MovieChat Forums > Dorian Gray (2009) Discussion > Before you judge this movie

Before you judge this movie

posted 14 years ago by CountVladDracula
21 replies | jump to latest

For those of you who you want to follow the trend of claiming this is an insult to Wilde's work, it's really not. Sure it changed a few things but think of the far worse versions of Dorian out there.

League of Extraordinary Gentlemen: Implied he was from a long family of people who bound themselves to portraits (novelization). And he couldn't even look at his picture without dying. This caused a long running belief that lingers today where many people think he can't look at his painting without dying. It also made him far older, dark haired with a gotee, and a college lecturer.

Sins of Dorian Gray: Made Dorian an actress in the 1980s.

Picture of Dorian Gray: I can't recall if this is from 2004 or 2006. Set in the 1960s it has a female Basil and very bad acting.

Dorian Gray: This 1970 film is a porn. That's it.

Picture of Dorian Gray: 1973: This version has Dorian cold through the whole thing, never innocent. He is blackmailed by James Vane and ends up marrying Basil's Canadian niece, Beatrice. Like the 1935 film this version has Dorian dump Sibyl after he's seduced her into sleeping with him, and like with this newest version, she drowns herself instead of taking poison. Also there's a very drawn out scene of Dorian blackmailing Alan Campbell WHILE applying jam to many small pieces of bread as he's laying in bed eating breakfast.

Picture of Dorian Gray: BBC made for TV version. This version has a Dorian that looks like he's twelve-years-old. There's a huge time jump toward the middle without anything to tell you a great deal of time has passed. The acting is horrible. (See the clip on youtube of when he finds out Sibyl's dead). Sibyl's very appearance is more than two thirds into the story to tell you how badly paced it is. The painting isn't even that hideous. He looks like a pale, older man. Oh, no, he looks fiftish! It's hideous!

Out of all the film versions of Dorian Gray I've seen this 2009 version is most true to the heart of Oscar Wilde's novel and his original intent. The 1935 version comes close second.

You want to see a miserable insult to Oscar Wilde, go see the 1940s version of The Canterville Ghost, some time. The most faithful version of that, by the way, is the one with Patrick Stewart. Though modernized, it's very true to Wilde's story.

So next time you think something ripped apart a novel, think twice, look at the other adaptations. Consider not the literal content of a story, but also the spirit and intent.

[–] plasticwingsband 14 years ago

Just because it's the *best* adaptation doesn't necessarily make it a *good* adaptation. Case in point. I'd just as soon avoid all of the filmed versions of this tale, chalk it up as one of those stories that "can't be filmed," and stick to the (brilliant) book, thanks.

[–] theLunchMovie 14 years ago

Well done, JT! Thank you for the full summary of these other versions, some of which I have seen, but most I have not. I'll definitely keep an eye out for the Stewart version of The Canterville Ghost -- thanks for that tip! I agree with you that many people overlook spirit and intent as opposed to literal content. I doubt anyone will ever make as great a film of The Heart of Darkness as Apocalypse Now was, no matter how closely they try to follow the book. I hope this Dorian Gray gets a theatrical release in the U.S.

[–] jack-crow 14 years ago

In reply to the original poster: That there are even worse adaptations out there does not make this movie even a tiny bit better. And it is not that it does not follow the novel word for word, it is that it indeed does misrepresent the "spirit" of the novel.
I would even go as far as to say that the Dorian Gray in LXG was more true to the novel and that is indeed saying something...

[–] smoogster 14 years ago

Does anyone else here get the impression that JTheGoblinKing is, in fact, connected strongly with this movie? Like the director or writer (or their spouse)...
She/he/it has made dozens upon dozens of posts here all in vehement defence of this turkey. This is, at minimum, the 2nd thread she/he/it has created defending this pile of bats droppings of a movie on the weak defense that 'every other Dorian Gray movie has been worse'. (which is akin to inflicting 10 dutch-ovens on a poor sod and then demanding they enjoy the last one because the previous 9 were worse)
Not only that, she/he/it has posted a youtube clip of Dorian Grey bloopers (how very fortunate to just 'stumble' across those). And then leaps to defence of this dire tragedy of an eyesore in nigh-every single thread here.
Just seems to me that they've got more than a passing interest/connection in this movie. Which, if true, is quite sad: To feel the need to come here to desperately attempt to convince people this isn't a turkey.

