Oscar Wilde is considered one of the most famous playwrights and poets in history, one of the key figures of European modernism and aestheticism. His fantasy gave rise to several famous plays, stories and stories, one of which is the most popular comedy about “Canterville Ghost”. Wilde was in principle one of the main rebels of the Victorian era, not used to obeying established norms and rules. His only, but the most famous novel is the mystical thriller “Portrait of Dorian Gray”, which was filmed several times, but the 1945 version is considered the best of all.
Young aristocrat Dorian Gray becomes a model for the artist Basil Hallward, who paints a brilliant portrait of a beautiful young man. The work so falls into the soul of not only the artist, but also Dorian that he involuntarily utters a wish that he change places with the portrait, and all his vices and, most importantly, old age remained in the picture, and Dorian himself remained forever young. To Dorian’s surprise and the unhappiness of his entourage, his wish comes true. A young man enters a world of lust, debauchery and cruelty, because of which innocent people soon begin to die.
It is worth considering that “Portrait of Dorian Gray” is a complex and multi-layered work, and each of the characters personified in his hero a certain hidden symbol or truth. First of all, it should be noted the little-known but well-played actor Heard Hatfield, a man so intoxicated with his beauty and fixated on his own pleasures that he did not notice how his actions destroyed other people’s lives. We can also safely mention George Sanders as Lord Henry Watton, the ideological inspirer of Dorian, who did not even imagine what kind of monster his student would turn into. Finally, we should mention the very young Angela Lansbury in the role of Sybil Vane, a young singer who lived almost all her life in the illusion of the beauty of the theater scene, but who learned with Dorian not just reality, but her cruel injustice, which ultimately ruined the young girl.
Taking into account the path Albert Levin had to go before becoming a director, we can say that he was incomparably lucky. The fact is that Levin really shot an innovative work, which is not just a film adaptation of the novel, but the novel itself, but almost live. Here a philosophical parable, a mystical thriller and a melodrama are combined, and human individualism becomes the central figure of everything. Wilde himself was famous for his individualism, because of which he fell out of respect for his colleagues and former fans. At the same time, in the novel, he rigidly sweeps through this concept of life, not once again emphasizing that in everything you need to know the measure. The main character turned into a crazy egoist, who rigidly walks through the feelings of people close to him, and someone completely takes away life without conscience. The most important message is that insight is inevitable. What is important is when it will come, when something can be corrected, or when death will put an end to chaos?
The success of this picture was also due to the fact that “Portrait of Dorian Gray” is almost a literal adaptation of the novel, except for not so significant differences with the plot. The story takes place in Victorian England. Aristocrat and hedonist Henry Watton visits his artist friend Baszil Hallward as he paints a portrait of the young Lord Dorian Gray. The young man falls so in love with his portrait that he asks mysterious forces that it is the portrait that ages instead of him and keeps in itself all the sins and vices he commits. It so happens that Dorian pronounces his wish, being next to an ancient statuette of an Egyptian deity. The desire of the hero comes true, he is indeed now immortal, which means that he can live as his soul pleases. Years pass, and during this time Dorian destroys several lives: first the young singer Sybil Wayne, then the artist Baszil Hallward, after his brother Sybil decided to take revenge on the abuser. Dorian does not grow old and does not pay for his sins, while his portrait turns into something terrible, hardly resembling a living person. But over the years, Dorian comes to the realization of his actions and, finally, begin to play the pangs of conscience, which force a change in attitude to life and others, however, when it is very, very late.
In general, “Portrait of Dorian Gray” even now has not lost its former aesthetic. The film still has that enviable atmosphere and the ability to immerse the viewer in philosophical fabrications, seasoning everything with cruel mysticism. At the same time, aesthetes and visualists will appreciate the artistic side of the film, especially color inserts during the close-up demonstration of the portrait. In general, I definitely recommend watching.
Films based on the great novel by Oscar Wilde “Portrait of Dorian Gray”, at the moment there are about thirty. Some of them, made during the reign of silent cinema, have not reached our times. The version of Albert Levin is one of the first that we can see from the list created in the next cinematic era. Awarded an Oscar for cinematography (and it really does not raise any questions) and nominated for the same award for Best Supporting Actress and Best Artist, the film is a benchmark of old Hollywood cinema. But is it really that good?
Here we are faced with the question of how autonomous in its performance should be the adaptation of the classics. Levine, without departing from the original plan of Wilde, still introduces some changes in the plot that can be perceived by zealous admirers of the novel with varying success. For example, in the original, the very desire of Dorian to preserve youth played the role of a curse; here it was not without a cat statuette – one of the seventy-three gods of Egypt. Also, the tragedy of Sybil Wayne scenario has a slightly different development, and the dialogue of Lord Henry is not quite the same as in the book. These are not the only metamorphoses that occurred with the transfer of the original source to the screen. With the innovations taken into account, the picture plays with different colors, but in such a vision its individual charm consists. After all, no one said that the director is not free to dispose of the story as it benefits him. If the viewer is ready to accept the rules of the game, then there will be no problems.
