Customer Reviews

Pink Narcissus

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

Created by photographer James Bidgood, PINK NARCISSUS is a lush, exotic, and remarkably beautiful erotic fantasia that explores the face and body of model Bobby Kendal as he slips in and out of erotic fantasies--fantasies which range from bullfights with himself as a matador and the bull as a leather-clad motorcyclist to being held captive for the pleasures of an Arabian ruler. Both the the aparment in which the character lives and the daydreams into which he slips are remarkably designed, recalling such artists as Parrish and Klimt, and the film emphasizes the tactile nature of everything it displays; one of the most memorable moments in the film, for example, are photographs of beads in motion that eventually segue into an erotic dance. The camera also explores Kendall's exceptional face and body in the same tactile manner, and whatever his actual virtues as a legitimate performer might be he is perfectly at ease with the camera's voyeristic joy, and the resulting images are powerful, memorable, and virtually define the term "erotic art."

It might be supposed that this film appeals primarily to a gay audience, but over the years I have shown it to a great number of friends--male, female, gay, straight--and their response has always been one of fascination; the film exerts a hypnotic allure that few can resist. At the same time, however, I must note several things about the film that some may dislike. If you expect a purely "skin show" type film or simple pornography, PINK NARCISSUS is likely to frustrate, for it works its magic more via tantalization than blatant nudity; at the same time, however, there is enough graphic behavior in the film to give it an X rating even today. It is also a purely visual film (there is no dialogue of any kind), and it is very much an experimental "underground" 1970s film; as such, it actually does require a certain degree of intellectual effort and interpretation. These aspects of the film may leave some viewers cold, but those able to enter into its sensual world will find it a powerful bit of erotica. Recommended.

If you come to "Pink Narcissus" expecting your typical "art house film" (or even a "gay cinema classic"), you'll probably end up agreeing with the viewers who gave this film a one star review below. But to judge it on anything other than its own singular standard is to miss the point of it entirely.

Released as a work by "Anonymous", "Pink Narcissus" was the creation of a New York theatrical costume designer and physique photographer named James Bidgood, who filmed the entire production in his apartment over a period of seven years starting in 1964; finally, tiring of his relentless tinkering with the footage he had created with no finished product to show for it, his producers edited the film themselves and released it in 1971. (Bidgood demanded that his name be taken off the credits as a result, and its true authorship was not revealed until nearly thirty years after its release.)

While there is a plot - barely - "Pink Narcissus" simply isn't a conventional narrative film. Instead, it is a series of wordless vignettes focused on the stunningly beautiful Bobby Kendall, who imagines himself in a series of tableaus - a young sultan, a Roman slave - while he awaits the arrival of his lover, or john, or ... someone. The sets and lighting, all created by Bidgood himself, are lushly artificial and hallucinatory: fake butterflies float on visible strings, fake jewels glitter on every surface, and gels on the lights create unnatural shadows and skin tones. The scratchy film stock and soundtrack - mostly excerpts from classical works - add to its intimate but almost claustrophobic atmosphere. This is the work of a man obsessed by both his subject and the medium he's using to portray it.

Viewed within the context of Bidgood's career as a photographer (examples are collected in an excellent Taschen book - do an Amazon search to find it), "Pink Narcissus" is less a narrative film than Bidgood's photographic visions come to life: a sexy (but not pornographic, at least by contemporary standards), hallucinatory meditation on beauty and desire, artifice and reality. Viewers who come to it expecting to be told a story or see some hot sex will be disappointed, but for anyone curious to see a nearly forgotten creation that looks something like a cross between "Physique Pictorial" and the works of Kenneth Anger and Stan Brakhage will appreciate it for the rich and strange hothouse flower of a film that it is.

