|
Recently released on video, Steven Frye as
Oscar Wilde was considered a contender for an Oscar nomination.
He was undeserving, and the film itself is a tiresome drawing
room drama.
At film's start, Wilde is mildly celebrated in
London society (and newly married) when he realizes (or confirms)
that he is gay. Soon thereafter, he meets the serpentine and
rakish Jude Law ("Bozey") and becomes an impotent slave
to this nubile son of aristocracy. When Bozey is in town, he
likes to flaunt Wilde and hold his hand in public. He also
introduces him to indiscriminate sex with newly-met boys. Bozey
also has temper tantrums and moans on and on about his own cruel
father. Wilde is very sympathetic and does a fair amount of hand
holding and "there there" ing. This is their life.
When Bozey is gone, Wilde flourishes
artistically. And his closer friends cluck that Wilde should drop
that awful Bozey. Wilde agrees, Bozey returns Wilde relents, they
meet passionately, Bozey has another temper tantrum, and the
cycle repeats itself. This is the film.
The problems are legion. First, Frye, whose
face is the size of Eric Stoltz' in 'Mask", is bland, almost
lifeless in the role of Wilde. It is unclear why Wilde is
celebrated. His wit is so scarce that one of his bon mots
actually gets repeated. When Law - in one interminable hissy or
another - labels Wilde "booooring", as much as you hate
the little bastard, you know he is correct. Wilde is a crashing
dolt. He is also stupid (granted, a love-struck stupid, but see
below).
"Wilde" also struck me as
surreptitiously conservative. Wilde appears a happy family man,
he dotes on his children, he has a meaningful connection to his
wife, and then he is drawn - yes, drawn - into the gay world by a
hairless fawner. Soon, he moves on to another young man, and
eventually, he meets Bozie, who broadens his sexual horizons. But
like all the drug takers and America-haters in "Forrest
Gump", bad things soon happen to Wilde. He becomes a lazy
voyeur while Law lays with boys in better shape. He is portrayed
as no more than a dead fish in the sack. He endures countless
humiliations at the hands of Bozey. His age and physical
unattractiveness are thrown in his face (given its size, not a
hard thing to do). His homosexuality (or at least, its practice)
stymies his creativity. At one point, the man who first seduced
him reproaches himself ("If only I hadn't . . . ") and
later admonishes Wilde's entry into promiscuity with a Falwellian
entreaty, "these could be you sons." You wonder if the
film was written by a closet Christian, or, at the very least, an
embittered, older homosexual who no longer can turn the
occasional head.
Herein lies the real crime of the film. To
carry us through this unpleasant journey with such a fool as
Wilde, he need be interesting. He is not. Alternatively, the
demons that plague him (in this case, his conflicted sexual
orientation) need be explored. They are not. Wilde could very
well have taken up with blondes instead of men, and it would have
carried as much import.
Which leaves us the femme fatale - Law. If we
have to watch a character self-destruct for love, that love must
be mighty, or memorable or sensual to the standard of
"Salome."
I cannot speak to the latter, but I'll presume
Law radiates a certain sexuality. After all, this is his second
stint as the young paramour to an older closeted gay (he played
boy toy to Kevin Spacey in last year's "Midnite in the
garden of Good and Evil"). Indeed, I'll accept for purposes
of this review that he was Kathleen Turner in "Body
Heat." He was still required to utter lines, and in this
case, those lines made him unalterably simpering and
insufferable.
As portrayed, Wilde was ruined by a moody 8th
grader with a great bum.
Comments on Review:
18185 . Judithathome - Feb. 15, 1999 - 6:38
AM PT
I disagree...if Wilde was ruined, which I think
not, it was by a script too timid to show Oscar Wilde as he
presumably really was, a witty, debonaire bon viviant with a
penchant for young men. In reading about Wilde, it is clear he
was never anything but gay and I think the movie attempted to
show that by the scenes where his lady friend introduced him to
his future wife, saying something to the effect, "You will
be needing a wife" etc.
I think it unfair to attack Stephan Fryes looks
because he so much resembled the real person; pictures of Wilde
reveal not an Adonis but a rather plain, almost comic persona,
with large features and a soulful look. I thought Stephan Frye
did an admirable job portraying Wilde and I enjoyed his
performance much more than I would've enjoyed seeing some
flamboyant queen prancing across the screen and chasing after
buffed-up pretty boys.
I also think Jude Law did a great job...he was
a cruel, controlling narcissist hell-bent on hurting his father
and he didn't care if Wilde was sacrificed in the process. I
think his hard little face with the glittery, moist eyes
expressed volumes; plus, his petulant mouth made up for a lot of
what *didn't* come out of it.
The movie might have been better but I, for
one, enjoyed it, flaws and all.
