source: Victim

Dirk Bogarde must be given a lot of credit for starring in a movie deemed quite controversial for its times. He plays a successful man about to become a judge and yet he is hiding a terrible secret. That is, he was friends with a young man being blackmailed who ultimately killed himself in jail. Seems that the young man was forced to steal money as the blackmailers knew of his homosexual relationship. It doesn't take long to guess that Bogarde was part of this relationship. Trouble with this film is that the 1:43 minutes that it takes to tell the story could have been done in 20 minutes. The big surprise here is the discovery who was part of the blackmailing conspiracy. When it comes out, our maiden reveals the nature of anti-homosexual hatred in society. Of course, the financial benefits for her were secondary. Right? The story could have been stretched to further detail the relationship's effect on his marriage. His wife seems willing to continue, but that was probably a story in itself. When you think of this situation, it's a very sad commentary on the bigoted view of society on this topic. It shows how such a relationship could destroy a career.

This is probably the most mature film ever made about the realities of gay life in 1960s Europe (not just Britain). Bogard's unflinching portrayal of a gay lawyer's search for the truth about an attempted blackmail of his ex lover is masterful. Sadly, a lot of the particulars depicted here still hold true-gays in public life are still persecuted and subject to blackmail (since not all are "out" in the current sense of the word). There is none of the hideous sniggering anti gay attitude here that characterize many later films about homosexuals (ie, Cruising, and especially, Staircase-a truly awful film featuring two straight actors, Richard Burton and Rex Harrison, both engaged in a disparate attempt to prove they are 'not gay' I suppose). Beyond the subject matter, actually much too serious for a standard film noir, the film is photographed beautifully in moody early sixties black and white, perfect for a noirish crime drama such as this.

VICTIM is to homosexuality what IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT is to racism- an earnest, slightly stuffy and politically dated discussion of identity victim politics. Aesthetically, the film has its plusses and minuses. The opening sequence is wonderful: a man runs from the police, making desperate phone calls and contacting various men, all of whom are disturbed by his presence, to make oblique pleas for help. The speedy, elliptical structure and use of mystery and suggestion recall Lang and Hitchcock at their best. It is only later that you might consider the implications of evoking those two masters of the morbid thrill in a film about homosexuality. Then again, gay life was a deep and often deadly secret back then- when you consider the lifelong fear and suspense gays were held in back then, the thriller motif seems appropriate. Indeed, the film's selling point is its ability to capture the fear and helplessness that comes with The Closet. VICTIM was made in '61, on the cusp of the new permissiveness in cinema. It straddles the eras of old and new, of suggestion and frankness, and, like many films of the early/mid- sixties, the combination gives the worst of both worlds- not enough innuendo to be slick, only enough frankness to come off as awkward. The scenes where characters discuss the morality of homosexuality and its laws are real clunkers- corny, stiff, self-conscious, and totally out of rhythm with the narrative. They're public-service parentheses. The politics themselves, while bravely liberal for the time, would nowadays match up to your average Christian conservative's: homosexuality is seen as a lamentable affliction, not to be prosecuted, deserving of sympathy, but by no means beautiful. It's given no spiritual or moral equivalence to heterosexuality- "leave the poor buggers alone" is pretty much the attitude. Of course, it's easy to deride this stance in post- Stonewall, post- Rock Hudson 2002. Back then gays were- well, they weren't even gays yet. VICTIM did break down the wall, establishing a foundation for queer subjectivity to build on. For what that's worth- which is a whole lot to me- I'll give it thumbs up.

Just prior to viewing "The Victim", I watched a police procedural called "The Division." "The Division" is a 2002 TV series set in San Francisco involving primarily women police officers. The particular episode involved the death of a student. His sexuality was paramount to the plot. Forty years apart and the fear of disclosure engendered an almost identical life-ending response from characters in both productions. "The Victim" has that low key, polite, off-putting English civility that sometimes makes me want to pull out what's left of my hair. Still, there is great tension in the film and I agree heartily with an earlier comment that the first twenty minutes are the best. Barratts search for help, for escape,is heart-wrenching. Farr's blind, fearful rejection of his entreaties are the catalyst for his transformation. This must have been a risky venture for Dirk Bogarde. His character Farr, aside from his ethical response, is a contained, measured man. His life appears orderly yet there are strong indications that his past has been to say the least, checkered. From a 2002 perspective, the relationship between Farr and his wife (I always love stumbling across films with Sylvia Syms) is hard to fathom. Certainly their mutual love and respect is evident but you somehow want something more for them. I suppose I want him not to be gay and for it all to be some minor diversion. The impression I get from the film is that Farr too wants this but recognizes the impossibility of it all. Still, they both are admiral portrayals, as is the actor who plays the head police officer. Impressive film and it deserves wider exposure.

"Victim" is probably the first mainstream film on either side of the Atlantic to feature a gay hero. Granted, Dirk Bogarde plays a married closet case who hasn't actually engaged in a homosexual act in many years. Nonetheless, it's fairly amazing that, given what we know about attitudes toward gay people in the 1950's that a film this affirming of gay rights could have been made in 1961. It's a movie that's much more about "gay" as an identity than it is about sexuality; it centers on a blackmail ring that includes our closeted hero, a star of the London theatre, a lonely old barber, a Rolls-Royce salesman, and others. As a group, the gay men are intermittently desperate, proud, accepting, self-loathing, and scared -- which said more to me about 1961 than it said about gay men. The title is interesting to me; it seems that the journey of Bogarde's character seems to be the road out of victimization and toward (if this isn't too corny) self-actualization. It's a mildly entertaining movie, but a fascinating historical artifact.