And if they don't indeed have any connection to the movie-makers, it's even sadder: Either they're so arrogant that they can't believe anyone wouldn't like the movies they do, thus impelling them to argue vehemently and often to brow-beat any and all holders of contrary opinions down into submission; or that they're so thin-skinned and so unsure of their self that they need constant reinforcement from strangers that their opinions and tastes are correct, leading again to arguing down anyone with a different taste.

[–] jack-crow 14 years ago

smoogster could be right.

[–] kelleyj1956 14 years ago

You know what, this was a very good movie. When a movie is made from a book the people who read the books are never satisfied how a movie comes out. To me movies are never always like the book but all around it said the story in a little different way. The actors did what they had to do and the movie to me was great. Now I saw the 1940 version and believe me this one is so much better. Stop comparing a book to a movie because it just dont work. But you still get the idea of what the story was about, and I just enjoyed it for entertainment only. The same happens to so many movies made from books, and people just take it so serious. Go with an open mind forget about the book and enjoy. The actors were not bad at all. This is probably why there are so many movie who have a book series never get to the second book, and that's shame because sometime the second is better than the first.

[–] jack-crow 14 years ago

@kelleyj1956:

There are lots of great adaptations out there. Actually, most of my favourite movies are book adaptations. Still, ths particular adaptation fails badly.

@the poster before me:

I just think it is a shame that many people will keep their distance from the book once they have watched this movie thinking that it is utter garbage. I was really looking forward to this movie, even before it was announced (Ryan Phillipe was attached to a Dorian Gray production in 2004). It has nothing to do with demonstaratiing superiority to people who have not read the novel.

[–] Sophitia36 14 years ago

About the bloopers, you don't need to stumble across them, you only need to own the DVD. That was not a convincing argument.

I can understand why you're irritated by JTheGoblinKing's vehemence, she is certainly very passionate and maybe excessive, but you're doing exactly the same thing by writing loads of abuse about this film in a very rude and exaggerated manner.

I do not believe this film is a great film but I enjoyed it, I won't go on a campaign to make people admit it is a masterpiece because it isn't, but it's not what you say it is either. I think a little moderation would be welcome on every side...

[–] Aidy 14 years ago

I always just got the impression they thought they were ever so smart cos they have read the book (and want us all to know) and probably think we're all dumb ignoramuses who only read the TV guide.

[–] thelastfaceyouwillsee 13 years ago

I've seen a few versions and I like this one. Funny how it divides people, especially over the bisexuality of the character! The acting overall was good, it was beautuifully photographed and it wasn't too heavy on the gore. if anything, i would have like to have seen Dorian get up to a bit more wickedness. Shame we didn't see what he got up to on his travels. There is a deleted scene on the DVD where he visits an Arab which would have been interesting to have seen included. On the whole, though, it was a pretty good movie and a decent adaptation.

...now I do it just to watch their f----n' expression change.

[–] mimosa_mirabella 13 years ago

This version was true to the spirit of Wilde's novel. I think he would have enjoyed the special effects. In some essay (or it may have even been in the novel The Picture of Dorian Gray) Wilde imagined a future in which people would be able to depicts colours which previously lived only in the imagination. He would have appreciated Surrealism and CGI.

http://vincentandmorticiasspeakeasy14846.yuku.com/directory]

[–] Wilde_child 13 years ago

Ben Barnes was a perfect Dorian Gray, only second to Helmut Berger (though Berger's film was a too free adaptation somewhat).

________________________________

Obadiah Obadiah, Jah Jah sent us here to catch vampire

[–] Viltrumite 13 years ago

I recently saw another adaptation of The Picture of Dorian Gray on TV. It was set in the present day, and Dorian was a model. It was pretty lame.

"Why do you say this to me when you know I will kill you for it?"

[–] mojo2004 13 years ago

The OP never mentions the 1945 version with Hurd Hatfield & George Sanders which is excellent. Unless he's referring to it when he mentions the yr 1935??

"It's like yelling at babies for not changing their own diapers!"

