Pink Narcissus

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

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.

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!

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.

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....