The Picture of Dorian Gray 2004 Movie
- Sign In
- Join
- Profile
- Friends
- Groups
- Discussions
- Comments
- Reading Challenge
- Kindle Notes & Highlights
- Quotes
- Favorite genres
- Friends' recommendations
- Account settings
- Help
- Sign out
Books2Movies Club discussion
Mod 
.
There were many films made, but the most respected version so far is one made in 1945, with awesome casting including George Sanders, Peter Lawford, Donna Reed and Angela Lansbury.
.
.
Seventies were the most fruitful regarding the number of adaptations - the posters present respectively those made with Helmut Berger (1970), Shane Briant (1973) and Peter Firth (1976) as Dorian Grays.
.
Filmmakers lost an interest for the book afterwards, if we exclude some non-English versions and that one made for television in which Dorian Gray is female, The Sins of Dorian Gray (1983). It made its comeback in the new millenium with a couple of adaptations, among which is that one you can see from the posters above, with Josh Duhamel as strikingly blonde Dorian Gray (2004).
.
Dorian Gray (2009) is the last one known, with quite an appealing British cast - Colin Firth, Ben Barnes, Ben Chaplin, Caroline Goodall.
As already stated, a lot of adaptations. You may watch any you like, leave your impressions of them and make comparisons with the book if you have read it. If you have some more links and curiosities to share, they would be more than welcome! The book itself should be discussed in its own thread here.
Mod 
Dorian Gray 2009 was not my first introduction to Oscar Wilde's the Picture of Dorian Grey, but it was my first experience of the whole story. I first heard of it in 'League of Extraordinary Gentleman' (we can debate the virtues and/or shortcomings somewhere else), where we meet Dorian Grey. And was immediately intrigued, as the story was hinted at, but not described. When this film came out I was immediately excited. Not only because of Ben Barnes (first seen in CON Prince Caspian, where I became an instant fan), but also because now I could find out what this story was all about.In short, without spoilers, I was struck in this film by how creepy it is. Not in a typical horror kind of way, but in a subconscious suspense and increasing disbelief. You will instantly fall in love with Dorian Grey, because he is SO pretty, and SO good. And then spend the rest of the film watching in horror as this perfect boy is corrupted.
Colin Firth's character was very refreshing in being the complete opposite of his most famous part of Mr Darcy in P&P. But I think it was the fact that Colin Firth is known as a 'respectable' actor, who always plays such 'good' parts, that we can't quite believe that he is genuine in his corruption of Dorian Grey. which only adds to the growing horror as the story develops. The respectability of Colin Firth comes back in the climax of the story and confirms that he, just as Dorian Grey, was never a typical Hollywood, 'bad guy'.
In conclusion, for me, this is what made the film so good. There is no 'bad guy' and no perfect hero. It digs very deep into different elements of human nature such as desire, corruption and restraint. Feelings we would all like to explore, but would never dare to. Oscar Wilde gives us an exploration of the impossible, and I think this film expresses these ideas beautifully.
I tried reading the book, but was a little put off so I can't really comment on the adaptation aspects of the story. I thought the novel felt more like a theater play on paper. Reading the dialogue I could just picture the actions saying them, as most of the dialogue is copied directly into the film.
I just finished this book. Loved it. Couldn't help but see a few (no several) connections to the film American Psycho. Indirect adaptation? 
Just looked at Netflix - it seems the only version they have is the 2009 version - you'd think they'd have more. Mod Good point! Yes, just streaming. I forget about the DVDs… 
I've seen the 2009 movie and for me it was good but not good enough adaption for Mr Oscar Wilde. The book is a masterpiece for me. 
Nothing can live up to the descriptions and how we imagine the character (and indeed the picture) would be like. I have seen at least another version, but can't remember much about it. Much more conventional is what I recall...Yes, it's true about the similarities with American Psycho, but the American psycho character is already depraved by the time we meet him and we don't get much background story (it was a while since I read the book though) but maybe that is the point and why it's set in that particular time and place. A truly close adaptation of the novel to film would be unwatchable I think (and I love horror movies!).
I have seen the 2009 version (Firth, Chaplin, Barnes) -I really liked it ! I felt that while being "less conventional" it stayed relatively true to the book and I enjoyed it even more than the book (which almost NEVER happens). The cast was great -Colin Firth especially - he plays the part of "the man who created a monster" perfectly! Ben Barnes looked EXACTLY like i pictured Dorian while reading the book. Yesterday I got the 1945 version of the movie in the mail from Netflix! Looking forward to watching it this weekend. 
Elena wrote: "I have seen the 2009 version (Firth, Chaplin, Barnes) -I really liked it ! I felt that while being "less conventional" it stayed relatively true to the book and I enjoyed it even more than the book..." I had the exact same thoughts: That though events deviated a lot from the book, it still stayed true to it. In terms of all of the sin that they actually showed and didn't just allude to during Basil's fatal interrogation, I have a feeling that the movie was much more congruent with what Wilde wanted his novel to be, had the times he lived in allowed him to execute it in such a way.
