Le Portrait de Dorian Gray

This wonderfully atmospheric retelling of Oscar Wilde's chilling novel is one of the best horror films ever made. It outdoes DRACULA and FRANKENSTEIN because it is about a man -- not a monster. Yet the monster IS the man -- and hides within all of us. The story works even more effectively than the similar plot in Robert Louis Stevenson's STRANGE CASE OF DR. JEKYLL AND MR HYDE because here we have the dual sides of a man portrayed not as two separate characters but as two reflecting images -- like two mirrors facing each other, sending the images out to infinity. The painting itself is one of the most horrifing images ever created in films -- a surreal reflection of what each of us can become if we lose our humanity and replace it with careless egotism.

Based on a story by Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray tells the story of a man that sells his soul for eternal youth. After having his portrait done, Dorian Gray, under the influence of the eloquent Lord Henry Wotton, wishes for the picture to age instead of him so that he may be blessed with eternal youth. After the death of his wife-to-be, Dorian embarks on a life of pleasure and sins, which don't affect the man in the slightest, but leaves it mark on the portrait which descends into a horrid impression of the handsome young man it's portraying...

This film is fantastically well put together. The acting, directing and writing are all stellar, which make this film one pleasant viewing indeed. The real plaudits for this movie, however, go to the writer of the original novel; Oscar Wilde. The story itself is ingenious. Of course, the idea of selling one's soul had been done before (the German legend, Faust, springs to mind instantly), but never in this way. The portrait itself is a genius idea and it allows us to see the man and the sin as different things. However, through it's ending; it also allows the audience to see that the two are linked, and overall giving a good commentary on body, soul and sin. The story has obvious themes of vanity and the lust for eternal youth entwined within it, both of which are sins in themselves. The main character of Dorian Gray is a man that is a victim of influence, and we can feel for him in that way; but he's also an ugly sinner on the inside, making the audience hate him. This is a strange situation for an audience to be in, and in the end; all that's left for him is indifference.

The film moves slowly, but this is definitely to it's advantage as it allows us to get to know the characters, and if it wasn't for that the horror wouldn't be able to work as it needs our emotional impact to function. The horror in the story is rather subdued, but this is one of the most horrific tales ever told. I think most people will agree that this kind of horror - the brooding, personal kind - is much more horrifying than anything that men with knives and any amount of jumpy moments can muster.

This film adaptation of Wilde's story is certainly one of the great atmospheric black and white films of the 40's. Reminiscent of Greg Toland's ground breaking deep focus cinematography in "Citizen Kane",the shades of black, greys and whites are sharp and clearly deliniated to produce an unforgettable, somewhat eerie look to the film. There are a couple of short Technicolor shots that will make you jump. Cinematography is the star here but let's talk about Hurd Hatfield. I have seen this film on numerous occasions and have yet to figure out whether Hatfield is a great actor or just a woodenly inanimate object. Whichever is the case, this is the role of a lifetime.....it calls for an unfeeling, blank-faced characterization which is exactly as Hatfield played it. His smooth unlined visage hides many things and his apparent lack of emoting is right on target. Does that mean that he just couldn't act and fell into a role that suited his style or does it mean that he rose to the task and his interpretation was the sign of a great actor, living the part. I don't know....all I do know is that he pulls it off with great panache! He was playing against one of the great scene stealers of all times, George Sanders, who spouts Wilde epigrams with his own inimitable class and Hatfield holds his own. The other players are adequate but I don't know what all the excitement is about Angela Lansbury's acting....she was much better in "Gaslight". All in all, this is a movie that I would recommend but beware....it moves slowly, very slowly. Once you see it maybe you can answer the question about Hurd Hatfield's acting.....or maybe not!!!

One of my personal favorites of films of the '40s is this visually striking version raising the art of black-and-white photography to new heights. The sets and costumes and deep-focus photography combine to make even more absorbing the story Oscar Wilde tells of the man whose portrait decays as he himself remains forever youthful. Hurd Hatfield never had a better role and he makes the most of it. George Sanders, Angela Lansbury, Donna Reed, Peter Lawford, Lionel Gilmore, George Sanders, Morton Lowry and many others contribute to the overall excellence of the acting. The period atmosphere of late-Victorian London adds much to the slowly growing horror of the tale. Complaints by others on this message board that the film is too slow or too talky are foolish. If you want action and special effects, see a Clint Eastwood or Bruce Willis film--forget this. But as a compelling and psychological study of a man influenced by evil (personified by George Sanders as Lord Henry), this version is better than any of the others made since. It's chilling, the way Wilde intended, and no one could deliver his cynical yet witty observations about human nature better than George Sanders. By all means, an outstanding film. Should be required viewing as a study of the art of black-and-white cinematography.

Elegant, atmospheric and measured. I suppose anyone brought up on fin de siecle Hollywood would interpret that as `slow and boring'. But this was Hollywood tackling an intellectual piece with, well, intellect. I must confess that the thought of a 1945 Hollywood attempt at Oscar Wilde did not appeal. Memories of one or two previous efforts at English literary classics set alarm bells ringing. But this was in a class of its own. Beautifully photographed in black and white, apart from a couple shots of the painting itself, the aesthetics shimmer.

I wasn't that convinced about some of the London scenes, especially the low-life portrayal of the East End. The opium den and the `Two Turtles', where Gray first meets Sibyl Vane, look rather too genteel. Compare this view of such places with those created by David Lean, just a couple of years later, in `Oliver Twist'. And this, in a sense, detracts from the depths to which Gray descends in order to be forever youthful and live life with scant regard for others. And in many years of watching BBC Victorian costume dramas I don't recall seeing such outfits on the backs of London's society ladies! However some of the other detail is first class. In particular Sir Thomas's decision to remain at table (`never could resist Aunt Agatha's quails') in spite of Lord Henry's outrageous comments rings true through to today. As the script had it `think like a Liberal, eat like a Tory'.

The acting is excellent with Hurd Hatfield's portrayal quite remarkable in that he wears the same expression virtually throughout, in order, no doubt, to conceal his true emotions. George Sanders, as Lord Henry, steals every scene he's in thanks to a rapid delivery of Wilde's witticisms that would have Groucho Marx and Woody Allen in awe. Angela Lansbury is, perhaps, a little too demure for a theatrical singer from the East End but, no doubt, this was a result of director's orders.

Essential viewing for anyone interested in the history of film.