Wilde (1997) – 3/5

I watched it for Fry and I was not disappointed

„Wilde“ is a co-production between the United Kingdom, Japan and my country Germany as well, even if I must say after watching it that only the UK really feels present. Language is pretty much exclusively (British) English of course too. The film is from 1997, so it has its 25th anniversary this year. This was not the reason why I got to watch it inside a movie theater yesterday though. It was shown as part of a film series with focus on gay characters. Today, there are many, many more gay-themed films, especially short films, than back in the old millennium, but it can certainly be said that it was often more about quality instead of quantity back then and today it is very much about quantity. Many filmmakers have nothing remotely interesting, creative or inspiring to say and simply rely on their utterly forgettable work being seen because of the LBGT aspect to it. Luckily, this is not the case here. I enjoyed the watch for the most part, even if the film never really blew me away. The director was Brian Gilbert and it seems he is retired now or not too active at least. He also acted here and there. The film is based on a book by the late Richard Ellmann and the screenplay came from Julian Mitchell, still alive in 2022 getting closer to 90 and he was already an Emmy nominee in the 1970s.

But the person most people will associate with this film, apart from Wilde himself of course, is Stephen Fry who plays the main character. I quite like the man, I think he can be really funny and watching the BAFTAs when he hosted was always some kind of delight compared to the weak editions after he quit. That is where I know him from and also QI. Funny show at times. Oh and an animal documentary miniseries I must not forget. That was brilliant. However, as an actor, I was not familiar with him at all, so I decided to change that with his most famous performance we have here. Or at least most famous lead performance. He was nominated for a Golden Globe for his portrayal in this biopic that spans over many years and maybe also not super far away from the Oscar nomination. Interestingly enough, the BAFTAs did not nominate him, but they are often a bit different for the sake of it anyway. Here too. Instead, they gave two nominations to supporting actresses. Jennifer Ehle I can understand. She played her role well and the character had a lot to offer. Zoë Wanamaker’s nomination is a mystery to me though. I found her character quite forgettable and I must say that the female characters, except the one played by Ehle, were fairly forgettable overall. This also includes Vanessa Redgrave, certainly the biggest female name attached to this project and she played Wilde’s mother, but had almost no story impact. You will also find famous male actors here like the really young Jude Law and the minimally older Michael Sheen. Those played bigger characters. Also if you are very attentive early on, you will even see Orlando Bloom. His character just stands there, has no dialogue, but still leaves a brief impact. I thought that maybe at some point this character would return, but he doesn’t. Now I read this was Bloom’s very first role in a film ever, so it makes sense then. Did not take too long until he started taking over a certain pirate-themed franchise afterwards. Oh and I must also mention Tom Wilkinson. Shame on me for not recognizing the actor or at least not remembering the name during the watch. Cast-wise, there is a scene that has Fry, Sheen and Law together, all three of them and nobody else. That was definitely interesting. Fry was under the age of 40 when this was made and Law under 25.

By the way, the movie runs for almost two hours, so not a short film, but also not extremely long. I think the duration felt pretty accurate. I guess now I will just do some brainstorming about the characters and specific scenes and moments that stayed in the mind for me. Of course, there is the recurring reference to a lonesome grumpy giant in here. You can make the connection yourself and what it stands for I assume. One very brief reference/inclusion I found a bit funny was when Wilkinson’s character had this falling-out with his son and he was talking to the horses (or the ones guiding them) and he said something about a straight direction there or even „not straight“. I don’t remember exactly, but it was kinda funny in another context of course. I am really not sure if it was intentional in the script. You can definitely also say that Law’s character is the closest to being an antagonist. Unless you consider the times of the late 19th century and how they dealt with homosexuality back then a primary antagonist. That would make sense too for sure. As for Law, he is also a somewhat sympathetic character with what we know about his brother, father etc. Still there is evil to him too and he plays a very shallow man: I mean he treats Wilde highly disrespectfully at times, just look at the glass of water scene and also we find out he is not a talented poet or writer himself at all. All he has going for him are his looks, his heritage and his youth pretty much. That is enough though for Wilde to hopelessly fall in love with him. The men come and go quickly early on with Wilde. There is Sheen’s character, then another young man (played by Gruffudd I think) and that fella also gets replaced quickly then by Law’s character and that is it. At the same time, Wilde is still married to a female, the mother of his two children. This was also an interesting reference with the tale I mentioned earlier how on one occasion Wilde says he will return to continue telling the story to his kids, but a little later we see the boys‘ mother continue the story and from Wilde himself we only hear voice-overs telling the tale here and there.

The most interesting reference to Law’s character was maybe how he refers to himself on two occasions as Wilde’s boy it was I think, early on when they were enjoying life at a restaurant, but then later on when Wilde is arrested and pretty much put into jail. This is also what we can at least partially blame Law’s character for. Going up against The Marquess of Queensberry was not their greatest idea at all. Sheen’s character saw it all coming that they would never win. Times weren’t ready. Sheen’s character was really likable, the exact opposite of Law’s character, but he was not the one Wilde wanted. Still, as we find out after the closing credits, the ashes of Sheen’s character even ended up next to Wilde’s for eternity. I guess that showed us his infinite loyalty. At the other end of the scale, we have Law’s character. Look how he talks to the mother of Wilde’s children on one occasion, basically tries to make it more difficult for him to spend time with his sons. He can only delay it though. Not stop it. His initial „family“ still somehow means the world to Wilde and that never changes. Almost near the end you can see more evidence. He has to decide between the children and Law’s character and he picks his kids. They still love and appreciate him. However, at the very end, when the mother of the children has died, we realize that Wilde, even if he at some point said he hated Law’s character, never forgot about his lover and Law’s character was maybe for Wilde the love of his life. It’s not what we want and it probably also is not a happy ending, at least not a clean and perfect happy ending, but it is what Wilde wanted, so we can be a bit happy for him too. Interesting last line too. Voice-over again.

As for Wilde’s talents and how he can easily win people over we see that on a few occasions, namely when he engages in conversation with Wilkinson’s character (another contender for main antagonist) and also when we see him on stage giving short speeches to the audience that were oh so delighted to watch Wilde’s plays live on stage. I think Fry was the right guy for the job and I am glad he got solid awards recognition for his performance here. Would be nice to see him act a little more again at some point. We will see. I also think he resembles/resembled Wilde quite nicely, so the choice makes definitely sense. Plus I like the poster here on imdb with the bright colorful outfit that shows us how different he was from society back then (I intentionally avoided „other men“ for this comparison). Finally, it can be said in terms of the focus on homosexuality that the most meaningful message came from Fry when he makes this speech pretty late in the film already when he is at court. Strong moment there from the actor. He nailed the part. I also love the small moments like when he hears from his female partner (constant Constance is a very fitting nickname, but not really as positive as it may sound, at least not for a romantic relationship) that his sons want to see him again, that was a very fine acting moment there. Fry carries the film nicely, but the acting is strong all around. A key reason why I surely give the overall outcome a thumbs-up in the end and it was never in doubt. On one occasion, a character looked very briefly like Michael Caine it was I think, but it wasn’t him. Go watch if you get the chance, especially if you like Fry as much as I do. It will not fry errr. Fly by, but always be a rewarding watch. Definitely a positive recommendation from my side.