I saw this film a day after I first saw Ken Hughes' "The Trials of Oscar Wilde" (1960). Seeing them both in rapid succession is an often-confusing experience that makes one want to run straight to the nearest Wilde biography to find out exactly what is the true story.
That is, they present pretty much the same sequence of events, though with greatly differing perspectives. The most obvious being that of Wilde's sexuality. Now, whether it is because of Fry being cast in the lead role for the 97 movie (who was famously quoted as being "90% homosexual") or that the earlier film wouldn't have got past the censors, the two takes on the character are wildly different. While it can be interpreted that Peter Finch's Oscar and John Fraser are lovers, it is generally presented that they are not, and that Wilde was the innocent victim of a blackmail attempt that cost him his reputation. Certainly, the half-dozen or so "witnesses" in his trial are identified as criminals, not as "renters", and there is no nudity or profanity in what would then have already been a controversial film.
While the former may have presented a more sympathetic edge, being authorised by Wilde's son, the latter presents an Oscar and Lord Alfred "Bosie" Douglas that are not only homosexuals, but also, Bosie especially, promiscuous ones. This also casts a different light on the trial sequences, where what was an innocent man wrongly convicted, becomes a man who, while not deserving of conviction, lacks the courage to admit his true nature. This also seems rather harsh on Constance, a woman whom he marries as "I have to marry someone". Jennifer Ehle is used for appearance' sake in this film, though in the 1960 picture Constance as played by Yvonne Mitchell is someone he once loved, yet merely bores him. On the other hand, Jude Law is convincing as the sort of man Wilde could have a sexual relationship with, while John Fraser strikes more of a masculine, "buddy" role in the previous film. What I missed in the second movie was the drama, such as when Wilde begs "Bosie" in tears not to kill him while in Brighton. With "Wilde" we don't really get to know the characters to the same degree, and all but Fry and Law are peripheral in its construction.
Fry, meanwhile, almost matches Finch's portrayal with a softer, more vulnerable Wilde that seems less at ease in front of an audience. I was amazed when I found out that Wilde is only five minutes shorter than "Trials" - it seems far less, it's construction not as rigid. Maybe this is because it tries to tell so much more: the story begins before his soulless marriage to Constance, and continues after the point at which Trials concludes. Neither, however, features Wilde's death, though the Fry vehicle does have a postscript to account for this. Less coherent, Wilde lacks the pace or form of its predecessor. Where the Hughes film had a clear plot, Oscar caught between a father-son feud, this only forms after several minutes in the later film, and with less attention to Wilde's degeneration in the public eye. The major flaw with the second movie, is, of course, what the playwright was most renowned for: his wit. Where Peter Finch gets to try his hand at the best of Oscar's quips - at least until his eventual downfall - Stephen Fry gets but a handful of one-liners to try out. Rather like casting a man in the role of Jesus and not letting him utter a psalm or perform a miracle.
The pace of each individual scene is longer, with classical music adding an easier pace, meaning large jumps in time must account for it's leisurely style. Two ways in which the second film does score over it's older relation is in Wilde's incarceration and the settings. In truth, the settings are very much a matter of personal taste, and "Trials" must be commended for having no outside filming, and conducting it's many horse-drawn carriages in the studio. Wilde, meanwhile, takes full advantage of rich countryside and stately homes to present its vision. And whereas for the former we got scant scenes in what was just another set dressed as a jail, here we get to see the "hard labour" only referenced in the former, and witness the dirt and desperation whilst in prison.
If I had to choose between the two films then I would suggest the Peter Finch version to be superior in pacing, construction and interest. Though in truth they are both very different films, with very different agendas. Wilde is a good film, though it's wistful, often indifferent pacing and lack of drama make it slightly the weaker, but an interesting film experience nonetheless.
That is, they present pretty much the same sequence of events, though with greatly differing perspectives. The most obvious being that of Wilde's sexuality. Now, whether it is because of Fry being cast in the lead role for the 97 movie (who was famously quoted as being "90% homosexual") or that the earlier film wouldn't have got past the censors, the two takes on the character are wildly different. While it can be interpreted that Peter Finch's Oscar and John Fraser are lovers, it is generally presented that they are not, and that Wilde was the innocent victim of a blackmail attempt that cost him his reputation. Certainly, the half-dozen or so "witnesses" in his trial are identified as criminals, not as "renters", and there is no nudity or profanity in what would then have already been a controversial film.
While the former may have presented a more sympathetic edge, being authorised by Wilde's son, the latter presents an Oscar and Lord Alfred "Bosie" Douglas that are not only homosexuals, but also, Bosie especially, promiscuous ones. This also casts a different light on the trial sequences, where what was an innocent man wrongly convicted, becomes a man who, while not deserving of conviction, lacks the courage to admit his true nature. This also seems rather harsh on Constance, a woman whom he marries as "I have to marry someone". Jennifer Ehle is used for appearance' sake in this film, though in the 1960 picture Constance as played by Yvonne Mitchell is someone he once loved, yet merely bores him. On the other hand, Jude Law is convincing as the sort of man Wilde could have a sexual relationship with, while John Fraser strikes more of a masculine, "buddy" role in the previous film. What I missed in the second movie was the drama, such as when Wilde begs "Bosie" in tears not to kill him while in Brighton. With "Wilde" we don't really get to know the characters to the same degree, and all but Fry and Law are peripheral in its construction.
Fry, meanwhile, almost matches Finch's portrayal with a softer, more vulnerable Wilde that seems less at ease in front of an audience. I was amazed when I found out that Wilde is only five minutes shorter than "Trials" - it seems far less, it's construction not as rigid. Maybe this is because it tries to tell so much more: the story begins before his soulless marriage to Constance, and continues after the point at which Trials concludes. Neither, however, features Wilde's death, though the Fry vehicle does have a postscript to account for this. Less coherent, Wilde lacks the pace or form of its predecessor. Where the Hughes film had a clear plot, Oscar caught between a father-son feud, this only forms after several minutes in the later film, and with less attention to Wilde's degeneration in the public eye. The major flaw with the second movie, is, of course, what the playwright was most renowned for: his wit. Where Peter Finch gets to try his hand at the best of Oscar's quips - at least until his eventual downfall - Stephen Fry gets but a handful of one-liners to try out. Rather like casting a man in the role of Jesus and not letting him utter a psalm or perform a miracle.
The pace of each individual scene is longer, with classical music adding an easier pace, meaning large jumps in time must account for it's leisurely style. Two ways in which the second film does score over it's older relation is in Wilde's incarceration and the settings. In truth, the settings are very much a matter of personal taste, and "Trials" must be commended for having no outside filming, and conducting it's many horse-drawn carriages in the studio. Wilde, meanwhile, takes full advantage of rich countryside and stately homes to present its vision. And whereas for the former we got scant scenes in what was just another set dressed as a jail, here we get to see the "hard labour" only referenced in the former, and witness the dirt and desperation whilst in prison.
If I had to choose between the two films then I would suggest the Peter Finch version to be superior in pacing, construction and interest. Though in truth they are both very different films, with very different agendas. Wilde is a good film, though it's wistful, often indifferent pacing and lack of drama make it slightly the weaker, but an interesting film experience nonetheless.