[–] Ilario1 12 years ago

I was wondering why the 1945 version wasn't mentioned either. It was really good imo. I got a better understanding of Dorian and his descent into the self absorbed cruel user. Even though the lead Hurd Hatfield was not beautiful by any stretch, the story was strong and George Sanders performance of the influential Lord really stayed with me.

Having said all of that, I think this version has some good things going for it, even though the story is a little shady. Ben Barnes did a wonderful job and he made a great Dorian imo. Not sure about the ending to this one though. It seemed a bit over the top.

"What happens to a dream deferred?"

[–] SicklySweet 12 years ago

Just because it's the *best* adaptation doesn't necessarily make it a *good* adaptation. Case in point. I'd just as soon avoid all of the filmed versions of this tale, chalk it up as one of those stories that "can't be filmed," and stick to the (brilliant) book, thanks.

[–] pugsley_lover27 12 years ago

I just finished the novel after falling in love with this version of the movie. The novel is brilliant but I can definitely appreciate the changes to the story that were done for the movie.

For instance, in the book, Dorian tells Sybil he doesn't love her after watching an evening of bad acting. I like the movie version better.

I think the addition of Henry's daughter as Dorian's love interest was great and the ending was much better than Dorian simply trying to destroy the painting and destroying himself in the process.

[–] zoozy1010 12 years ago

i actually thought it was better than the book, kinda... not exactly

i liked the book, but in this version, the only one i've seen so far, i found that some of the things they changed helped move the plot faster than the book. i thought that the book went on and on about details that kind of bored me. Not saying its bad, but dorian gray is my least favourite work of oscar wilde so far... that is after salome. I'd rather watch lady windermere's fan, though i cant find a movie for it -_-

*I solemnly swear I'm up to no good*

[–] hels-dunleavy 11 years ago

You lost my at the mention of Extraordinary Gentlemen; you clearly don't understand LoEG by thinking it counts as an insult in it's perspective or quality. If Wilde was alive today you can bet he'd love the graphic novel and no doubt think highly of Moore. This movie is bad because it's flimsy at the wrong moments and melodramatic at other wrong moments, it changes things in the book not out of artistic necessity but out of an inept fear that a more modern perspective would be the only way to net a large enough audience and therein out of a boneheaded urge to net an audience interested in flashy debauchery and goth cinematography - such an approach is not inappropriate in itself if balanced against the shifts in the book, without them it's a hollow endeavour. The casting of was also a mistake, he doesn't even touch on the ocean of evil that should have been conveyed. Not that I blame him, it's far more likely to be the director's fault, which is a shame since the director seemed to know what he was doing on his other Wilde work - Barnes no doubt could have given a better performance under a director better suited to this project but even then he isn't good enough to maximise every expression, every gesture beyond the script and beyond direction to convey acres from the book in only moments, which is the only way a true classic will ever be made. It's unfortunate that Dorian Gray hasn't apparently been classed as a heavyweight adaptation worthy of A listers in every part, maybe if that were different it would have attracted someone who would exude depth even in a coma. Firth himself would have made an excellent Gray in his younger days, and Fassbender would kill the titular character, he would have been perfect in every sense if the chance had come up in the Band of Brothers timeframe. He could still do it now if an adaptation was very clever in cinematic approach to the desperately young, innocent and earnest opening....

[–] GreenBayPagan 11 years ago

I just watched this movie which is free on FEARNET in the US and was generally quite pleased with it. Colin Firth is wonderful as usual and I thought Ben Barnes did an acceptable job as Dorian Gray. He is a handsome man leaning towards androgynous beauty and I find this appropriate for the character even though he is not the blue eyed blond that Wilde wrote about so rapturously.

LoEG was a very underrated movie; I think, because so few of the intended audience have actual read the classics and know these characters. I thought Stuart Townsend in both appearance and demeanor was a perfect Gray. He captured the characters weltenschmerz perfectly while retaining his charisma and I think that is something that Barnes was not able to do.

As for Oscar Wilde he was a gift to the world as a writer, poet, dramaticist, personality, iconoclast and he was not lacking a sense of humor. I think he would be delighted if at times somewhat amused by the many adaptations of his work and certainly at our passionate discussion of same. Perhaps he is even peeking in on these boards as we write.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]