Review of Fortune and Men's Eyes (1971) by Johnnylee T — 29 Apr 2016

Confused. Has no "point of view". Pretends to portray realism of prison life but it is unconvincing. Unfortunately at the time it was released, society had the view gays were predators and this film would have only enhanced that total misconception - even though the main character Smitty isn't gay nor the other major character Rocky. Yes, Queenie and Mona are, but one (although a strong character) is a drag artist and the other a weak victim. The gaolers are all violent and sick. It's all very bleak, with one of the most depressing endings of any film. No one is redeemed, nor any hope offered. For anyone struggling with their homosexuality, this would have sent them straight back into the closet!

Thankfully, depiction of gays on the screen has improved in the 45 years since I first saw this - as has society's attitude towards LGBTI people.

Special mention for the awful camerawork.

Important to remember, this is not a film about gays but rather how men cope in prisons (supposedly). Even the great Roger Ebert (go to his review - listed first on this site) gets it wrong when he believes everyone except Smitty is supposed to be gay. I don't blame him, as it is the impression the movie conveys.

Two from the numerous confusing/unexplained things: How does Queenie get out of his solitary experience so unscathed? He just suddenly re-appears and unchanged. Since when were prisoners allowed such easy access to razor blades? It's a sham.

According to Wikipedia this is Canada's most produced play ever. Got great support in development stage from Dustin Hoffman and Jon Voight. Shame then it wasn't transferred successfully to the screen. Also, in the same entry, the playwright based it on his experiences in a boy's reformatory where he served time as a 20 year old (?!) after being convicted for wearing women's clothing in public. These facts make the film less confusing. They make it more of a shame that the film fails, at least for me.