scenes, it is not disgusting. Artistically removed and somewhat removed. Without censure or endorsement of Oscar Wald's conduct. As part of his biography that brought him to prison and soum. His passions crippled him for much of his life.
The scene, where he frantically goes to meet a crowd of prim Englishmen in black, as if defying everyone. The writer was born at the wrong time. These days he could not hide his sexual addictions.
Fatal love can be not only for a woman, but a selfish boy can break a grown man. Something similar happened to the famous writer. Oscar Wilde was very responsive to beauty, and the sweet handsome Bozzie just bewitched him. Jude Law with his too sweet appearance fit perfectly into this role.
So this is a sadly vicious story of forbidden love. Despite quite frank scenes of same-sex love, the film turned out to be quite aesthetic and bright in artistic terms.
Finally, I thought about the philosophy.
Life is like embroidery. The first half of life passes on the front, beautiful side, and the second half is already on the other, from the inside out. She is not so beautiful, but we see how the threads of fate are intertwined. A. Schopenhauer.
I have always worshipped the great writer Oscar Wilde. His novel “Portrait of Dorian Gray” became one of my favorites. His other works are also very strong. His life itself is like the tragic and instructive Dorian.
To be honest, I feel sorry for Oscar. Such a great writer fell victim to his own feelings and subconscious desires. It is a shame that people sometimes do not have power over their own desires and aspirations. For sin is stronger and the forbidden fruit is sweet. Wilde himself said this.
I want to say that I really liked the film. Wilde's relationship with Bosie and Robbie Ross is well conveyed. Wilde's travels around the world are well shown. Meeting with future wife Constance Lloyd. Birth and upbringing of children. In general, everything was described by Wilde’s contemporaries.
I would like to commend the directors and actors for their successful work. It is difficult to make films based on the biography of the writer, and on various sources and letters. But they did. It seemed that this topic is interesting and requires a long study (I mean the author’s life in general). And yet, they did it for 100. I'm really glad I was able to watch it. And yet, I am against homosexuality, and I believe that people should procreate and multiply as God has indicated.
“There are only two true tragedies in life: one when you don’t get what you want, and the other when you get it.”
Oscar Wilde needs no introduction and his biography is not a secret behind seven seals, of course, for everyone who is interested in his work and himself as a person. Accordingly, the biography of the genius of literature is not a key element in the film. Brian Gilbert presents us cinema as an art, aesthetically pleasing, like the nature of Wilde himself - the embodiment of Aesthetics.
Everything is beautiful here: costumes, scenery, music, actors, their play... Each frame is an aesthetic pleasure, accompanied by subtle irony and sarcasm - the true nature of a talented and narcissistic playwright. My deepest gratitude to the entire crew! It is worth noting the striking similarity of the actors with real prototypes and their brilliant performance, especially the main characters: Stephen Fry (the real Wilde!!!), Jude Law and Michael Sheen. Jude Law, by the way, outdid himself. How exactly, he managed to embody the image of a “capricious boy!”!
In addition, the film is not only aesthetically excellent, not “cold” art, on the contrary, spiritual, imbued with emotions and passion, like the life and work of Wilde himself: Life is too caustic fluid. It destroys art.
In my opinion, received a wonderful biographical drama, beautiful as the soul of a poet-playwright, reflecting his nature and depth of feelings. I don't see any flaws, so 10 points. I highly recommend it to all Oscar Wilde aesthetes and fans.
I am well acquainted with this story. I studied a lot of materials. And she can't leave anyone indifferent. To me, it is as interesting as it is incomprehensible. It delays, excites, sometimes makes you wonder, makes empathy awaken. It is both fascinating and terrifying at the same time. Each folds his vision of the relationship of the famous English writer Oscar Wilde and the young charming aristocrat Alfred Douglas. And these visions are often very different. But even though there are plenty of first-person sources, including De Profundis and other Wilde letters, a few autobiographies by Douglas, memoirs by Robert Ross, and other writers, we will never understand how these two people really felt. It's all too complicated. Was there such a thing as true love? And if it did, was it bilateral, reciprocal? Or was it just a matter of self-interest? Maybe Wilde himself, though unconsciously, was drawn to turning his own life into a beautiful drama, like those that were successfully staged or sold out in bookstores, but then it got out of control? Was it more than what Plato experienced and described in ancient times? . .
