Le Portrait de Dorian Gray

The key word for this movie is elegance. The cast move through sumptuous sets with the males dressed in immaculately tailored dress suits and the women exquisitely gowned. It seems that all the aristocrats lived in homes the size of Buckingham palace with high ceilinged rooms and magnificent staircases. They exchange Oscar Wilde epigrams in the cultured tones of the British upper classes.

Some great performances. Hurd Hatfield, an extremely handsome actor with a limited range ,gives the best one of his career as does George Sanders as the cynical Lord Henry Wotton, and a young Angela Lansbury is very moving (especially when she sings "The Little Yellow Bird").

One (very small) criticism. The color shots of the Dorian Gray portrait showing his degradation don't match the high standards of the rest of the design, they look more like pages from a horror comic. I think the producer's, with their obviously high budget, could have used a more imaginative artist.

As I say a small criticism. This a great film of psychological horror.

Hurd Hatfield sells his soul so that his portrait ages and reflects his evil while he stays young in "The Picture of Dorian Gray," based on the classic novel by Oscar Wilde. The film also stars George Sanders, Angela Lansbury, Donna Reed, and Peter Lawford. After wishing to stay young forever and falling prey to the words of a cynical friend, Gray goes against what might have been a decent nature and embarks on a vicious life that brings cruelty, sadness, and even death to those with whom he interacts.

The film is striking for several reasons: There is very little of what one would call action; many scenes are quite short; the film relies heavily on narration; the leading man's face remains impassive throughout. This could have been a recipe for disaster, but instead, "The Picture of Dorian Gray" is an extremely compelling film. This sumptuous production is meticulously photographed, with wonderful use of shadows which help create a dark atmosphere. The performances are excellent, particularly those of a very young Angela Lansbury and George Sanders. Peter Lawford and Donna Reed are the beautiful young things who don't have to depend on a portrait for youth.

Hurd Hatfield surely had one of the strangest faces in film - he certainly looked the part of a young, almost pretty Englishman, with his unlined face, high cheekbones, and full lips. As the role dictates, he was appropriately detached and lacking emotion. Six or seven years earlier, this role would have been perfect for Tyrone Power, who would have imbued it with more charm - making the evil inside Dorian all the more difficult to accept among his friends, and thus, his true personality would have seemed more treacherous. Given the way Hatfield played it, I had no problem believing he was capable of anything, and wondered why his friends didn't buy the nasty rumors.

As for the portrait - what a concept. Would that we all had one in our closets. It would put plastic surgeons out of business.

It is a mystery. Or is it mind over matter? The power of a mysterious painting depicted in this timeless tale of Oscar Wilde's imagination -- probing the depth of life's meaning.

It's costume drama, story began in London 1886. Definitely has an element of intrigue -- "a painting with a life of its own". It's eerie. It's dramatic. Its theme is scary. Such is a "deadly" wish of the main character, Dorian Gray: "If only the picture (a portrait of Dorian Gray) can change, and I can always be as I am now. I'd give my soul for that." Dorian Gray's obsession with youth became eternal youth.

Imagine that as time goes by, he will always stay the same rich attractive young man that he is -- never grow old, while the picture will take on the changes -- his soul and character. Conscience, no longer he has -- the picture took it on. The story describes how Dorian Gray spends his life henceforth and the consequences that entail.

A very young Angela Lansbury, after her debut in George Cuckor's 1944 "Gaslight", portrays the innocent young actress Sibyl Vane from the poor side of town. The bet between the characters of George Sanders and Hurd Hatfield brought to mind the cruel intentions of Neil LaBute's 1997 "In the Company of Men". George Sanders is the cynical callous Lord Henry Wotton. The events all happen in a seemingly civil manner, immersed in the society of the rich. Have and have-nots are juxtaposed.

The film is essentially in Black and White, with only the specific content of the picture of Dorian Gray in color when we see it through Dorian's eyes.

It's another B/W classics gem, well-cut and impeccably presented. It encompasses sentiments and all elements: mystery, intrigue, love lost, friendships, regrets, and fear. Dorian Gray with a tormented inside -- pining for the return of his soul. Is this the Devil's advocate? You see no hell depicted as in Vincent Ward's 1998 "What Dreams May Come", or Woody Allen's 1997 "Deconstructing Harry" or Taylor Hackford's 1998 "The Devil's Advocate". No glamorous, elaborate take on the Devil, but the atmosphere provided that suggestion. There's no special effects, yet you can feel the twistedness: a man asking for help within yet unable to help himself because he's a lost soul. The temperature of the movie seems like being in 10 degree Celsius -- cold in sentiment and tone. There was a glimmer of warmth -- it flickered and faded with the innocent Sibyl Vane character.

The subject matter is timeless even though the film was made in 1945. The story is fascinating in spite of the pace which may not be at breakneck speed as in today's action packed, sound effects filled movies.

You can say it's pseudo sci-fi -- a foreboding tale it is. By and by, Dorian Gray's unchanging mask-like face reminds me of "Mr. Sardonicus" (William Castle's 1961). His behaviors are no longer placid -- gradually turning into hideous evils. This film questions one's probity. The mystery of life is to live it not to attain immortality. How uninteresting it'd be to be changeless and ageless? (John Boorman's 1974 sci-fi "Zardoz" with Sean Connery and Charlotte Rampling came to mind). Growth and change are intrinsic elements of life. Life and death go hand in hand cyclically. A truly worthwhile effort from writer/director Albert Lewin.

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.

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.