This film is definitely not for everyone, and it has its problems, but for the right audience, it is superb. Originally released in 1971, it is highly homoerotic and fairly explicit for its time. It is unrated, but would definitely get an X rating, even today (just barely), though nothing at all like 99% of porn being produced today. It has very much an art house feel. Indeed, it is all surrealistic dreamy imagery set to music; there is no narrative or dialog at all. All of the imagery in the film surrounds Bobby Kendal, a beautiful twinky young man, in varying costumes and states of undress. In fact, the film completely and lovingly worships his flawless body and beautiful face. A few other models drop in occasionally, but 90% of it is Kendal. Like a really well done striptease, it is more erotic for what it implies, rather than what it shows. Full of mysticism, dream sequences, and some dark imagery too. It will appeal mostly to gay men, but is so beautiful in many ways, and not too hard core, and will appeal to many open minded straight women as well. Most straight men would find this very challenging, and would have to be very open minded to enjoy it.

Though lovingly filmed, it has its technical problems. It was filmed in the late 1960's and into 1971 (it was apparently filmed over several year's time) on 8mm film. Then it was upscaled and remastered to 35mm film for release. Though the imagery is timeless, the film quality is very much 1970. I've heard the restoration on the US VHS version is not very good. The DVD version is okay, but still a bit rough and grainy. It was a low budget art house film, and the effects and props are laughable by today's standards. Fake plants, butterflies, clouds, cityscapes, and set pieces, all look completely fake. If you can let yourself go and get into the dreamy imagery, you will enjoy it. If you insist on realism, this will greatly annoy you. In this respect, it is much more like seeing theater than a movie.

It will certainly not appeal to a wide audience, and the film quality is mediocre. However, for the right person, it is a stunning historical work of art.

An experiment in underground films, "Pink Narcissus" is an early effort (supposedly, about 7 years in the making)which gently teases & taunts during its artistic splendor. Its main character throughout is actor Bobby Kendall, a boyish, pouting, darkly handsome young man of incredible male beauty. The camera follows him through many visual moments of symbolism as he escapes (momentarily) the harsh realities of the outside world in daydreams of vivid proportions. His narcissism is reflected in the multiple roles he plays in his fantasies, as he becomes not only the object of desire, but those who yearn to have him. He is seen as: A matador fighting a leather-clad "bull" on a motorcycle; a harem boy dancing for his sheik; a pixie-like nymph conversing with nature; and a Roman emperor observing a slave.
The film begins and ends with a haunting, almost surreal tableau of the woods at night. The blurred, scratchy look of the film gives it an otherworldy feel, a sense of intimacy. In between all this is Kendall calling a "john" or lover, and waiting for their arrival. There's symbolism aplenty, such as Kendall destroying a butterfly (the "crushing of his innocence"), or him trapping himself by becoming his own john.
The film uses stop-motion effects and lavish hues of color (particularly, pink...hence, the title).
If you are looking for softcore fare, there's the longing but distant caresses of Kendall's physical beauty. But, if you are looking for hardcore porn, this is not the film; it is purely art blended with titillation.
For casual viewers, this film could be a frustrating experience. But for arthouse buffs, its poetic images can be fascinating.

The Body. Desire. Dressed. Undressed. But always covered in its central heart with some belt, some veil, a butterfly, or just an angle of the camera. Power supposedly male, masculine, phallic with toreros, bullfights, motorcycles, some kind of master-slave relation that turns into pure sexual slavery. With the Romans, show me your goods and let me be brutal, probably with death at the end. Arabian with many veils, seven or more, dances, pearls and jewels. The Sultan watching, desiring, assessing. It is all pictorial titillation and substitutive contacts with the aforesaid pearls and other objects, veiled at the least even if only in a French letter. Then we can move to the modern bordello, the red light district, quite more explicit and so much explicit that it becomes sickeningly fascinating. The elements, storm, thunder, lightning, rain, day and night are used as representations of desire and satisfaction, pleasure and ecstasy. That Narcissus finds the sex he wants in Baroque choral music and leaves in the shape of penises. His sexual satisfaction is purely mental, inside his soul, substitutive of explicit physical contact. Narcissus finally makes it up into a frontal view revealing himself completely, walking through wind, leaves, litter and multifarious ever changing colors to what appears his goal: the coat hanger of the beginning. The eye can merge with the light. He is back in the bordello area, in his bed, in his pants that he can take off to sleep in front of his mirror and dream of a bowler-hatted, overcoated, umbrellaed, city banking sugar grand daddy who can enter since he has the key but his face is revealed then as that of our Narcissus, dreaming of meeting his only love affair and desired human being, himself. He blows and breaks the mirror. The image disappears and kind of turns into a spider web in nature with a caterpillar crawling along a branch. We are back where we started, minus the moon. "I've grown so lonesome thinking of you." And when that you is yourself, the lonesome feeling is even more self contained if not self-imprisoned.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne, University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines, CEGID