The creators of this film have a clearly romanticized view. Everyone has a right to their own vision of something, especially if it is a man of art, but in the case of Oscar Wilde’s film biography, the history of the relationship between the Prince of Aesthetes and Lord Douglas has been distorted. Many of the events shown in the film, as if watered with caramel and sprinkled with powdered sugar compared to how they take place in the biographies, are already sweet. Attempts at a more realistic state of affairs to get through all of this, though undertaken, are weak. In the end, we see something too soft. It lacks the depth that could be. The history of these relationships is multifaceted, and therefore so difficult. But in the film it is shown rather superficially and one-sidedly. If the pleasures that occupied a large place in the philosophy of Wilde, it is mainly only bedtime pleasures; the Marquis of Queensberry is against the communication of his son with the "dirty sodomite" - only because he cares about the moral character of Bosie. And so on.
In the title is the proud "Wilde", but this is not a film about his life. Who was Oscar in the first place? A writer. The prince of paradoxes. Here, too, his work is sparsely narrated; I liked only how in these two hours the tale of the selfish giant is woven. This is just a Uranium page of his busy life. An untrained viewer will remember Wilde the boy lover, but not Wilde the writer.
In the image of an Irishman with a green carnation in the loop appeared British actor Stephen Fry. Perhaps he played the role of an unflappable intellectual aristocrat well. But he's not Wilde. Maybe I lacked that gloss, a certain eccentricity and non-standardity in the purely positive senses of these words. But here again we can remember the creators.
Could Wilde imagine that a couple of years after the publication of “Portrait of Dorian Gray”, accompanied by a great deal of noise, life will present him with his own, as if descended from the pages of the book “Dorian”, heartlessness, clothed in absolute charm... Jude Law in this role surprised and even somehow captured me. The sharpness of the look, the cold in these bright eyes, arrogance, childish egocentricity, capriciousness, other manifestations of complete immaturity. This is how we meet Bosie in Wilde’s descriptions and in old photographs, as we see in the film and Jude Law, as young and charming as Alfred Douglas himself in his days with Oscar. I can't imagine anyone more beautiful in his place. Without taking into account the excessive creamy-love shade, this Bosie is very close to the image that turned out in my head.
It is worth noting the rest of the cast, especially Michael Sheen as Robert Ross, a loyal friend of Oscar Wilde, and Jennifer El in the image of his wife. They looked organic. It is also interesting that in this film he made his debut in the film Orlando Bloom, albeit in such a small role.
The atmosphere of the Victorian era is attractive. Primary and even sometimes cruel, but causing interest from many sides of this period, England was reflected in this picture to a sufficient extent, although again with a greater disclosure of the life of the main character, it could be presented brighter.
Throughout most of the text, I was unhappy with this film, but I probably need to say something vindicative in its direction, because it is not completely lost. Perhaps it is worth thanking the director and writers at least for the fact that they did not throw out the main events of this period and their heroes, deciding that the picture is full without them. This is often the case in historical and biographical films. To sum up, for those of you who don’t know Oscar Wilde and don’t need it, the film will do. It is only harmful to rely on him unambiguously when compiling the image of a writer. If you do not think that this movie is about a real person and based on his fate, then there may even be an assessment of “good”. But to someone for whom the name Oscar Wilde is not an empty phrase, there is nothing to do here. Just tick the box and maybe compare the visualization of these events to how your imagination drew it.
Actor Stephen Fry, who plays Oscar Wilde, leaves an unpleasant impression because he is too old for the role. Unsuccessful is the Russian-language voiceover of the main role, similar not to artistic performance, but to muttering through the teeth.
