SimonJack As with all categories of movies, and their many subgroups, satire isn't for everyone. And, judging from a few reviews on IMDb, if one doesn't get the satire, the humor may be lost as well. But many of us do relish satire – especially the wit and farcical spoofing in great works such as "The Importance of Being Earnest." So, the humor isn't lost on us in the satire, but is brought home boisterously and subtly, straightforward and by innuendo, in words and in looks. Make no bones about it – this is a satire on high society of England in the late 19th century. The language, dress, customs and mores of the time are all part of the story. So, they are dated, as they should be. Any retelling of this work that eschews the time-specific of the story, will naturally lose the satire. For, placed in a modern setting, or otherwise changed, the satire of Wilde's play loses its bite and sarcasm; and the script then becomes just a running dialog of jokes or puns. This 1952 rendition of Oscar Wilde's play is the best of any movie made for presenting this satire as one would hear and see it live on stage. I think the film even gives us an advantage over the stage. We can see actor's expressions quite vividly. Director Anthony Asquith uses his excellent camera work in many instances to show us close-ups of a range of expressions in the reactions between actors. These instances enhance the wit and humor of the barbs or bon mots just delivered.All aspects of this 1952 film are superior. The screenplay, cinematography, costumes, makeup, sets, and directing and editing are superb. But most of all, this film has an outstanding cast of actors – from all the leads to the smallest supporting roles. Each person gives something special to his or her character. The key focus of Wilde's satire here is in the person of Lady Bracknell. Edith Evans excels in the role of the domineering, nonsensical society matriarch. She gives hubris to the contemptible icon of high English society of the late 19th century. Her exaggerated portrayal fits well the obnoxious, autocrat that Wilde puts at the center of his mockery of upper English society of the time.The Michaels – Redgrave and Dennison, excel in their roles as Jack Worthing and Algernon Moncrieff. They play perfectly off each other throughout the film. It's with Redgrave especially, that the humor of some of the witty lines is made all the more laughable by the expressions we see on his face. Dennison adds a very pleasing bounciness that gives life to the otherwise idle lifestyle of Algy. But I think the ladies again steal center stage in this wonderful spoof. Joan Greenwood plays the best possible snobbish, pretentious, hilarious Gwendolen that I can imagine has ever been done live or on film. She is riotously funny as the snooty, arrogant and pompous object of Jack's romantic affections. And Dorothy Tutin gives an excellent portrayal of the demure, innocent but silly Cecily. She just isn't quite the snob, nor is she quite as pompous, for her youth and lack of experience that Gwendolen has had.The wonderful Margaret Rutherford is Miss Prism. She brings smiles to our faces with her humorous lines and expressions. And Miles Malleson is a nice match for her as Canon Chasuble. Was Wilde giving us a touch of his wit also in the choice of some of the names of his characters? A chasuble is the outer vestment worn by clergy in the Anglican and Catholic churches. And a prism is a type of lens through which objects take on many different shapes and colors. The actors who play the butlers and man-servants are very funny in their roles as well. One other thing that bears comment is Redgrave's age. A couple of reviewers said he was too old for the part – although they liked him in it. Modern movie buffs would do well to note that people – men, especially -- 100 and more years ago generally looked much older than they do today. Since the mid-20th century, the physical appearances of Western men have gotten younger. Look at old high school photos to see that most teenagers a century or more ago looked more mature than they do today. Most 65-year-old men today don't show as much age as did 50-year- old men in the past. So, the 44-year old Redgrave in 1952 could very likely pass for a man 28 or 35 in the previous century. "The Importance of Being Earnest" is one of the finest satires on society ever written and put on film. And this 1952 movie is the best ever made of the great Oscar Wilde farce. It's a wonderful treat from start to finish. But I warn anyone who may not enjoy satire – you may find yourself laughing at lines you don't think should be funny.

bluecrab22 I have seen the 2002 remake of "Earnest" (very good), I have seen it performed on the stage (also very good), but this 1952 film version is now my favorite. I saw it for the first time only last night. Wonderful performances all around, with Edith Evans' presence being especially commanding. It doesn't hurt one bit that both Joan Greenwood and Dorothy Tutin look almost impossibly beautiful. There is not one word of wasted dialog. I don't know if the film was remastered or otherwise reprocessed, but the colors and picture were sharp (via cable TV). It looks like a DVD that cleaned up the the original was made in 2002 - I may have to have that! If you get a chance to see a stage production of this, do so.

T Y I saw this a billion years ago on TV with a friend. We both enjoyed it. I was happy to see it released on Criterion, but it really doesn't hold up.It takes a very slight idea and converts it into polite fare. But one would have to value the dull, superficial, unexamined, boozhie lives these characters aspire to, to enjoy the movie. With characters willing to make lifelong commitments to someone they've known for less than a day, or reverse firmly-held convictions a few times in half an hour, Wilde is mocking every one of these conventional figures. I feel his contempt, and I find it legitimate. So it's hard to get worked up about plot resolution when I never valued A marrying B, or the like, even as a flimsy pretext to tease out a few jokes. The supposedly intricate plot barely reaches a mild muddle, before it's remedy is being engineered. You'll be taking mental note that we don't construct jokes like this anymore, as the characters spin their wheels to escape paper-thin conflicts.The Dorian Gray movie is a mixed bag but the George Sanders role is the single best embodiment of Wilde's mischievous wit. And 'An Ideal Husband' is a different genre but is more enjoyable.

tedg Dodgson's ChapelI've finally come around to this film of the famous play. The 2002 version wasn't done well and was the subject of one of my very first IMDb comments. The problem there was that the movie tried to be a movie instead of a play, and failed. This one tries only to be a non- distracting film of a play. In fact, I suppose the script is precisely that of the play with no muddling.It works marvelously and in the process becomes more of a workable movie than the later project which tried so hard.I think the reason is simple. The play had a coherent soul. (Oh, how I wonder how rare it is that we have someone that can do this, and what a tragedy that we torture them for being "deviant." Or whether certain types or art demand this on both sides.) That soul is placed in the heart of language, not situation. Its the words that matter, in fact it is the word/name "earnest," and the delicious notion that a baby can be mistaken for a book, in "moment of mental abstraction."Much of the humor or words reflected against contemporary society is based on oblivious extension of phrases and is directly influenced by Lewis Carroll, a somewhat older member of the Oxford community. Its rather wonderful seeing how this meme evolved on the stage, jumping from one clever writer to another until being extinguished by silent films. Its far more interesting than Uranian matters.But we have it here again, unsullied. The speech of Lady Bracknell has to be one of the funniest and sharpest sequence of words ever woven.I should mention a device. The play starts as a play. We see the audience, who looks much like the characters. The curtain goes up and the reality moves to the stage.Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.