I caught this on cable today. Had never noticed it before which is odd since I've actively tried to be aware of movies with a strong gay component for as long as I can remember. But, be that as it may this is one that somehow slipped past me until today. After watching it in awe I checked to see when it was made thinking that surely it was something made in the recent past few years, after 2000. Certainly, I thought, it must have come out during the "Queer as Folk" era which gave filmmakers permission to finally and honestly show parts of the gay world which, unless you're a part of that world, most of the rest of the world were relatively unaware of until somewhat recently as society has changed for the better in its well reasoned acceptance of gays. Yet, instead, I found that "Prick Up Your Ears" was released in 1987. I couldn't believe it. The movie was so well done. Not only did it portray something that was way ahead of its time with regards to portraying this type of subject matter, the movie itself is so modernly made. The way it was filmed and the actors and how they are acting, everything about this movie screams "I'm way ahead of my time"! And so it is. And what you find is a beautifully made movie about the effects that society's attitude towards gays in the 50's and 60's have upon two gay men, their union, and gays in general during that time. And the movie was made two decades ago, breaking ground in ways that only now that movie audiences have come to take for granted.

This is a marvelous movie, groundbreaking when it was made, about an author and the authors life-partner who were breaking new ground themselves in their day. Everything about this movie is worth seeing. The story presented, the acting, the sets, the locations. Everything. In fact, it reaches far enough into so many different things about writing and movie making and gays and society and relationships and life and death itself, and it does it so well, that one can reasonably say that if you're a student of film this is a movie that should belong on your list of movies to see and study along the way to making your own movies. And if you're a person who loves good movies, this is also required viewing. And if you're gay, well, it will thrill you to see this movie for so many reasons that only if you're gay would you really kind of understand. And if you're just somebody who wants to pass some time watching a minor cinema masterpiece that has stood the test of time, here is one for you to watch, enjoy and be educated by too. Its just a part of who we were. I miss poor Joe and Kenneth.

This film tells the story of the playwright Joe Orton who was murdered in August 1967 by his gay lover Kenneth Halliwell. It is said that Orton had expressed the wish that, should a biography ever be written about him, it should be entitled "Prick Up Your Ears", so when John Lahr came to write such a biography that is precisely what he called it. Orton's work is noted for its cynical and often bawdy humour, and he was doubtless attracted by the double meaning inherent in the phrase, and possibly because "ears" is an anagram of a British term for another part of the anatomy. The film is based upon Lahr's book, and he himself appears as a character. Scenes of Lahr researching his book with the assistance of Orton's literary agent Peggy Ramsay form the film's framework, with Orton's life story told in flashback.

Orton was born into a working-class Leicester family in 1933. His family hoped that he would obtain a white-collar position, possibly with the Civil Service, and sent him to secretarial college where he learned shorthand and typing. He himself, however, harboured the ambition of becoming an actor, and attended the Royal Academy of Dramatic Arts where he first met, and became the lover of, Halliwell, who was older, more sophisticated and from a wealthier background. Both men wanted to be either actors or writers; their acting careers never amounted to much, and at first they did not enjoy much success as writers either.

In 1962 Orton and Halliwell were both arrested and sentenced to six months in prison, not for homosexuality (which was illegal at the time) but for the crime of vandalising library books. They resumed their relationship after their release, but Orton's increasing literary success and Halliwell's worsening mental state began to put a strain on it, culminating in the murder which was followed by Halliwell's suicide.

It has been suggested that Halliwell was motivated by sexual jealousy- Orton was notoriously promiscuous- but the story told by the film is a more complex one. Promiscuity was a part of both men's lifestyle- they regularly went "cottaging" together- and neither intended their relationship to be monogamous. Jealousy of a sort was involved, but jealousy in the sense of "envy" rather than in that of "sexual possessiveness". Halliwell, as portrayed by Alfred Molina, is suffering from a massive inferiority complex when he compares himself to Orton, who started off as his protégé. Orton is better-looking than the balding Halliwell, more attractive to other men and, worst of all from Halliwell's point of view, more successful as a writer. He takes to describing himself as "Mr Orton's personal assistant", but finds it hard to conceal the fact that acting in a subsidiary role to the younger man is an unbearable blow to his pride.

This is not the sort of film which will be to everyone's taste; those with an allergy to bad language or explicit sexual references would be well advised to give it a wide berth. Anyone who can appreciate good acting, however, will enjoy it more. Gary Oldman and Molina combine together brilliantly as the two leading characters. Oldman's Orton is the brash, cocky youngster, full of self- confidence and clearly brilliantly talented, but also probably a right pain in the neck to live with. Molina's Halliwell is the fussy, neurotic older man, worried about his looks, bitter that he has not enjoyed the same success as a writer as his lover, increasingly isolated, mentally troubled and ultimately despairing to the point of homicidal and suicidal madness. There is also a good performance from Vanessa Redgrave as Ramsay.

Alan Bennett's screenplay, while it does not neglect the tragedy which lies at the heart of the story of Orton and Halliwell, is nevertheless surprisingly humorous at times, especially in its accounts of Orton's youth and the book-defacing episode and its treatment of Orton's relatives. Bennett has great fun at the expense of Orton's philistine brother-in-law who inveighs against the memory of the dead man ("He means nothing in Leicester!") while remaining happy to accept the royalties he and his wife receive as the playwright's next-of-kin. This mixture of the tragic and the humorous is not inappropriate when one considers that Orton's plays are often categorised as "black comedies" which try and see the funny side even in the blackest of situations. 8/10

Before writing this I saw an interview with Kenneth Williams best known as being part of the Carry On troupe. He gave some interesting insights into Joe Orton and Kenneth Halliwell. As a gay man himself Williams experienced and felt the same things in the days before sodomy laws were repealed in the United Kingdom, considerably before they were in the USA. The pressures of living as a couple increased exponentially especially a May/August couple as Orton and Halliwell were.

Joe Orton whose work I'd like to see and is curiously unavailable is played by Gary Oldman and we see him as a young writer befriended and mentored by Kenneth Halliwell who is older and played by Alfred Molina. Williams says that in his opinion there is no doubt the influence that Halliwell had on Orton's work. But they were two very different types of personality and probably were fated to come apart. Especially when Halliwell who mentored Orton was not finding any success with his own writing. In the end it destroyed them.

Great Britain had some strict sodomy laws as Oscar Wilde was living testimony to. Gay artists however got different treatments depending on who their patrons were. Oscar Wilde and the Orton/Halliwell duo in their respective generations were treated one way. But Noel Coward moved at the highest levels of British society and he had a Teflon like immunity from what befell the other three.

The film is told in flashback with Vanessa Redgrave as Orton's agent telling his biographer Wallace Shawn what the two were about individually and separately. Both Oldman and Molina were brilliant.

I can't help thinking that if they could have been traditionally married back then, they could also have been traditionally divorced when the love faded. That certainly would have been better all around.

But then we would not have had this fascinating tragedy.