Pink Narcissus (1971) User Reviews

Oooooo, Pretty!

[sjohntucson · 8/10 · 31 October 2004]

Beautiful cinematography, beautiful subject, dreamy homoerotic confection. Makes me almost wish I still did drugs so I could watch it on acid. Given the wonderfully weird & underground feeling, it would have fit in well in the midnight movie scene in the 70's (maybe it did, but I was in Oklahoma at the time & I'm pretty sure it never played there).

This is basically just a set of wonderfully choreographed narcissistic fantasies, with lots of searlingly saturated color, glittery, cartoony, piss-elegant sets & props, and a stunning boy who you don't get to see quite enough of, if you know what I mean and I'm sure you do. But you do get to see more than you probably thought you would in a pre-Stonewall movie (OK, technically it's not pre-Stonewall, but it definitely reflects that era more than the post- era).

Fundies should probably stay away, as should those looking for plot, action (yeah, I know, but you know what I mean), or dialog; kids whose parents might react violently; guys looking for high-octane boner fuel (this is more like smoldering scented oil than gasoline); and hyper-butch queers who are embarrassed by things like gilded telephones and paste-jeweled goblets. But if you're looking for a gay erotic dream-romp through the senses, get this puppy before it goes out of print!

Artistic Campery

[jasonshaw-331-946707 · 8/10 · 31 March 2012]

Have little doubt, like it or loathe it, Pink Narcissus is a classic of the cult variety, lauded for its high artistic cinematic quality, position and production. It is a visual fantasia of expression, colour, eroticism, sexuality and stimulating contemporary artistry. Pink Narcissus is no shrinking violet, no wilting wallflower, it is a full on meadow in full bloom. This low budget film took a number of years to complete and filmed, mostly, within the tight confines of writer and director James Bidgood's New York apartment. There is little in the way of plot lines or subplots, the story is as flimsy as Dick Van Dyke's accent, dialogue is virtually non-existent for this 1971 offering is all about the erotic images fostering themselves on the screen.

Bobby Kendall plays the 'kept boy' who whiles away his hours waiting for his master by dreaming of various things, he seems a young fellow obsessed with his own beauty and physical appearance, but maybe you guessed that already by the title? He envisions himself as a Turkish prince, a Roman slave, a wood nymph, a matador and even a kept boy in some far off sheiks harem. Everything is so incredulously heavy on the design front, bejewelled and stylised to excess. It is that excess, that visually expressiveness that has made this little independent movie become a landmark of gay cinema as well as a statement of contemporary art.

It still stands the test of time as classic of the art of gay movie making.

Read more and find out where this film made it in the Top 50 Most Influential Gay Movies of All Time book, search on Amazon for Top 50 Most Influential Gay Movies of All Time, or visit - http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B007FU7HPO

Visually Fascinating Sometimes, Ambitious Always. Period Piece? Yes.

[ekeby · 8/10 · 24 April 2009]

The first thing that struck me about the imagery in this film was how much the art of Pierre et Gilles owes to it. Oversaturated color, pink, blue, and yellow gels, and every object gilded and bejeweled within an inch of its life. Add chiffon, satin, and skin-tight chinos, and almost any still from this movie could be misconstrued as Pierre et Gilles.

As much as those French artists have borrowed from PN, the film itself reaches for a lot of gay iconography of the time. The street scenes seemed to be trying to animate Paul Cadmus canvases, e.g., with a pinch of Tom of Finland thrown in.

Another reviewer mentions that while the film is dated 1971, images from it appeared as early as 1964. I was a teenager in 1964, and the first thing that struck me was how early 60s Bobby Kendall (the lead) looked vis a vis hairstyle and clothes. And the props, such as they are, would now be called Hollywood Regency, and that wouldn't be far wrong. From our current perspective, I would say it's a good look back at what openly gay men looked like--or aspired to--immediately before Stonewall, and before the hippie aesthetic took over the 60s.

Correct, the film is free-form, nonlinear, yet seems to be trying to get some point across. I'm not exactly sure what that point is. It's pretty much fill-in-the-blank, it's so generalized. Something about gayness and self-revelation, but perhaps it was too early in the century for the filmmaker to be able to give us something with more emotional impact.