The story itself was also very disappointing. The famous writer of Irish descent is not fully represented in it. A biographical film should reveal different aspects of human life, and in relation to the writer, first of all, his artistic and worldview position.
The film Wilde says nothing about the aestheticism of Oscar Wilde, but he was a prominent representative of this movement in art and literature in the second half of the XIX century. We do not see Wilde expressing his artistic convictions and advocating the priority of aesthetic values over social and even ethical issues. There is no Wilde philosopher in the film, and he was. The viewer is satisfied only with information about the staging of plays by Oscar Wilde, going with great triumph, and the release of the novel “Portrait of Dorian Gray”, but there are no heated debates about this work.
A solid figure in the English literature of the late XIX century is presented mainly in the details of his personal and intimate life, and in relation to the latter - very hypertrophied.
The filmmakers, and possibly the author of the Oscar Wilde biographical book in which the film was shot, deliberately focus on the personal tragedy of a famous man who could not resist the obvious demonic temptation personified by the notorious “Wilde boy”. Alfred Douglas.
Actor Stephen Fry, who plays Oscar Wilde, leaves an unpleasant impression because he is too old for the role. Unsuccessful is the Russian-language voiceover of the main role, similar not to artistic performance, but to muttering through the teeth.
The story itself was also very disappointing. The famous writer of Irish descent is not fully represented in it. A biographical film should reveal different aspects of human life, and in relation to the writer, first of all, his artistic and worldview position.
The film Wilde says nothing about the aestheticism of Oscar Wilde, but he was a prominent representative of this movement in art and literature in the second half of the XIX century. We do not see Wilde expressing his artistic convictions and advocating the priority of aesthetic values over social and even ethical issues. Bryan Gilbert's film doesn't have Wilde as a philosopher, and he was. The viewer is satisfied only with information about the staging of plays by Oscar Wilde, going with great triumph, and the release of the novel “Portrait of Dorian Gray”, but there are no heated debates about this work.
A solid figure in the English literature of the late XIX century is presented mainly in the details of his personal and intimate life, and in relation to the latter - very hypertrophied.
The filmmakers, and possibly the author of the Oscar Wilde biographical book in which the film was shot, deliberately focus on the personal tragedy of a famous man who could not resist the obvious demonic temptation personified by the notorious “Wilde boy”. Alfred Douglas, in close company - just handsome Bosey.
Of course, the story told and shown are also milestones in the biography of Oscar Wilde. But if you focus only on the dark side of his life, then the bright side of it will also fade as a result - creative talent, philosophical platform, artistic and aesthetic concept and even the specific works of the writer themselves, which are still one of the most demanded by the reading public.
It seems that the authors of the film “Wilde” set a goal in the conditions of the new England to rehabilitate the fatal passion of Oscar Wilde, condemned by England at the turn of the XIX and XX centuries.
A. F. Rogalev.
The fate of those who are still in life begin to be called geniuses. Not bypassed this fate and the great playwright Oscar Wilde, who gave the world the novel “Portrait of Dorian Gray”, the play “Fan Lady Windermere”, the story “Canterville Ghost” (selected only the most famous works of the genius Wilde). But not only the writer’s work was marked by Oscar, born in Dublin in 1854, but also a high-profile affair, nicknamed sodomy and sodomy. As director Brian Gilbert and screenwriter Julian Mitchell, who wrote a plot based on the book by Richard Ellmann, tell us in the biographical film, Oscar Wilde will suddenly feel a craving for men already in adulthood, while he was happily married and had a child and was expecting another. A creative person, a person of genius, always remains a mystery to the average person, because genius is often on the same line as madness. What was Oscar Wilde really like?
