Being homosexual – note, not a ‘choice’ and, note equally, widespread among other mammals as we now know – can still see you jailed and sometimes put to death in rather too many countries in Africa and Asia. In Britain, homosexual sex was still illegal until 1967 and the anti-gay laws were often described as a ‘blackmailer’s charter’. Those law were only abolished in 1967, although it took many, many years before gays of both sexes were not harassed and often beaten up.
In both Britain and America – especially in America where studios took great care not to fall foul of the ‘Hays Code (Motion Picture Production Code) if they wanted to make any money – there were only oblique references to
This Victim was a first, the first film to be screened in both countries which not only turned, but set out to turn, those ‘moral’ imperative on their head, and it challenged the claim that ‘being queer’ was somehow shameful, despicable and degenerate and, most crucially, abnormal.
It was not a piece of gay propaganda that ‘celebrated’ homosexuality, it simply proclaimed that homosexuals had no choice in their sexual orientation, and were themselves ‘victims’ in that a great many were blackmailed and lived in perpetual fear of being outed.
For 1961, when the ridiculously and misleadingly named ‘swinging Sixties were not due for another four years, taking that line in film was very brave.
The producer could not be sure it was not commercial suicide, so anyone intending to watch Victim, an otherwise rather tame film, should bear those points in mind.
As for the film as a film rather than as a plea for equitable and honourable treatment of gays, it is often paraded as ‘neo-noir’, but don’t believe that as it rather over-eggs the pudding. Victim is, except for its subject matter, a conventional ‘thriller’ and, its novel for the time subject matter apart, very run-of-the-mill.
Victim, ironically, in one or two ways also cheats a little as a film. Dirk Bogarde, a successful barrister on his way to becoming a Queen’ Counsel, is presumably bi-sexual as he is married (to the daughter of a judge) and, we are led to believe he never had sex with his first love, a fellow college student, or later with a young man to whom he initially gave a lift to and he became close then broke off with because, as he confessed to his wife, about whom he felt he was becoming too fond.
It is, carefully, not spelled out at all, but that first meeting with the man will surely have been a gay hook-up. Although that line is not in any way examined rather counts against the film, although the producer’s caution is understandable. And such a celibate gay relationship is, of course, not impossible but quite frankly unlikely, and that is more of a sticking point than it might seem.
Furthermore – and bear in mind the screenwriters, director and producers of Victim were obliged throughout to walk on eggshells – there is a hint in something the barrister’s wife says to her brother that her marriage was not all it might be, the hint being that it does not involve a great deal of marital sex. Again the point is left unexamined.
So which is it? Was Bogarde’s character fully gay or not. It is left open, presumably out of caution, and in that sense the film, for all its bravery, pulls its punch.
In fact, sex is never mentioned in connection with any of the other gay ‘victims’ of a blackmailer whose activities Bogarde investigates, but the clear implication is that all the other gays characters did and do have sex.
Another scene is, in terms of film-making, borderline risible. It becomes apparent to Bogarde as he tries to track down the blackmailer who now also has him in his sights that he is not the only closeted barrister, and the scene in which this is revealed is clunky as hell, as in should have not part in a ‘well-made’ film: in it one character speaks lines are straight from one might be a liberal tract on tolerance.
We don’t – well I don’t, but some reading this might – disagree with what they tell us, but can only abhor, in movie terms, their delivery. Cack-handed does not begin to describe it. Perhaps that did not bother then contemporary audience, but sixty-five years on they stick out like a sore thumb and almost ruin what was certainly a central scene.
In two other, lesser ways, the film also cheats with a couple red herrings which certainly mislead and it is clear were intended to mislead. The problem is that such blatant misdirection is redundant, serves not purpose and, here, is purely a device to gain spurious brownie points in terms of ‘adding suspense’.
In short, as an ‘historical document’, Victim is notable. As a film just the good side of mediocre.
As for the film as a film rather than as a plea for equitable and honourable treatment of gays, it is often paraded as ‘neo-noir’, but don’t believe that as it rather over-eggs the pudding. Victim is, except for its subject matter, a conventional ‘thriller’ and, its novel for the time subject matter apart, very run-of-the-mill.
Victim, ironically, in one or two ways also cheats a little as a film. Dirk Bogarde, a successful barrister on his way to becoming a Queen’ Counsel, is presumably bi-sexual as he is married (to the daughter of a judge) and, we are led to believe he never had sex with his first love, a fellow college student, or later with a young man to whom he initially gave a lift to and he became close then broke off with because, as he confessed to his wife, about whom he felt he was becoming too fond.
It is, carefully, not spelled out at all, but that first meeting with the man will surely have been a gay hook-up. Although that line is not in any way examined rather counts against the film, although the producer’s caution is understandable. And such a celibate gay relationship is, of course, not impossible but quite frankly unlikely, and that is more of a sticking point than it might seem.
Furthermore – and bear in mind the screenwriters, director and producers of Victim were obliged throughout to walk on eggshells – there is a hint in something the barrister’s wife says to her brother that her marriage was not all it might be, the hint being that it does not involve a great deal of marital sex. Again the point is left unexamined.
So which is it? Was Bogarde’s character fully gay or not. It is left open, presumably out of caution, and in that sense the film, for all its bravery, pulls its punch.
In fact, sex is never mentioned in connection with any of the other gay ‘victims’ of a blackmailer whose activities Bogarde investigates, but the clear implication is that all the other gays characters did and do have sex.
Another scene is, in terms of film-making, borderline risible. It becomes apparent to Bogarde as he tries to track down the blackmailer who now also has him in his sights that he is not the only closeted barrister, and the scene in which this is revealed is clunky as hell, as in should have not part in a ‘well-made’ film: in it one character speaks lines are straight from one might be a liberal tract on tolerance.
We don’t – well I don’t, but some reading this might – disagree with what they tell us, but can only abhor, in movie terms, their delivery. Cack-handed does not begin to describe it. Perhaps that did not bother then contemporary audience, but sixty-five years on they stick out like a sore thumb and almost ruin what was certainly a central scene.
In two other, lesser ways, the film also cheats with a couple red herrings which certainly mislead and it is clear were intended to mislead. The problem is that such blatant misdirection is redundant, serves not purpose and, here, is purely a device to gain spurious brownie points in terms of ‘adding suspense’.
In short, as an ‘historical document’, Victim is notable. As a film just the good side of mediocre.
No comments:
Post a Comment