This is a remarkable work of art that is difficult to classify since it is more than a film and is more akin to contemporary performance art than to mainstream for profit entertainment. It was produced in the 1960s and early 1970s and may have been considered an experimental film or underground film when produced, but its esthetic appeal has ensured its survival whereas many other underground films have now been lost and are never seen. I have considerable respect for the creativity of James Bidgood, the director, art director, writer, producer of this odd but luscious visual product. Bidgood worked on the film for 7 years starting in 1964. In many ways the film is beautiful with its concern for the shiny jeweled surfaces, the gilded mirrors, and the handsome nude and semi-nude young men. It could be called an erotic fantasy and every scene can certainly be classified as erotic, but yet it is not pornographic since the film appeals to an esthetic sense of beauty more so than to more basic lustful sensibilities. There is only the bare essence of a story line or plot but we see the adventures of a young man which are fully enhanced by his fantasies, so much so that the fantasies begin to dominate the film with their dreamlike reflective mysterious beauty. The story line is that of Bobby imagining himself in various roles always awaiting the arrival of the lover, the john, or the man. Don't buy this film thinking you are getting gay pornography. There is much nudity displayed by handsome male actors, but the goal and outcome is esthetic.
Actor Bobby Kendal offers a kind of ambiguity and balance between masculine and feminine sensibilities as well as predator and prey combined into one character. The film explores almost every inch of his body including close up shots of his lips sucking his fingers or grass blades that are outstanding and beautiful. These images reminded me of the photography of Andre Serrano or the paintings of Marilyn Minter.

Bobby is the hustler whose day dreams turn him into a matador, Roman slave or Arab harem master. And a cast of handsome young men play the extra roles required in the film.

The amazing aspect of this film is that it was almost entirely shot in the apartment shared by Bobby Kendal and James Bidgood. The sets are composed of beads and artificial flowers, photographed in close-up so that they remain mysterious and grand at the same time. The film has the grand sensation of a Joseph Cornell box, an effort to create an entire lush world in a tiny space. Thus the obviously fake sets are interpreted as dream props rather than poor imitations of reality. I would strongly recommend this film to any gay man familiar with contemporary art and photography.

There is virtually no spoken word in this film and it can be hard to follow, but the story line is about a male innocent youth who's learning to use his body to get what he wants.

A lot of stunning metaphor and imagery that drives the plot, for instance the opening scene is a meadow at night where we see an innocent butterfly representing the boy now, and then we see a spider web representing what the boy will later become.

The film was made by James Bidgood who quite possibly gave birth to gay camp, but if you're like the photography of David LaChapelle, and love the work of Pierre et Gilles then you might like this. But keep in mind that the movie was made mostly using an 8mm camera in the 60's or 70's so the quality is grainy and there's no widescreen version which is the only thing that really upsets me.

James Bidgood's film (however bastardized the editing is) is a visual, ecstatic treat any student of film, erotica or gay visuals would slit their wrists for. Seven years in the making, this film is a testament to a personal vision, one that is startling and poetic. If you love Genet, you'll love this. Treat your eyes -- and your sex organs -- to this erotic Walt Disney meets Jean Genet -- and beyond. Intelligent and visually profound, your subconscious will never be the same. I'm certainly a fan now! Prepare to be shaken to the core of your sexuality, and have your aesthetics reborn.

One of the most powerful and mythic gay films ever. A revelation.

Yup... and the color and music owes its share from Disney`s Fantasia 1940...

Some scenes compell and it really is like a wonderful gay dream.... But that`s all.... It`s like going through a wonderful book... so what I`m trying to suggest is that its virtues are mostly literate/and/or like a videocollage and not always cinematic...