The great playwright was a man of many facets, of course, immensely talented, besides he also flaunted a brilliant education, had a beautiful and subtle sense of humor of a true Briton, and his speeches forced everyone around to silence and enjoy his words and pretentious, but such accurate phrases. And only the fact that he began to attract men (most often even young men) made many turn away from what they called their friend and genius. The drama of fate, the drama of desires, the drama of freedom is revealed in the film Wilde. Some people will see romanticized same-sex love in this film, but still don’t be so categorical, because they are trying to tell us the story of Wilde as a person, not as a creator. You will not see here what was the motivation for writing his most brilliant things, there will be a story of the life of an extraordinary man, shot in a magnificent English style with a brilliant cast. So don’t put on the mantle of a judge, rather watch a drama that is itself worthy of being described by someone as brilliant as Oscar Wilde.
The cast of this film is a separate conversation. Stephen Fry, Jude Law, Vanessa Redgrave, Jennifer Ealy, Michael Sheen, Tom Wilkinson, Yoan Graffadd, Orlando Bloom, James D'Arcy (all but the Ori - English) - from such an ensemble is breathtaking. And if someone decides to cheat, then with such colleagues, shame their intention and play every second in the frame with full diligence. Stephen Fry was born for this role. If you compare Wilde’s portrait, you will notice a similarity. Fry himself is an open homosexual, so the emotional and love anguish of his hero is clearly close to him. And Fry perfectly plays the role of the playwright, never had to think that this is not the real Wilde, so pronounced, sincere and natural was this image from Stephen Fry. His wife was played by Jennifer Ely. Although she has a secondary role (in general, women in films are somewhat secondary), but in her eyes both pain and love were read, she was ready to forgive her husband, but with him alive she remained a widow. No more and no less than that.
Jude Law played the role of a pompous impudent, hereditary Lord Alfred Douglas nicknamed “Bosy”, with whom Oscar Wilde had the indiscretion to fall in love. Jude Law’s facial features may be suggestive somewhere, and does Lowe himself not belong to the same as his hero (not to the lords I mean)? And in general, this is speculation, but Lowe's play in this picture causes a living thrill. He shamelessly uses Wilde's money, hurls accusations at him that he is a miser, but we see the obvious truth. Did Bosie Wilde love him as Wilde loved him? You will find the answer to this question yourself, if you do not disdain viewing this wonderfully staged biographical picture. Tom Wilkinson will play a Mr. Hyde who hates Wilde for his addiction to his own son. Would you reproach him? Watch the movie and decide. Michael Sheen will play the first person to seduce Wilde and his character will probably be the most loving person besides his wife in the life of the great playwright. Restrained and wise Vanessa Redgrave, in her own way, the future Mr. Fantastic Yoan Graffadd and who debuted in a big movie in a small episode of Orlando Bloom will also leave certain memories of themselves.
The film is not so much about a great man as about his forbidden love. It is perfectly staged and played by outstanding British actors, where each character will not escape their attention. If you are not homophobic, then you should familiarize yourself with the fate of one of the great men in the history of literature. And when you look, you decide whether to blame Oscar Wilde or forgive him for his genius.
9 out of 10
P.S. Six years after Wilde, actor Tom Wilkinson will star in the adaptation of the play Lady Windermere’s Fan, The Good Woman.
Attributes are carnations in the loop, pre-Raphaelites, education, refinement of manners, homosexuality, aphoristic speech, paradoxes.
Oscar Wilde needs no introduction, even if one has not read his Portrait of Dorian Gray or The Ballad of Reading Prison, or seen his plays, everyone knows his paradoxes. In 2007, he was voted the most witty man in the UK (according to a BBC poll of viewers), beating Churchill and Shakespeare in this position. Therefore, a film about such a witty and truly talented person should be treated with special responsibility. What did Brian Gilbert, when he realized that Stephen Fry is fantastically organic in the role of Oscar Wilde, and Jude Law in the role of his boy Bosi. Stephen Fry is visually and ideologically (let’s say, given Fry’s homosexuality) similar to Wilde, and no less educated (and maybe even more so), so the candidate is perfect. Perhaps that is why the picture turned out to be successful, holistic, after all, it is based on one image. Extremely talented poet, sentenced to two years of hard labor. The scene of the Wilde trial was central. At that time, Wilde was accused of indecent behavior, unnatural connection and so on, and all thanks to Alfred Douglas (Bosie), who encouraged Wilde to go to court to justify himself. Wilde, being by nature witty and adept at caustic phrases, retorted to the accuser. He hinted at the unnatural nature of the relationship in his writings and read a passage from a Wilde story, and then asked: “I believe you wrote this too?” Wilde deliberately waited for the death silence and in a quiet voice replied, "No, no, Mr. Carson." These lines belong to Shakespeare.” This episode becomes the key in the film, describing the tragic figure of Wilde.
