Jeunes 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.

gftbiloxi 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

robinp 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.

harry-76 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.