During his lifetime Dirk Bogarde never admitted to being gay and before his death he destroyed many of his private papers. Nevertheless, his sexuality has long been an open secret and Bogarde's desire to keep his private life private had to be respected. It was, therefore, an astonishingly brave decision to take on the role of Melville Farr, the closeted gay barrister who is willing to 'come out' in order to break a blackmailing ring in Basil Dearden's pioneering thriller "Victim". Bogarde says he chose the part because he wanted to break free of the matinée idol roles he had played up to that time but by doing so he risked alienating his fan-base. Of course, by playing Farr and subsequent roles in films like "The Servant" and "Death in Venice" it could be argued that he was vicariously acting out on screen what he was feeling in real life. That "Victim" was made at all is as astonishing as Bogarde's decision to take the lead. This was 1961 and homosexuality was still illegal in Britain. "Victim" broke new ground by making it the central theme and by making the gay characters sympathetic, the victims of the title, and by making the law, (at least in the form of John Barrie's investigating copper), sympathetic to their plight. This was a crusading work and is today largely credited with bring about the change in the law that decriminalized homosexual acts between consenting adults in Great Britain. Viewed today it is, of course, both melodramatic and didactic. At times it seems the characters aren't saying lines but making speeches. As a thriller it's reasonably exciting, (it's got sufficient red-herrings to keep us guessing), and Dearden admitted that without the thriller element the film might never have been made. (He did something similar with racism in the film "Sapphire"). "Victim" also featured a number of other gay actors in the cast, notably Dennis Price, superb as an ageing actor, and the actor/director Hilton Edwards. Whatever his motives for taking on the role, Bogarde is superb and he has at least one great scene when he finally admits his true nature to his wife, beautifully played by Sylvia Syms. There is certainly no doubt the film has dated and yet it remains one of the greatest of all gay movies.

This drama is well acted and beautifully shot, with gorgeous, dramatic lighting and some interesting camera angles and movement. The story is cleverly written as a thriller, keeping the audience guessing, and building up sympathy for the characters before explaining their "abnormality" (probably a necessary tactic in 1961). Like other British movies of the time period, the film is not action-packed by today's standards, but the suspense is maintained, and I never found my attention wandering. Some of the dialogue is didactic, but is usually well-enough handled that it doesn't destroy the line of the story. I didn't agree with another IMDB viewer that the movie portrayed homosexuality purely as "an affliction": my impression was that the writers were trying to show the common view of the time. Certainly most homosexuals in that era would have been affected by the general attitude and internalized the idea that they are abnormal and shameful, and the movie shows this. (Some of the dialogue may be difficult for gay people today to watch, since it is very insulting.) However, I wasn't convinced the authors fully agreed with the straight characters who were sympathetically condescending, partly because of the pains they took to create strong gay characters, and also because of the glimmers the film offers of a better future. [NEXT SENTENCES may contain slight SPOILERS] Listen to the trio of characters Bogarde confronts toward the end of the film: are they all filled with shame? What about the reaction of Bogarde's law assistant? The handling of a particular photo also supports this idea: it is hidden for most of the story, and then turns out to contain a more poetic and sympathetic image than we'd expected. Some viewers think "Victim" is no longer socially relevant, but I disagree: not only are many parts of the world still very anti-homosexual, but the idea that homosexuality is a choice is current in America, and this movie is one of the few I've seen that explores what happens when someone tries to force himself to lead a "normal" life. Is that character happy in his "choice"? Are the people in his family better off because he made that decision? The film presents a complex story and lets the viewer decide. One thing I did find outdated was the impression the authors give that homosexual men are more sensitive and fragile than straight men. However, this provides an opportunity for several scenes involving tears or held-back tears, which are well-acted. I can understand why some people thought the film had too many secondary characters, but I thought most of them were colorful and interesting, so I wouldn't have wanted to cut them out. All in all, an interesting movie for those who like to consider social issues.

Set in 1950's Britain at a time when homosexuality is against the law, a top Barrister ( Dirk Bogarde) puts his career on the line to tackle the outrageous blackmail of London's homosexuals. Impressive cast and outstanding performance by Dirk Bogarde as the troubled barrister whose anguish and pain one can see in his face throughout the film. Watching this now in the 21st century, it seems unbelievable to think that homosexuality was illegal here forty years ago. This is not to say that homophobia is not a concern now, because it still is, however there have been large strides forward for the acceptance and tolerance of homosexuals in mainstream society. This film is an excellent historical snippet at a time of contentious laws as well as being a fine piece of art. Basil Dearden directs brilliantly and the script maintains a gripping interest throughout. In addition it was nice to see many parts of London as they were in the fifties before factories were knocked down and the hordes of yuppie apartments where built along the Thames.

It would be easy to view this movie as nothing more than a somewhat dated film. However, for it's time, this movie was ground-breaking, for any number of reasons, including its superb acting. Dirk Bogarde and Sylvia Syms, in particular, were perfect in their parts. What many don't realize is that this movie is credited with helping to decriminalize homosexuality in Britain. When "Victim" was released, it started a nationwide discussion about homosexuality and associated blackmail. At the time, approximately 90% of all blackmail cases involved homosexuals, and Bogarde's character was a classic example of a blackmail "victim". The point of the movie wasn't that all homosexuals were victims, but they could only be victims so long as the law permitted it. The blackmail wasn't merely because they were homosexual, but due to the harsh prison sentences a homosexual could (and often did) receive. How often does a movie get the opportunity to help create such a profound change in society?