- I am the love that dares not say its name. Is it a question of natural and unnatural love?
- No.
- What, then, is love that does not dare to say its name?
- A love that does not dare to pronounce its name is in this century the same majestic affection of the older man for the younger, as Jonathan felt for David, which Plato laid the foundation of his philosophy, which we find in the sonnets of Michelangelo and Shakespeare. It is the same deep spiritual passion, distinguished by purity and perfection. It is dictated, filled with great works like the sonnets of Shakespeare and Michelangelo, and my two letters that have been read to you. In this century, this love is misunderstood, so misunderstood, that it is indeed now forced to conceal its name. It was this love that brought me to where I am today. She is bright, she is beautiful, her nobility surpasses all other forms of human attachment. There's nothing unnatural about it. It is intellectual, and time after time it flares up between the older and younger men, of whom the older has a developed mind, and the younger is overflowing with the joy, anticipation and magic of the life ahead. It should be, but the world doesn’t understand it. The world mocks this attachment and sometimes puts a person in a pillar of shame for it.
Quote:
Not to everyone as long as he lives.
They'll read the rest.
Just to confirm the horror,
That He is still alive;
Not everyone passing through the yard,
His tomb will be broken.
Not everyone needs to see the sky,
Like a stone ring,
And in disobedient language.
Pray for the end,
Knowing Cayafa's kiss
On a chilling face.
The Ballad of Reading Prison. 1896.
There are only two tragedies in life: the first is not getting what you want, the second is getting it.
I couldn’t write a review of this film for a long time. I found out about him after reading Stephen Fry’s Hippopotamus, which marked his work as an actor in the film Wilde. The reviews were pretty good and enthusiastic... Can I join the opinion of people who think that who better than Stephen Fry could play this role? Of course, in a certain way I did not imagine Oscar Wilde himself. But I had the impression that only a person who had experienced carnal pleasures and same-sex love could have written a work like Portrait of Dorian Gray. What you can fully feel while watching this movie, feel the greatest creator of imperishable works. I admire the courage of people who can be themselves and the way they show themselves, their creativity and life to the snob society of England. To those who are really interested in the personality of the writer Oscar Wilde. His image and his life are well represented.
I’m not a fan of Oscar Wilde’s work, but before I wrote this review, I had to get acquainted with his great works.
To begin with, Wilde is played by Stephen Fry and I have to admit, Fry is the real Oscar Wilde, no one like Stephen can play him. In appearance, manners, Fry completely copied Oscar, without adding anything of his own, because Stephen has something similar and his own life. Oh my God, it would be impossible to find a better actor for this role.
Note Jude Law. He's so into the role of Douglas! Of course, Lowe’s acting talent seemed unexpected, but I never imagined that he could play such a character! And now I am absolutely sure that Drama is his favorite!
Of course, making such a film is not an easy job. The main problem: it is difficult to convey the image of the writer. It's unthinkable and impossible. But the people who worked on this film showed us the shades of soul, so when you watch this film, you will freeze at every moment and admire this directorial work! Of course, some moments in the film are embellished, but this does not prevent you from admiring!
“Wald” – this film is useful not only for fans of the work of Oscar Wilde, but also for those who want to expand their horizons! After watching this film, I warn you that you will shower all the people around you with Wilde’s aphorisms!