On a side note, it is interesting to see that the actor for Dorian, Ben Barnes, was Prince Caspian. Maybe another book to movie, huh? :)
Marci wrote: "...In terms of all of the sin that they actually showed and didn't just allude to..." Exactly Marci - the book hints at a lot of "sinful" stuff (opium dens, drugs, etc) but doesn't go into detail, so when watching the movie I was thinking "yeah, this is pretty much what i thought Wilde meant to portray when describing Dorian's corruption"...
I watched the 2009 version but wasn't overly impressed to be honest. Thinking it may be a good idea to check out a few earlier movies to compare and contrast. Having just finished the book again, I think that the major difference between the movie and the book was the following:In the movie, Dorian falls in love with (view spoiler)[ Harry's daughter (hide spoiler)] and in part because of her he actually wants to become good. He starts developing a conscience again and trying to be a better man. However, in the book, it seems like he destroys the painting because he doesn't want to be reminded of all the evil – wants to eliminate the evidence of all that he has done. Even though he claims that he is going to be a good man from now on – it doesn't seem like it, it still seemed like he wanted to destroy the painting for selfish reasons, to get rid of evidence and guilt….
I also really liked how in the movie (view spoiler)[ Harry had a daughter, who fell in love with Dorian (hide spoiler)] - what irony! - I think this could have been Harry's ultimate punishment for "creating a monster"...
(There were other minor differences that really did very little in changing the plot, so I was not going to list those...)
Mod Oh, well, I'm just a big wuss after all. I'll just look forward to The Hobbit :)
Alana wrote: "I watched most of the newest version of Dorian Gray yesterday, but quit about 40 minutes from the end ..." Lol :) I don't mind creepy movies, so it was ok for me (yeah, the sexualized violence wasn't my thing, but overall i didn't think it was too over the top considering movies nowadays)
Mod This 1945 version was great, except for Dorian Gray himself, whose acting was a bit... er... wooden. But everything else was superb, I really liked it, the cinematography, the atmosphere, all the other actors, even story was fairly faithful to the original.
The 2009 version, however, I couldn't make myself to like. I am sorry, but I think it could have been much more appealing had they tried to entice our interest discreetly as Wilde (and the first film) did. All these explicit hot scenes highlighted Dorian's outward degradation and felt rather superfluous. In my opinion these things were irrelevant to the story, made only to entertain those in audience who like show-me-everything scenes. I mean, Dorian wouldn't be the only one who had had decadent and ruinous lifestyle in these and any other times. What mattered was his loss of the soul, by being indifferent, cruel and heartless toward others... Also, Lord Henry's character wasn't really true to Wilde's, the film softened him up - the first film from 1945 was better in that aspect - we could have pitied him, but not sympathized with him.
Maybe Dorian is one of those stories hard to retell on the screen, because of its strong, merciless message and the lack of characters to like.
D: Blasphemy!!
I love Basil. His only flaw was to love someone and to care about him.
And I pity Dorian. His naivety made him fall for the dark side of the force.
I only hate Lord Henry, using people like string puppets for his own amusement. Ugh..
Mod Mod I love Basil. His only flaw was to love someone and to care about him..."
True, Basil was really nice character, but unfortunately had only a passing presence on the screen, and in the book too.
As for Dorian, I tried to find something redeemable in him, but I guess he lost me at once right because of that blind pursuit of Lord Henry's epigrams, like he just needed some pretext to go wild. I fear I am a bit harsh, but we see nowadays so many such pliable youngsters who are very eager to put blame on other people for their own bad deeds, that Dorian seems to me no different from them :/
I don't know. I wasn't just a huge fan of the '09 version, but I liked the '45 version even less. It's like the book was the balance between showing too much gory detail (2009), and not doing enough to explain how horrible Dorian was (1945). And it seems like, in the overall plot, the 2009 version held to the book better. For example - the relationship between Dorian and Sybil Vane. Could Angela Lansbury only learn and sing a single song? In the book Dorian is attracted to the diversity of the actress in classical roles. In the movie all she does is sing the same song over and over (and over). She sings it at three different times almost in its entirety (unless I lost count)! It gets very tiresome.
add: link cover
Flag Abuse
Flagging a post will send it to the Goodreads Customer Care team for review. We take abuse seriously in our discussion boards. Only flag comments that clearly need our attention. As a general rule we do not censor any content on the site. The only content we will consider removing is spam, slanderous attacks on other members, or extremely offensive content (eg. pornography, pro-Nazi, child abuse, etc). We will not remove any content for bad language alone, or being critical of a particular book.Welcome back. Just a moment while we sign you in to your Goodreads account.
The Picture of Dorian Gray 2004 Movie
Source: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1074319-the-picture-of-dorian-gray---movies