This isn't especially a good film, but it is an ambitious one. And it's early in gay culture. For that reason, I think it deserves to be seen, but keep your expectations low. If it had been trimmed by at least half of its 110 minutes it probably would be more highly respected today as a work of art. But then a 45 minute film wouldn't have made it into the art houses of the 70s....

Classic Homoerotic Masterpiece

[robinp · 14 July 2003]

Before Pierre et Gilles, before David LaChapelle, before Jeff Koons, before the neo-Pop movement there was James Bidgood and Pink Narcissus. This art film will not please everyone -- not for the shoot 'em up, blow it up, special effects craving crowd with a short attention spans.

This film is art, not just entertainment. It moves slowly at it's own dream-like pace. It's iconic campy fantasy is unique and the precursor of the artists mentioned above. The Pink refers to the gay sensibility, the camp stance and the prettier than life advertising imagery. The Narcissus of the title refers to Kendall's obvious self-love and the obsessive quality of his fantasies: himself as a sexy matador, himself as a sexy Greek slave, himself as Beauty and a voyeur's delight. The searingly bright color adds to the dreamy feeling. This is eye candy for those who appreciate art and beauty-- confection for the mind. Rarely do high style and content meld as beautifully as in this film. There is no dialogue. It would probably ruin the dream. This film is a "must see" for anyone interested in contemporary art, the pre-Stonewall sensibility or the history of underground film.

More funny than anything else

[preppy-3 · 6/10 · 8 May 2008]

Totally plot less movie of the homo erotic images of some hot young guy. I caught this years ago at an art cinema as part of their gay and lesbian film festival. It's safe to say the entire audience consisted of gay men. When it started there was silence...which mostly continued throughout the movie. Some people walked out and there was scattered laughter during some of the sillier scenes. The color was bright (and blinding) and the print we had was in good shape but with no plot or point (that I could see of) this quickly became boring. The guy in it was handsome and hot (and nude some of the time) but that wasn't enough to keep me interested for 90 minutes. Maybe back in 1971 this was considered erotic and shocking but it sure isn't today (although it would still get an NC-17). Pretentious, pointless and overdone. It gets a 6 for some truly striking and beautiful images but I can't recommend it. When it was over at the art cinema most of the guys left complaining how stupid and boring it was. That should tell you something.

A Lush Fantasia of Erotic Art

[gftbiloxi · 10/10 · 16 May 2005]

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 apartment 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 voyeuristic 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.

Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer

Slow, but sensuous, dreamlike work of art

[johannes2000-1 · 7/10 · 9 April 2024]

I watched this 1971 gay cult film for the first time (a 100 years ago!), when I was still hovering in the closet as a gay newbie, and I remember being totally enchanted by the dreamy, highly sensuous atmosphere, as well as enamored with the angelic lead (Bobby Kendall). Watching it recently again, it's as well a melancholy trip down memory lane, as a bit of a disappointment, because in the cold, critical light of 2024 the flaws are painfully visible.

On the good side: it has, in spite of the provoking sexual content, an unmistakable sympathetic feeling, thanks to the careful art-direction of maker James Bidgood. Knowing that he himself created, in his tiny apartment, all the settings and costumes and all the visual effects, it's absolutely amazing! Even now some of these settings, with artificial trees and flowers and moonlit skies, are still astonishing.

On the downside: what immediately annoys is the extremely slow pace and the endless repetitiveness of the images. This aimlessly meandering of the camera over card-board sceneries and close-ups of beautiful faces and naked skin, may be intended to create a dreamlike atmosphere, but for a movie that lacks every hint of a narrative to begin with, this at times gets almost soporific. The few actors are all extremely handsome, but the way they move is so extremely choreographed, that it looses every sense of reality. It's clearly aimed at maximizing the erotic effect - and it does, no doubt about that! - but it all adds to the feeling that you're not watching a movie, but you're drenched in an erotic work of art.

So to resume: for a serious movie it lacks story, coherence and urgency, but as a piece of singlehandedly made and sensuous art it's still a worthwhile and amazing tour the force.