9 out of 10
Of course, the film is very interesting and beautiful. The acting is at the highest level and some moments are so exciting that you want to cry, and laugh at others, this is such an ambiguous biography turned out in Oscar. The very idea of making such a bold film about his life is worthy of respect. Everything that is lost in it makes us sit down and think about our lives. So many wise phrases and expressions, so much meaning, it would seem in one & #39; gray & #39; film. And only a fool can not fail to see the ' essence ' which is hidden inside all this.
Of course, there are concerns that everything was not quite as shown in the film, but not where and there is no mark that it is ' biographical'. I believe that if you are not familiar with the work and work of Oscar Wilde, as well as with his biography, well, at least not much, then you simply do not understand this film. You will find him boring and uninteresting if you have not read what he wrote. People who are familiar with this will find it ' the very same ' that will make them fluently compare moments from the film with moments of its real life. Something that will make them not only read, but also see the life of this great man.
There are many condemning moments in the film. Everyone has their own point of view. But my position is that this 'love' was really so sublime and renunciation that we can never understand it. And let there be something vulgar or obscene. But, ' this obscenity was as pure as it could be'. And a man who understands will never dare to condemn Oscar Wilde for his feelings, because he could always find an explanation for all his feelings.
He was loved by everyone, he could not help and #39; fall in love with people. His communication, charm, eloquence, could conquer any person that would favor him in his direction. Wilde’s heart belonged to only one Bosie, who, in fact, was a “capricious child” & #39; but in his own way, he also loved Oscar. He was attracted by the youth and beauty that Bosie had in abundance. You can lower the rating of the film for the inaccuracy of some moments and the lack of credibility of Wilde, because personally I will never believe that there was a moment when he did not have something to answer. And the end could be played to the end with this complete irony: Or me, or these vile flower wallpapers' Or the famous phrase: ' I will not survive the nineteenth century. The English will not tolerate my continued presence #39. It's a pity it wasn't included in the film, it's a pity. And in general, very interesting, believable and beautiful, I advise you to watch.
9 out of 10.
First, the film is hopelessly reminiscent of the one released two years earlier. Agnieszki Holland about Verlaine and young Rimbaud. Individual scenes can simply be combined into “find ten differences” pictures. Secondly, the plot is so watery and devoid of its own identity that it can be applied to any homosexual couple, regardless of their location and time of the event. And you will not notice the absence of Wilde or the atmosphere of England in the late 19th century.
What, and spectacular and scandalous personality Wilde allows you to make the same movie. The authors did not take advantage of this. Throughout the film runs a thread fairy tale about the Giant, undoubtedly one of the most parables in the work of O. W., but does not reflect the brilliant writer on all sides. And we get a one-sided and not at all true Wilde - a martyr, which is confirmed by one of his phrases in this film "I would not die in the Anglican Church, only in the Catholic."
About phrases is the biggest disappointment. From all the rich heritage of quotes and aphorisms, the creators choose some moralistic and sluggish, completely unfunny speeches. Even if they work for the image of a martyr, it is clearly unfortunate. Constantly during the movie, you look forward to the famous taunt, joke, witty answer - at least listed in Wikipedia! - but no, eat your elbows!
In general, the filmmakers did not use the material that gives Wilde’s personality in its versatility, aestheticism, sense of humor, attitude to life and people, and other features of perception. Even dying, the real Wilde created a beautiful cinematic shot: lying in a cheap hotel, he said: "Either me, or these nasty wallpaper in a flower." And the director, instead of enthusiastically filming it, shoves super-original white credits on a black background. Bowsey then ..."
The national treasure of Britain Stephen Fry in the title role is an undoubted plus the picture. But his repentant (from the very beginning) face seems to say: “Well, why did I agree to this shooting?”
I watched the film a long time ago and enjoyed watching it again. I am not a fan of Oscar Wilde’s work. Not because I don't like him, but because I read something else, and until my hands reach. Of course I read Dorian Gray’s portrait. Good book. And the Wilde movie is also good.