18186. 109109 - Feb. 15, 1999 - 6:44 AM PT
Juditha
Trust me. While we disagree on Frye's
performance, I was not asking for Harvey Fierstein as
"Wilde."
I liken the relationship of Frye and Law to
that of Sharon Stone and Robert DeNiro in "Casino." You
spend a great deal of time with both couples, and in the end,
they have the same fights, show the same weaknesses and make the
same dreadful mistakes. And the involved personalities do not
justify such tedium.
That said, "Casino" had the
characters doing other things. "Wilde" was basically
about Frye pining for law and vice versa.
18187. Judithathome - Feb. 15, 1999 - 7:06
AM PT
Niner:
Oh, I agree completely...the movie had serious
flaws. Too bad we couldn't have had more *clips* of Wildes plays
or poetry readings. But I couldn't sit through Casino and I
managed it to the end with Wilde so something in it stirred me
enough to do so.
Maybe I'm just a sucker for Wilde because I've
been to his grave in Paris and it's so touching to see the notes
and little mementos left by *fans*. I guess I was just hoping for
a film worthy of Wildes memory.
18188. 109109 - Feb. 15, 1999 - 7:20 AM PT
Juditha
My point. I know little of him, and while I
wasn't exactly expecting a documentary, he seem so belittled by a
cruel and petty script which made him alternatively pathetic and
foolish.
18189. Judithathome - Feb. 15, 1999 - 7:34
AM PT
Niner:
At the risk of sounding like someone who
listens to too much radio, dittos.....
Back to Pere laChaise and Wildes grave: the
thing I found so very moving was that some of the notes were left
open, maybe originally, maybe opened by the curious...but I did
read some of the opened ones and they were *thank you* notes to
Wilde written by men who had come out and were living lives
openly that Wilde had been persecuted for. There was also a
beautiful poem on his gravestone which I copied down and used to
carry it in my wallet but have since lost...
Ah...Wilde(rness!)
18190. cllrdr - Feb. 15, 1999 - 8:07 AM PT
Well, Niner, Oscar *is* alternately pathetic
and foolish. That's the story -- take it or leave it. I don't
think you can get even a partial picture of Wilde from a film
like this. But Stephen Frye'sbig head is a match for Oscars.
As for Jude Law, he excells in his portrayal of
the ultimate Pushy Manipulative Bottom.
18191. 109109 - Feb. 15, 1999 - 8:26 AM PT
cllrdr
If he is, than so be it. I'd have rather seen a
film on Versace or Jim Nabors or some other non-story.
18192. cllrdr - Feb. 15, 1999 - 11:28 AM
PT
"Wilde appears a happy family man, he
dotes on his children, he has a meaningful connection to his
wife, and then he is drawn - yes, drawn - into the gay world by a
hairless fawner."
The operative word here is "appears."
And his first fawner sported a mustache, as I recall.
"Soon, he moves on to another young man,
and eventually, he meets Bozie, who broadens his sexual
horizons."
A very familiar story -- as I'm sure Michael
Huffington would be glad to tell you.
Well maybe not "glad". . .
"Conservative"? No. In this day and
age it's not really possible to pitch Oscar's story as being
"about" homosexuality. It's about the perils of
celebrity. Moreover, if you know anything about him, this film is
about Stephen Frye.
A "cautionary tale"? Don't consrt
with blondes that are better looking than you are? Voyeurism
isn't a solid basis for a "meamingful relationship" of
the sort Tinky Wink outlines in his latest impassioned neo-con
cri-de-coeur "Love Undigestible"?
I don't think so.
18193. 109109 - Feb. 15, 1999 - 2:07 PM PT
cllrdr
Oh, there is no doubt he wants to frolic with
his own sex. But as constructed, whether you like it or not, the
script regularly - and quite gratuitously - humiliates Wilde.
That is why it struck me as a PTL production.
As for Frye, last I saw him, in was in an awful
Kenneth Branagh monstrosity - "Peter's Friends" -
theatrically informing a Big Chill knock-off group that he had
AIDS in a cheesy finale.
And voyeurism can do the trick, but Wilde
seemed so distracted while Law humped away.
And the mustache came later. At first grope, he
was hairless.
I am glad, however, that you told me this film
is about Steven Frye. Given the fact that it sucked, I'm sure
Oscar Wilde is glad as well.
18194. Judithathome - Feb. 15, 1999 - 2:39
PM PT
Niner:
I see you and Cellar have brought Wilde to an
end but I found that quote. It's from The Ballad of Reading Gaol:
And alien tears will fill for him
Pity's long broken urn
For his mourners will be outcast men,
And outcasts always mourn.
(Note: I typed this out as a poem but whether
it will post that way, I don't know.)
|