E for Effort

[harry-76 · 2/10 · 14 December 2001]

There's no telling just how much tampering was done to this film to get to the extant version we see today.

It's obvious the film was not thrown together, for there are numerous artistic single and composite shots which pepper the work.

It's just too bad the final product seems to lack focus, balance, and point of view. Technically it's also a mixed bag: some close ups are clear and impressive, while many long range and medium shots are blurry and diffuse.

True, it is rather like Disney meeting Genet, yet even in free association there is some sort of cohesiveness--that which is lacking here.

Redundancy seems to rule, as the camera lingers on images which have long made their point, and musical selections on the soundtrack tend to get stuck in their dull grooves. One is reminded of the kind of endurance stamina needed to fathom some of Warhol's flamboyant creations.

So, opinions will obviously vary on this one--whose historical legend far surpasses its actual content. Intiguing as a "resurrected underground opus" may be, the value of "Pink Narcissus" will depend on individual taste.

Since it's rarely shown today, buffs who are able to track it down may consider themselves fortunate.

Worth seeing

[db7178 · 9/10 · 1 July 2003]

This production fits into the category of art more than it does video, film or cinema. It's not something you'd see at the theater at the mall; there's no dialogue, and there's no "story," or at least not one that fits neatly into our cinematic paradigm. Rather, this is an hour-or-so-long kaleidoscopic arrangement of sounds and colors and forms in the background and teasingly partial revelations of the male body in the foreground. The "art," in imitating life, leads us to Bobby Kendall narcissistically looking in a mirror, being a matador, flying and fantasizing. Actually, you could link Pink Narcissus to one category in our cinematic paradigm: Suspense. Viewers who like the male body will be in suspense for an hour, dying to see just another inch of Bobby Kendall's body.

Pink Narcissus

[CinemaSerf · 7/10 · 5 February 2024]

Whilst Mussorgsky's "Pictures at an Exhibition" is a superb score for this, I can't help but wonder what he'd have thought if he were to have seen how it was used in this end product! Essentially it's a series of increasingly wet dreams from the young "Pan" (Bobby Kendall). Handsome, lithe and totally self-confident, this young man uses the next hour to live out some of his fairly graphically depicted sexual fantasies with toreadors, lads in leather, cottaging, slaves - indeed just about every fetish that he could wish for. It's riddled with symbolism, too. From the embryonic chrysalis at the start through to the denouement that rather concludes the life-cycle in a fitting fashion. Nature features extensively. Flora, fauna, rain, sunshine and the flickering wings of a butterfly help convey the young man on his journey (around what is clearly just one single apartment) and maintain a flowing momentum that is erotically charged, but surprisingly - not as overtly as I was expecting. I suppose the censors still had an hand in what was allowed and what wasn't even in 1971! I couldn't quite decide whether this is a production that needs or doesn't need restoration. The vibrancy of the colours and imagery all too often bleeds and loses focus. At times that works seductively, but I found that mostly it rather detracts from the focus and makes the film quite difficult to watch and the images to distinguish. I've never seen something like this in English language cinema before and it does raise a few questions for you to ponder about the fleetingness of life as we watch things of beauty and danger overlap, evolve and...

Pretentious and dull

[JakersWild · 1/10 · 20 June 2003]

Think Disney's Fantasia, only not a cartoon, less of a plot, and of course lots of hues of pink. I don't have to worry about spoilers, because I can't thing of an actual plot point one might spoil. Is there a rule that gay films must be pretentious and dull? If so, this film fits the bill. Yes there are moments of male nudity, but if you're looking for that there are far better options. Could only recommend this to someone looking strictly for an 'art film' based on meticulously planned visuals and constant repetitive music.

9/10

[desperateliving · 9/10 · 31 December 2004]

I don't know why the rating for this is so low -- well, that's not true, I do know: it's arty, it's got no dialogue (we have radio weather forecasts in lieu of that), it's in grainy pink, and it doesn't have a story. But it is a successful glimpse into a gay dream, and a successful passing on of that experience -- and the title character, a wonderfully objectified youth, is the perfect gay ideal: pouty lips, messy brown hair, dark features, a fantastic and well-exploited rear, and a sculpted body. And he's unclothed for most of it, a Caravaggio boy.

