Enjoyable interview. I totally agree with the interviewer's assessment of the film. Screened the film for the first time last night in fact. Worth watching if you like Wilde and are interested in the 19th century and its mores. I am fascinated by the 19th century in general. and I quite like Wilde, so the film was right up my street. Throughout the film, I could not help but think why was it so necessary to crucify homosexuals as though they had some some sort of contagious disease akin to the Black Death and were trying to spread it throughout the land? I am not so much a 21st century person, but I am glad that in this century we have evolved beyond that sort of prejudice, for the most part at least.
""Mr. Fry played me better than I could have played me myself. Most seamlessly and splendidly, watching Mr. Fry I felt resurrected, and born anew. Wow, I didn't realize how witty I was, and how enduring my work has proven to have been. Quite amazing! For Stephen Fry became me, better than I could have been myself. And I'm always great as myself, even when I'm not so great as myself! Great job Mr. Fry, as you made me look better than I could have myself, and I look pretty damn good for a man who is inching towards 164 years young. Thank you Stephen Fry, for playing me so magnificently, and for being me better than me, which is quite the achievement. For there was only one Oscar Wilde, until the next Oscar Wilde, though only half as fun, witty and eloquent as the original one. And that would be me, the one and only! Ahhh, the importance of being Oscar!!"" 😊😊😊
I briefly, in 1985, worked in Reading. Every night I used to travel back from the office to my hotel passing H.M. Prison Reading. There wasn't a time when I didn't think of and say a silent prayer for that poor man. Destroyed and his brilliance was snuffed out by a bigoted moralistic society.
Fry was miscast; he looks a bit like Wilde but his performance is too mild mannered and timid; he’s not a trained actor like Daniel day Lewis who should have played the role with the nuance it deserved. Fry is playing himself, his own persona: he’s not even trying to interpret the role in the way an actor should. Wilde, for all of his brilliance as a satirical writer, had a repulsive, self indulgent side and Fry's mild, appealing personality tries to distort this as something benevolent instead of destructive. It's a sham. Jude Law does an exceptional job as Bosie but he shouldn’t have had to carry the film on his own talent... he deserved a formidable costar... and that’s why the film is not regarded as a classic, because it didn't really hold Oscar up to be analysed as a flawed, provocative, self-destructive figure, just to idealise him (a vanity project on Fry's part, who wants to be identified with Wilde and has succeeded, if the OP comment is anything to go by). All the 'love that dare not speak its name' bollocks was in fact an excuse for Wilde and Bosie to go out and take advantage of vulnerable, underage, working class rent boys (which Wilde called 'feasting with panthers') and, once Wilde was sent down, his wife and children were the ones who lost everything. My final point is that Oscar Wilde's dramatic life was certainly worthy of a film biopic but not the kind of film that doesn't tell the truth.
@@DeepScreenAnalysis You are clearly projecting your 'repulsive, self-indulgent side.' Perhaps you had a husband or two who left you for a man with breeding.
Stephen Fry, no matter what you think of him, will always be one of the most captivating storytellers
O my….. how beautiful Jude Law was.... Gorgeous…..
Is!
And Michael sheen
Lovely interview. And what a catty little aside from Norman in the studio at the end!
Enjoyable interview. I totally agree with the interviewer's assessment of the film. Screened the film for the first time last night in fact. Worth watching if you like Wilde and are interested in the 19th century and its mores. I am fascinated by the 19th century in general. and I quite like Wilde, so the film was right up my street. Throughout the film, I could not help but think why was it so necessary to crucify homosexuals as though they had some some sort of contagious disease akin to the Black Death and were trying to spread it throughout the land? I am not so much a 21st century person, but I am glad that in this century we have evolved beyond that sort of prejudice, for the most part at least.
Indeed.
Wonderful, sensitive performance by Fry of the flawed genius, Wilde
Many thanks for putting this up. So interesting to see Stephen Fry's 1997 incarnation.
""Mr. Fry played me better than I could have played me myself. Most seamlessly and splendidly, watching Mr. Fry I felt resurrected, and born anew. Wow, I didn't realize how witty I was, and how enduring my work has proven to have been. Quite amazing! For Stephen Fry became me, better than I could have been myself. And I'm always great as myself, even when I'm not so great as myself! Great job Mr. Fry, as you made me look better than I could have myself, and I look pretty damn good for a man who is inching towards 164 years young. Thank you Stephen Fry, for playing me so magnificently, and for being me better than me, which is quite the achievement. For there was only one Oscar Wilde, until the next Oscar Wilde, though only half as fun, witty and eloquent as the original one. And that would be me, the one and only! Ahhh, the importance of being Oscar!!"" 😊😊😊
hahha lovely
I briefly, in 1985, worked in Reading. Every night I used to travel back from the office to my hotel passing H.M. Prison Reading. There wasn't a time when I didn't think of and say a silent prayer for that poor man. Destroyed and his brilliance was snuffed out by a bigoted moralistic society.
f l e e n
Fry was miscast; he looks a bit like Wilde but his performance is too mild mannered and timid; he’s not a trained actor like Daniel day Lewis who should have played the role with the nuance it deserved. Fry is playing himself, his own persona: he’s not even trying to interpret the role in the way an actor should. Wilde, for all of his brilliance as a satirical writer, had a repulsive, self indulgent side and Fry's mild, appealing personality tries to distort this as something benevolent instead of destructive. It's a sham. Jude Law does an exceptional job as Bosie but he shouldn’t have had to carry the film on his own talent... he deserved a formidable costar... and that’s why the film is not regarded as a classic, because it didn't really hold Oscar up to be analysed as a flawed, provocative, self-destructive figure, just to idealise him (a vanity project on Fry's part, who wants to be identified with Wilde and has succeeded, if the OP comment is anything to go by). All the 'love that dare not speak its name' bollocks was in fact an excuse for Wilde and Bosie to go out and take advantage of vulnerable, underage, working class rent boys (which Wilde called 'feasting with panthers') and, once Wilde was sent down, his wife and children were the ones who lost everything. My final point is that Oscar Wilde's dramatic life was certainly worthy of a film biopic but not the kind of film that doesn't tell the truth.
It's a distortion of the real man. Read any in depth biography, he is NOTHING like Fry's portrayal.
Paragraphs.
@@DeepScreenAnalysis You are clearly projecting your 'repulsive, self-indulgent side.' Perhaps you had a husband or two who left you for a man with breeding.
Rupert Everret was better than Fry playing Wilde
Nice. You have an opinion