I came across several critical statements about the fact that the true character of the writer and poet is poorly conveyed in cinema, as well as very little is paid to his work. I'll probably agree. The authors exploit the scandalous details of Oscar’s sex life, and put the scandalous Stephen Fry on his role. It turns out, in my opinion, a great biopic, about the tragic life of a man who soared to the sky, and then was overthrown and crushed because of desires that are stronger than reason. Maybe because of love. It's not up to us. Stephen Fry looks sluggish, but he can't take away his charisma. The external similarities are undeniable. Cinema is about a person, not a symbol. This cannot be forgiven by Wilde fans of the film. And behind the brilliant play of a very interesting man Stephen Fry, you can not see Oscar Wald. That's actually a minus, in my opinion. Stephen Fry put himself in the image of Wilde, not on the back. It was interesting, but not as good as it should be.
But let me repeat once again that the film is very good and surprisingly unique in its historical and artistic atmosphere, since there are no more feature films about the writer’s work. If you haven’t seen it, you have to see it.
Director Brian Gilbert, who has directed not so many films during his career, among which there are quite good ones, since 2005, seems to be doing nothing else. Sorry.
In addition to Stephen Fry, who became famous thanks to this film, a number of wonderful actors occupying top positions in world cinema were shot in the cinema. The role of the fatal lover of Alfred Douglas, who served as a curse and award to the hero of the film is wonderfully performed by the now very popular Jude Law.
A few of Wilde's aphorisms at the discount
A thought that is not dangerous is not worthy of being called a thought.
Public opinion triumphs where thought sleeps.
I have an unassuming taste: the best is enough for me.
People always destroy what they love most.
The female soul is in beauty, just as the male soul is in power. If both could unite in one person, we would have the ideal of art that people have dreamed of since it existed.
Friendship between man and woman is impossible. Passion, enmity, adoration, love - only not friendship.
8 out of 10
Fry's best role This is a fairly accurate adaptation of the last few years of Oscar Wilde's life and his love for Lord Douglas, nicknamed Bowsey. Actually, it was love for this young man that led the writer to hard labor, and then to Paris, where he died either from inflammation of the ear, or from syphilis, or the first was the result of the second. It's not that important. There are roles created for a certain actor. Wilde is exactly that kind of role for Stephen Fry. After attempting suicide and admitting his terrible diagnosis (manic-depressive syndrome), the actor should leave comedy in general and the image of the wise butler Jeeves in particular. And this is where the offer to play the great British gay writer arose. In general, homosexuality, as well as epicureanism, are equally characteristic of both Oscar and Stephen. Moreover, sometimes there is a bad suspicion that Fry builds his public image, based on the experience of his predecessor. All right, enough about my beloved Fry, I gotta give the other actors credit. Lowe is handsome and may well be a fatal handsome, I understand that because of this role, Jude Law became a gay icon. But for my taste, he plays very, very medium. Redgrave is expectedly good... However, the film will still go down in history as the beginning of another creative period Fry. 9 out of 10 Original
Fry's best role This is a fairly accurate adaptation of the last few years of Oscar Wilde's life and his love for Lord Douglas, nicknamed Bowsey. Actually, it was love for this young man that led the writer to hard labor, and then to Paris, where he died either from inflammation of the ear, or from syphilis, or the first was the result of the second. It's not that important. There are roles created for a certain actor. Wilde is exactly that kind of role for Stephen Fry. After attempting suicide and admitting his terrible diagnosis (manic-depressive syndrome), the actor should leave comedy in general and the image of the wise butler Jeeves in particular. And this is where the offer to play the great British gay writer arose. In general, homosexuality, as well as epicureanism, are equally characteristic of both Oscar and Stephen. Moreover, sometimes there is a bad suspicion that Fry builds his public image, based on the experience of his predecessor. All right, enough about my beloved Fry, I gotta give the other actors credit. Lowe is handsome and may well be a fatal handsome, I understand that because of this role, Jude Law became a gay icon. But for my taste, he plays very, very medium. Redgrave is expectedly good... However, the film will still go down in history as the beginning of another creative period Fry. 9 out of 10 Original