The film is a good example of ingenuity on the director's part -- it's a small-scale melodrama not unlike those of Guy Maddin, if Maddin was more lushly sensual and less manically comic. It's not a porno, but it is extreme gayness, and the mere essence of that is enough for some people to get it up. But regardless, it is very erotic; a number of scenes (stripping the boy's undies off, sucking his own fingers, slowly humping the ground in nature) push the right buttons. There are some inventive scenes, like the boy getting a beejay from a leather man swimming in a milky liquid (and then after that a urinal-fetish scene). I haven't seen "Un chant d'amour," so I don't know the degree to which this is influenced by Genet, but it does have its parallels to the Genet-inspired third of "Poison." 9/10

Beautiful,Gay, Psychedelia....

[olddiscs · 9/10 · 19 April 2003]

A beautifully imagined gay erotic film from the psychedelic era Although release date is given as 1971...Images & photo sets appeared on the market& gay interest magazines as far back as 1964...Film involves a young beautiful gay mans fantasies...involving moslty himself with mirror images of nude & semi nude model,Bobby Kendall. The young man invisions himself in many erotic beautifully photographed sequences.. many with the psychedelic colors etc of the 1960s.. Young man envisions himself in as a matador, as a roman slave, in an middle east sultans tent.. etc.. all scenes involving simulated sex and masturbation are beautifully & tastefully photographed... Definitely for adults !! and mature audiences only..Very happy that this gay early erotic film has been resurrected, and released on VHS & DVD thanks to Strand distributors! Not just nostalgia however,It is a beautifully done erotic film which should be seen by mature audiences.. Credits are not clear? writer ,director, photographer are listed as anonymous only Style is remindful of the type of film Andy Warhol was making at the time..known than as "underground" movies...Recommended highly for mature audiences who have an interest in psychedelia, & early gay films!

Between Heaven & Hell

[Falconeer · 9/10 · 22 November 2009]

Mind-blowing colour and rampant symbolism are splattered across the screen in James Bidgood's one-of-a-kind "Pink Narcissus." At a casual glance this milestone film can appear as little more than a series of beautiful, erotic and obscure imagery. But it is much more than that. Model Bobby Kendall portrays a male prostitute, trapped in a surreal hell; an environment that is artificial, manufactured and unnatural. The city outside of his door is even more devoid of nature, or life, with it's zombie-like creatures stumbling around, looking to either buy, or sell sexual favors. The pretty hustler retreats into a surreal, candy-colored fantasy world, where his customers become beautiful storybook heroes; Arabian Sheiks, matadors, Roman Emperors and their slaves. The hustler, being the ultimate narcissist, uses his own idea of beauty when imagining what these characters look like: himself. Kendall is featured in most parts, as slave & master, prince & peasant, etc. His imaginings are realized on-screen in blazing, fantastic color, accompanied by an eclectic and haunting array of music. As each fantasy set piece plays out, a familiar image returns repeatedly; scenes in nature, trees and flowers and living creatures, drenched in sunlight, soaked in rain, an environment that is the polar opposite of the concrete & neon hellhole in which this beautiful man seems to be imprisoned. His fantasies of nature, which are the most beautiful and truly erotic sections of the film, suggest a desire to return to something natural and real, in other words a return to innocence. A scene where Kendall's character is literally penetrating the Earth, by lying on the ground and sticking his penis into the soil, is symbolism that is not that hard to understand. And the dark, apocalyptic climax, where the same ground swallows him into it's underground depths in an inferno of driving rain and thunder, and he finds himself.. back in his pink and gold apartment, as a new customer lets himself inside to be serviced. Does the apartment represent some kind of hell? The great thing about this film is that it raises questions like that, and forces it's audience to think, and to wonder. When a film can accomplish that, it transcends entertainment, and becomes art. "Pink Narcissus" is a film that needs repeated viewings to get the full picture. After being dazzled by it's jaw-dropping imagery the first time around, one can settle into the world, and the mindset of this man whose own physical beauty has alienated him from reality. With a bit of an imagination you will not need LSD to relate to him...

