I have seen three video/film versions of this play (the 1969 Jeremey Brett, this 1998, and the 1999 Blanchette/Everette/Northam) and have also read the script. Of the three, this 1998 version, set in contemporary 1998, is the truest to the original script, and it is a great compliment to Wilde and to these actors that his dialog and epigrams flow naturally from the contemporary characters, almost exactly 100 years after the original setting of the play. Moreover, this 1998 version is the only one in which the characters are the right ages: Mrs. Chevely and Mrs. Chiltern, who went to school together, must be the same age, and here they are both about 27, as Wilde wrote it. Sir Robert Chiltern is about 40, Lord Goring 34. The only major change in this version is that Sir Robert is not in Parliament, nor is the action in London; instead, he is in local county politics in rural England. Thus, at the end, he is not offered a seat in the cabinet, but instead, is chosen by his party to run for Parliament. I suspect director/adapter Bill Cartlidge made this change because it would not have been credible in the contemporary setting for a woman as young as Mrs. Chevely to have already made a success in some foreign capital, as she has in the back-story of the original play.
The emotional highlight of this 1998 version is the performance of Ms. Trevyn McDowell as Gertrude Chiltern. All of her scenes are spot-on convincing and powerful -- especially the scenes where she realizes her husband acted badly in the past, the moment where her husband confronts her with her pink-note-paper letter and she realizes he thinks it was for him, and where she admits she deceived him about her letter. Her performance makes clear what the other two versions do not: that this play is truly about Gertrude Chiltern and her learning to have a more understanding heart. This is the same theme as in Wilde's play Lady Windermere's Fan. The other performances are all convincing, except I found it a little hard to believe that Sadie Frost (as Mrs. Chevely), even though the correct age for the part, could have been as calculating as the script requires. I think the problem stems from the costuming and hairstyle -- Mrs. Chevely here looks like a sexy young seductress, but the character is really someone who is elegant and with a level of greed that is reflected in her dress and jewelry. The change in the setting of the action -- from London to the country -- while perhaps intended to make this character more credible, unfortunately undermines this character in another way, since it is hard to believe that Mrs. Chevely would want to leave London to re-establish herself in the country, whereas in the original, it was quite natural to think that a fashionable Englishwoman would want to return to her own capital city after a few years abroad.
I found it interesting that despite the general accuracy of this version to the original script, even this version (as do the other versions) cut the lines in which first Lord Goring, and then Gertrude, say that "A man's life has more value than a woman's. It has larger issues, wider scope, greater ambitions. A woman's life revolves in curves of emotions. It is upon lines of intellect that a man's life progresses." The howls of outrage those lines would provoke in audiences today! It is really quite interesting to contemplate the change in 100 years: at the time of the play, being gay (like Wilde) was the outrage that caused society to destroy one, and holding these sentiments was accepted; today it is the opposite. It makes one wonder how in the year 2095, sentiments and conduct condemned today may be accepted, and other sentiments and conduct accepted today will be condemned. Ironically, those are the lines that must be cut in a contemporary version such as this one, since no credible characters in 1998 would say such things; the 1999 Blanchette version cuts them even though it is set in 1895, not 1998, no doubt because it would set-off such an adverse reaction in the audience as to suddenly render the characters unsympathetic. The 1969 Brett version escapes the whole issue by entirely cutting the last part of the play, and ending with Sir Robert deciding to retire from public life, and with Sir Robert posing no objection to Goring marrying Mabel. The 1969 version thus avoids the scene where Gertrude must reveal her own deception to her husband. (I am posting separate comments on the 1999 version and on the 1969 version, which is filed in IMDb under "Play of the Month" season 4, episode 9).