What's also remarkable is that a couple of scenes where Gray's portrait suddenly appears are colored, with the rest of the film in black and white. This is a worthy visual contrast, for which the artist was rightfully nominated for an Oscar, and in general, every frame here pleases the eye. Speaking of actors, the way they play seems outdated. One can argue for a long time what the characters of the book appear to Wilde’s admirers, but in this variation you will encounter the fact that outwardly Dorian is not seen as a young and naive goodie caught in the net of temptations, and Henry and Basil, unfortunately, are not as bright and special as they appeared in the pages of the novel (the more so in comparison with the Soviet television play of Victor Turbin). Basil's sincere sympathy for Dorian will also have to be forgotten: this line is almost completely deduced from the plot. Actors more play the role of figures identical to the fashion of their time and the style of the picture, but in interaction with each other, their sensuality acquires other features. No matter how we read the emotional state from the beautiful Hollywood eyes, the characters of the film do not have the psychological rapprochement that is important to Wilde, and the director remains as tactful as possible in the use of visual means. Everything here is performed with the pedantic piety of the bourgeoisie of the twentieth century.
However, the nerve extracted from the original source is sufficiently present in the scenario. Separate episodes reveal him especially precisely: what is the cost of playing with Dorian's knife at the time of the fateful conversation with Basil or the modest but sinister phenomenon of the Egyptian cat, rhythmically measuring several times, like a clock, the time that Gray was given for a quiet life. The devil is in the details, and that is beautiful.
Albert Levin managed to make a good movie, despite the adjustments made (reviewers wrote that before us line-by-line film adaptation, apparently, gnawed eyes something else). Although not everything is as perfect as it was in the book, the film manages to be interesting and intriguing due to the correct directorial approach. True proof that for a positive result, it is necessary to see the “golden mean” between the consistent reflection of the spirit of the story told by the classic and your own free reading.
7 out of 10
The film was shot when it was accepted to shoot all the film adaptations as close as possible to the literary source, but most of the film adaptations showed, although not departing from the book, but not all book events. But, even if the film about which we are going to talk is shot the same, you do not want to scold it at all, since the film is elementary interesting and understandable, and can be useful to anyone who does not have the desire to read the novel, but has a desire to get acquainted with its events. The film is also very high-quality and beautifully shot (and in America and could not otherwise), it even came out on Blu-ray, but, unfortunately, was not “painted”, but even without color looks very impressive. If you want to see the events described by Oscar Wald in bright colors, and if you do not mind changes in the classic plot, then it is better to watch Dorian Gray 2009 - an ideal example of free film adaptation with an abundance of cinematic dirt, to become the main character. Here everything is described as told by the classic. This is the story of a young man who was fascinated by his portrait and wished to remain forever as he is in this image of a talented artist, in return for which this work of art will reflect all his vices.
Dorian is warned that the wish may be fulfilled by the goddess, whose statue in the form of a cat is in his room. After Dorian expresses his desire, he begins to live for his own pleasure, attends social events, and later dens, after which the young man each time checked how his portrait changed, and at the same time was proud of his deeds. When Dorian realized he had made a mistake and wanted to grow old like everyone else, it was too late. The perfect plot for a mystical thriller with an instructive background. The film was shot as horrors, which is confirmed by the episodes showing a disfigured portrait of Gray, and in this portrait, in addition to the image of the ugly face of a malicious sinner, images of demons still appear – in my opinion, this is superfluous. By the way, the episodes with the portrait in the full screen were painted, although the rest of the film remained black and white. In turn, the new film adaptation was conceived as a more elegant fantasy with beautiful scenery, but with the portrait, too, strongly “conjured”, which irritates true connoisseurs of English literature. Both film adaptations are good each in their own way, both are suitable for viewing by fans of the novel and not only - all connoisseurs of cinema can like them with meaning, especially mystical stories.
9 out of 10
Young artist Basil Hallward (Gilmore) gives his friend Dorian Gray (Hatfield) a portrait, looking at which, the young man in his heart exclaims: “If only I would always remain young, and only my face in the picture would age.” Soon, having indulged in a vicious and unjust life, which is actively preached by his new friend Lord Henry (Sanders), Dorian notices that his wish seems to have come true.
The British writer of the late XIX century Oscar Wald, of course, is far from his compatriot William Shakespeare in terms of popularity in cinematic circles, but his only published novel “Portrait of Dorian Gray” can not be called forgotten – the number of his adaptations, according to various estimates, varies somewhere in the region of 20 pieces. The version of the novel considered in this review is perhaps one of the most famous: three Oscar nominations and the presence in various lists of “the best horror films and thrillers of all time.”
