Recently I watched both this film and the 1997 biopic "Wilde." I was somewhat surprised to find that the earlier movie is both more accurate and, in my opinion, more dramatically effective.
The advantages of the newer version are obvious. It enjoyed a more ample budget, featured a star who resembled Wilde and was the right age, and was not hampered by censorship concerns. The older film was shot on a shoestring budget, with unimpressive sets and minimal evocation of the period. Robert Morley, who made a big splash in a 1936 theater production playing Wilde, was at least a decade too old for the part in 1960. And the movie had to tiptoe around the exact nature of Oscar's "unnatural" relations, although I doubt that the audience was in much doubt.
So you'd think the '97 version would carry the day. Unfortunately, that film tries a little too hard to whitewash its hero, in the process missing out on some of the most interesting facets of the actual case.
Example: In the libel trial, Wilde was parrying expertly with the defense attorney, Mr. Carson, until he made a fatal error, quipping that he certainly did not kiss a particular boy because he found the young man terribly unattractive. Carson jumped all over this, reducing Wilde to squirming evasions. In the 1960 film this exchange between Morley and Ralph Richardson is a dramatic highlight. The '97 film, not wanting to show Oscar wrong-footing himself, omits it.
Another example: After losing his libel suit, Wilde faced imminent arrest on charges of indecency. The authorities had no wish to prosecute if it could be avoided, so they gave Wilde plenty of time to flee to France. Regrettably, he was too paralyzed by indecision to do so. In the 1960 version, Wilde, upon leaving the courthouse, is told pointedly that he is currently free to go "wherever he wants to go," the emphasis making it clear that he's being advised to escape. It's a nice touch, and it's absent from the newer film, which wants us to see the authorities as mercilessly persecuting Wilde.
One more example: Wilde's real crime was consorting with underage boys, some as young as fourteen. (It's not just a Victorian thing. Even today, a person can be prosecuted for corrupting a minor.) The 1960 film waters this down a bit, establishing that most of Wilde's companions were about twenty years old, but it does include at least one who is described in court as being only sixteen. The 1997 film depicts all the young men as in their early to mid twenties and, as far as I recall, makes no suggestion that any of them were under the age of consent - even though this is what Wilde was actually convicted of.
There are other omissions and distortions in the newer film. The real Wilde was blackmailed over letters carelessly left lying around by his lover. (In fact, he was blackmailed by three different young men, and paid up all three times.) One successful blackmail attempt comes out at the trial in the 1960 film, and is a key part of Wilde's undoing. The '97 version also depicts this blackmail attempt, but in this sanitized version Oscar nobly refuses to pay, shaming his blackmailer into giving up the letter voluntarily.
In short, if you want color, nice sets, a younger Wilde, and a more politically correct treatment (along with some moderately explicit sex scenes), choose "Wilde" (1997). If you want a more historically accurate account, which presents Oscar in a less idealized way and doesn't push any particular agenda, go for "Oscar Wilde" (1960). Better yet, watch both. Each film is worth seeing, and the contrast between them is interesting in itself.
The advantages of the newer version are obvious. It enjoyed a more ample budget, featured a star who resembled Wilde and was the right age, and was not hampered by censorship concerns. The older film was shot on a shoestring budget, with unimpressive sets and minimal evocation of the period. Robert Morley, who made a big splash in a 1936 theater production playing Wilde, was at least a decade too old for the part in 1960. And the movie had to tiptoe around the exact nature of Oscar's "unnatural" relations, although I doubt that the audience was in much doubt.
So you'd think the '97 version would carry the day. Unfortunately, that film tries a little too hard to whitewash its hero, in the process missing out on some of the most interesting facets of the actual case.
Example: In the libel trial, Wilde was parrying expertly with the defense attorney, Mr. Carson, until he made a fatal error, quipping that he certainly did not kiss a particular boy because he found the young man terribly unattractive. Carson jumped all over this, reducing Wilde to squirming evasions. In the 1960 film this exchange between Morley and Ralph Richardson is a dramatic highlight. The '97 film, not wanting to show Oscar wrong-footing himself, omits it.
Another example: After losing his libel suit, Wilde faced imminent arrest on charges of indecency. The authorities had no wish to prosecute if it could be avoided, so they gave Wilde plenty of time to flee to France. Regrettably, he was too paralyzed by indecision to do so. In the 1960 version, Wilde, upon leaving the courthouse, is told pointedly that he is currently free to go "wherever he wants to go," the emphasis making it clear that he's being advised to escape. It's a nice touch, and it's absent from the newer film, which wants us to see the authorities as mercilessly persecuting Wilde.
One more example: Wilde's real crime was consorting with underage boys, some as young as fourteen. (It's not just a Victorian thing. Even today, a person can be prosecuted for corrupting a minor.) The 1960 film waters this down a bit, establishing that most of Wilde's companions were about twenty years old, but it does include at least one who is described in court as being only sixteen. The 1997 film depicts all the young men as in their early to mid twenties and, as far as I recall, makes no suggestion that any of them were under the age of consent - even though this is what Wilde was actually convicted of.
There are other omissions and distortions in the newer film. The real Wilde was blackmailed over letters carelessly left lying around by his lover. (In fact, he was blackmailed by three different young men, and paid up all three times.) One successful blackmail attempt comes out at the trial in the 1960 film, and is a key part of Wilde's undoing. The '97 version also depicts this blackmail attempt, but in this sanitized version Oscar nobly refuses to pay, shaming his blackmailer into giving up the letter voluntarily.
In short, if you want color, nice sets, a younger Wilde, and a more politically correct treatment (along with some moderately explicit sex scenes), choose "Wilde" (1997). If you want a more historically accurate account, which presents Oscar in a less idealized way and doesn't push any particular agenda, go for "Oscar Wilde" (1960). Better yet, watch both. Each film is worth seeing, and the contrast between them is interesting in itself.