In sum, this is the best version to watch if you want to get the most accurate understanding of Wilde's original, both in terms of language and in terms of the characters, their emotional arcs, and interactions. This is the one that best reflects Wilde's own vision, when he said that the play was about "the difference in the way in which a man loves a woman from that in which a woman loves a man, the passion that women have for making ideals (which is their weakness) and the weakness of a man who dares not show his imperfections to the thing he loves. The end of Act I, the end of Act II, and the scene in the last act, when Lord Goring points out the higher importance of a man's life over a woman's to take three prominent instances seem to have been quite missed by most of the critics. They failed to see their meaning; they really thought that it was a play about a bracelet...." (extract from Gilbert Burgess, 'A Talk with Mr. Oscar Wilde' The Sketch, 9 Jan. 1895 quoted in Tydeman Comedies, 37)
The emotional highlight of this 1998 version is the performance of Ms. Trevyn McDowell as Gertrude Chiltern. All of her scenes are spot-on convincing and powerful -- especially the scenes where she realizes her husband acted badly in the past, the moment where her husband confronts her with her pink-note-paper letter and she realizes he thinks it was for him, and where she admits she deceived him about her letter. Her performance makes clear what the other two versions do not: that this play is truly about Gertrude Chiltern and her learning to have a more understanding heart. This is the same theme as in Wilde's play Lady Windermere's Fan. The other performances are all convincing, except I found it a little hard to believe that Sadie Frost (as Mrs. Chevely), even though the correct age for the part, could have been as calculating as the script requires. I think the problem stems from the costuming and hairstyle -- Mrs. Chevely here looks like a sexy young seductress, but the character is really someone who is elegant and with a level of greed that is reflected in her dress and jewelry. The change in the setting of the action -- from London to the country -- while perhaps intended to make this character more credible, unfortunately undermines this character in another way, since it is hard to believe that Mrs. Chevely would want to leave London to re-establish herself in the country, whereas in the original, it was quite natural to think that a fashionable Englishwoman would want to return to her own capital city after a few years abroad.
I found it interesting that despite the general accuracy of this version to the original script, even this version (as do the other versions) cut the lines in which first Lord Goring, and then Gertrude, say that "A man's life has more value than a woman's. It has larger issues, wider scope, greater ambitions. A woman's life revolves in curves of emotions. It is upon lines of intellect that a man's life progresses." The howls of outrage those lines would provoke in audiences today! It is really quite interesting to contemplate the change in 100 years: at the time of the play, being gay (like Wilde) was the outrage that caused society to destroy one, and holding these sentiments was accepted; today it is the opposite. It makes one wonder how in the year 2095, sentiments and conduct condemned today may be accepted, and other sentiments and conduct accepted today will be condemned. Ironically, those are the lines that must be cut in a contemporary version such as this one, since no credible characters in 1998 would say such things; the 1999 Blanchette version cuts them even though it is set in 1895, not 1998, no doubt because it would set-off such an adverse reaction in the audience as to suddenly render the characters unsympathetic. The 1969 Brett version escapes the whole issue by entirely cutting the last part of the play, and ending with Sir Robert deciding to retire from public life, and with Sir Robert posing no objection to Goring marrying Mabel. The 1969 version thus avoids the scene where Gertrude must reveal her own deception to her husband. (I am posting separate comments on the 1999 version and on the 1969 version, which is filed in IMDb under "Play of the Month" season 4, episode 9).
In sum, this is the best version to watch if you want to get the most accurate understanding of Wilde's original, both in terms of language and in terms of the characters, their emotional arcs, and interactions. This is the one that best reflects Wilde's own vision, when he said that the play was about "the difference in the way in which a man loves a woman from that in which a woman loves a man, the passion that women have for making ideals (which is their weakness) and the weakness of a man who dares not show his imperfections to the thing he loves. The end of Act I, the end of Act II, and the scene in the last act, when Lord Goring points out the higher importance of a man's life over a woman's to take three prominent instances seem to have been quite missed by most of the critics. They failed to see their meaning; they really thought that it was a play about a bracelet...." (extract from Gilbert Burgess, 'A Talk with Mr. Oscar Wilde' The Sketch, 9 Jan. 1895 quoted in Tydeman Comedies, 37)