An unbelievable merger of gay eroticism, art and beauty

[Funnyboy73 · 10/10 · 15 September 1999]

Possibly the most artistic movie I have ever seen. Beautiful Bobby Kendall (where is this guy now??) in a series of self-indulgent fantasies. The 'narcissus' theme carries to the end. And who could blame the guy? An arousing, provoking short film full of sexual, and more importantly, sensual scenes. Not quite hard-core gay, but right up there. Better. Filled with elements which porn lacks - beauty, art and eroticism. The viewer is treated to plenty of teasing shots, where things are actually left to the imagination. Colorful, magical, erotic. Recommended to anyone who wants to view a hot gay film which also asks things of you artistically.

A Homoerotic Spectacle

[Jeunes · 10/10 · 2 August 2005]

PN is one of those films that even Roger Ebert runs across now and again that really defies categorization. It is a fantasy, a spectacle, a tour de force, an indulgences, a homoerotic cornucopia, idealized male sex. It's possible to see different emphases every time its viewed.

Is it a precursor to Fellini's "Satricon"? To "Midnight Cowboy"? A youth, Bobby Kendall, in a romantic idyll who sees his grubby hustling trade on NYC's as a Roman bacchanal, a prancing matador. Does Bobby really see the world in which he lives or does he choose not to see it? The unanswered mysteries and questions this film raises, despite its last minute snatching from the hands of its creator, make it a Mona Lisa of filmdom. Even if you don't like it, you'll be intrigued by it and want to talk about it. That's why it's worth viewing.

Hustling around in art in our own private cup of tea

[Dr_Coulardeau · 10/10 · 15 April 2009]

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

Color me Happy

[akoaytao1234 · 10/10 · 25 October 2017]

Pink Narcissus is a film that is really a different experience than your normal movie habit. When I watched the film, it just was not like any kind of film I had watched. It was very primitive and very confusing yet it is also oddly fascinating and funny.

So primarily, it is a film telling the life of a gay drifter and what goes in to his horny head. He envision himself as a Sultan, a mighty Matador and a lot other gay penchants as he tries to fulfill himself to completion. Only to face the gaudy realities of his life in the end. All of which presented in a colorful low-budget yet sophisticated vision,without any single dialogue to make a definite sense.

Indeed, the film was feral. It is leaves a lot of things for its viewer to digest and I kinda enthralled by it. Usually I have reservation to this kind of films as they tend to over do it artsy side that they came off as a bit of a bore and overthought but its own quirks just works so well. The colorful D.I.Y. kitsch styling to its literal take on gay iconography and jargon were so witty and inventive that it really leave in me awe.

Overall, Pink Narcissus is a art film spectacle that is not afraid to show a distinct flavor without losing its ambition.[5/5]

delightful

[Kirpianuscus · 23 January 2017]

it is one of words who could define it. because it is not exactly a film. but a sort of experience. eroticism, colors, poetry, steps and gestures and the water of a state out of definitions. a lovely story who must be created by the viewer. this is all. a poem. bizarre. fascinating. cruel. old fashion and modern at all. it is piece from a period who seems unrealistic to the young public. or eccentric. but it is only honest confession about dreams, fantasies, desires and truth behind taboos. in delicate manner. as eulogy to the male body. as escape from reality. as fresco from an ancient time who has the form of nostalgia and self definition.

Dreamlike and erotic.

[the_lotus_eater-844-56911 · 17 June 2020]

The film is a series of homoerotic, dreamlike, fantasies, each with a varying degree of explicitness (ranging from mild crotch bulges to full frontal nudity and climax), so do be prepared for that.

What elevates this from just the erotic fantasies of some dude is the style in which these men and their members are presented. The editing is dreamlike and flowing and the lighting is vibrant and rich (lots of reds and blues). The crowning achievement is the set and costume design. There are well designed and lavish sets (such as ancient Roman/Greek, seedy New York) and costumes (matadors, centurions, bikers) which really help suck you into the film.

The film moves along through these various fantasies, indulging in the characters on display and the tones ranges from realistic, fantastical to comedic which helps keep things interesting.

There is ultimately no story or characters, just a series of erotic events, so as long as you're prepared for that, you'll have an enjoyable time.I hope you like male a$$es and the colour red.