The Picture of Dorian Gray

This film was produced by Dan Curtis--the same guy who wrote and produced "Dark Shadows". He also worked on several made for television monster films in the late 60s and 70s--such as a GREAT version of Frankenstein as well as Dracula and Dr. Jekyll. While I wouldn't exactly say "The Picture of Dorian Gray" is a monster film in the traditional sense, it was pretty monstrous--mostly because unlike the monster films, Dorian is a guy who CHOOSES evil--it was not chosen for him by fate. I must add that this version might just be better than the classic 1945 film (starring Hurd Hatfield)--and it's well worth your time.

The film stars a relatively unknown actor of the time, Shane Briant. I am sure Briant was chosen because he was amazingly pretty--the sort of guy Gray was supposed to have been. It's the story about a vain young man who makes a passing wish--that as time passes, he remain young and handsome and his portrait would instead age for him. This way, he could live as debauched life as possible and suffer no obvious ill-effects. While Dorian starts off slowly on this road to perdition, as time passes, he becomes a completely hedonistic sociopath where no sin is beyond him. He uses women, does opium, kills and there is a STRONGLY suggested scene of him having sex with a child (though this was handled in a very vague and suggestive manner and you never actually see the kid). All in all, a chilling story made better by excellent acting, nice direction and terrific production values. A horrible picture of human nature run amok.

This is the fourth version I have watched of Oscar Wilde's famous supernatural tale, following the definitive 1945, the trashy 1970 and the classy 1976 British TV ones. Producer Dan Curtis had reverently (and, generally, faithfully) tackled a number of horror classics around this time – R.L. Stevenson's THE STRANGE CASE OF DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE (1968), Bram Stoker's Dracula (which he personally directed) and Mary Shelley's FRANKENSTEIN (both 1973) – and this certainly upholds that tradition, while maintaining their standard of excellence. Indeed, the essence of the piece emerges quite strongly in this case: the Victorian atmosphere (despite the limited resources of TV-based adaptations), the moral issues behind the protagonist's Satanic pact and his subsequent callous/hedonistic behavior, the wit (which was always Wilde's forte) and the opportunities afforded the cast (notably latter-day Hammer regular Shane Briant in the title role, Nigel Davenport, and DAUGHTERS OF DARKNESS [1971]'s John Karlen) by way of superbly-delineated characters…though the all-important role of Sybil Vane is rather inadequately filled by Vanessa Howard. Needless to say, the gradual degradation of Dorian Gray's portrait features prominently within the narrative, and this obviously emerges a highlight here as well.

I like both this version of DORIAN GRAY and the MGM version. Both add a little girl early in the story who grows up to have an association with Dorian (this is not in the original book), and that is my only complaint. I especially like Angela Lansbury as Sybil Vane and George Sanders as Harry in the MGM version, but Shane Briant as Dorian in the TV-version is much better looking (I think) and far more ruthless than Hurd Hatfield in the MGM version: I think Briant is more true to the novel's Dorian. In the end, this is a very good adaptation of the novel (it even hints at Dorian's liaison's with men, as does Wylde, which could not be done in the MGM version).

The ring on column remains the definitory image of film for me. Like the causes, more than explicit , of the transformation of picture.

A good point - the option for Shane Briant as Dorian Gray. Not impressive, not the memorable, only the credible one .

Another virtues - the atmosphere and the way to craft his Harry by Nigel Davenport, like the precision of the time period ( from the year 1891 - the apparition of novel- to 1911 ) . TV movie, it proposes not exactly revelations and the second part can not be the most tasted by the admirers of novel but it works in just reasonable manner.

An interesting part - the induced nostalgia , not only for the half of century from the birth of movie but for the theater solutions for solve some scenes.

In short, just a correct adaptation.

This was originally broadcast in the early 1970s, by ABC Circle Films, I think, and it was a great drama for its time and it still holds up well today. Dan Curtis, who directed this also has a big collection of the Dark Shadows series and he has a good feel for the gothic aspects of the 19th century story. Nigel Davenport really steals the show as Dorian's older mentor/corrupting influence. Also, the homosexual aspects are handled extraordinarily well, by saying what they need to say, without saying anything, just a look, or a suggestion, nothing overt. Altho it follows the old MGM story, this one has a lot sharper edge to it and is more realistic, especially about Dorian's depravity. Davenport does really carry the show with his all-knowing, cynical observations that lead the way for Dorian's destruction and doom . . . but it is Dorian who makes the decisions, not Davenport.