Cheap Pink Narcissus (DVD) (James Bidgood) Price

Related Products

Customer Reviews of Pink Narcissus

Against Nature
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.

---

Slightly flawed work of Art
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.

---

Pointless gay movie
This movie is a collection of "erotic" clips with no argument, no narrative, no taste nor point. Be warned about it. Although, chances are personally interested viewers (gay people) might find it enjoyable.