Overall, I didn’t like the picture very much. Of course, to make claims directly to the idea and the plot would be strange – it is rather a “book” share of responsibility, and, having made a discount on the time of writing, the story, of course, is fundamental, one that will never become obsolete. But to many purely staged solutions there are certain claims. I don’t know how it was in 45, but in the last few decades in cinematic circles it is considered a moveton to convey the emotions and thoughts of the main character with the help of such long monologues of the voice-over narrator. This immediately betrays the helplessness of the director and the writer, who cannot construct the plot so that the motivation of the characters is conveyed through their words and actions. Moreover, in the case of such a well-known literary work, many moments the public could catch subconsciously, "on the fly."
Also surprising is the choice of actor Heard Hatfield for the role of “written handsome” Dorian Gray. We cannot say that he is ugly, but he has the face of a bored, arrogant intellectual rather than a person who has completely surrendered himself to the power of pleasure and vice. If Wald had a constant struggle between the romantic aesthetic and the depraved cynic inside Dorian, in this picture Hetfield practically does not show us either, despite the fact that he still has a certain amount of charm.
But I'm just talking about the minuses. The painting “Portrait of Dorian Gray” has its merits. First of all, this is the acting of George Sanders, who played the role of the homegrown “Mephistopheles” – Lord Henry Walton. That's who was completely organic in his image of a cynical, laughing at the surrounding hedonist, it's him. Also good was the young Angella "she wrote the murder" Lansberry as the first lover of Dorian Gray. Well, the entourage of the end of the XIX century is recreated very, very decently.
In general, the film “Portrait of Dorian Gray” gives the impression of an uneven and even somewhere “sloppy” film adaptation of one of the most famous works in world literature, which, however, manages to convey to the reader the main ideas inherent in this book.
6 out of 10
The film 'Portrait of Dorian Gray' is the adaptation of the only (eponymous) novel Oscar Wilde, released during his lifetime. I haven’t read it, but I was told almost entirely by a friend.
Dorian Gray, being with his friend, the artist, admires his portrait. The young man swears that he will give his soul to be young forever. He wants the portrait to age instead. But he did not take into account the fact that he expressed his desire in the presence of a cat figurine (an image of one of the seventy-three deities of Egypt who can fulfill wishes).
For years, Dorian has watched in cold blood as his cruelty destroys all who love him. He is still beautiful and young, but his portrait is disfigured by the countless scars of his vice. . .
The cast in the film is rather strange. George Sanders as Lord Henry looked funny. Heard Hatfield... I don't know. I wouldn’t call it so beautiful, although there is no dispute about taste. But the role of Dorian is not for him. By the way, I went to school with a guy who looked like this actor. He came to me, but I threw him away. It's an old story! Donna Reed - just a cute face, nothing more. Peter Lawford looks pretty ridiculous.
But the game Angela Lansbury deserves applause. I would even say that this is the best acting work of the film, despite the timing. And when she sings "Good-bye, Little Yellow Bird" (singing for the first time on the screen and, moreover, here with her voice) - it's something! The charming combination of purity and innocence, the actress conveys magnificently. No wonder it was nominated for the "Oscar" and "Golden Globe" for this film (and the last award the actress won). But she played reliably - there is nothing to say!
I don’t know how reliable this film adaptation is, but the film itself, despite some acting discrepancy, I liked it. The film will appeal to film lovers of classic Hollywood and fans of film fiction. Maybe not just for them...
I thought I'd never see a decent adaptation of Oscar Wilde's Devil's Portrait of Dorian Gray. I saw 4 film adaptations, all of them were, to put it mildly, not very good. Ben Barnes was a good movie, but he was far from a masterpiece. And then there's the 1945 Dorian Gray.
The first feature-length adaptation of Dorian Gray was released in 1915 in Russia, but I doubt that anyone has seen this film. In my opinion, it did not survive at all, and it is a pity, a very interesting project. Dorian Gray had almost a million adaptations, but in each adaptation there will be some disadvantage or more difference from the book. Screenwriters insert absolutely unnecessary stamps into their adaptations, and important elements of the book are generally removed. As for the film adaptation of 1945, which was directed by classical director Albert Levin.
The film does not reflect the whole essence of the book, but compared to other films it is the most adequate option. Most of all, I remember music in this film, it just chains to the screen from the very beginning of the film, especially the musical composition in the final scene is perfectly selected.
It is a shame that one of the main characters of the book, Lord Henry, was given rather little screen time. Heard Hatfield was a great performer, although I imagined Dorian a little different, but this one is still close to the book image, although here he (again) is brunette. I’ve never understood why directors and writers make Dorian look brunette in almost every movie. But Heard still has one nuance, more emotions, sometimes he is a little underplayed, and so very well played.
My favorite scenes in this movie are Bezil’s death and the final ending. I don’t know what, but I liked these scenes.
We have a very decent film adaptation of a beautiful work, not quite honest, but much better than its followers. Wilde would be pleased.