Dorian Gray (2009)

I have never claimed to be an expert in interpreting theme or the finer point of meaning inherent in “literature,” and that extends to film, as well. I almost feel like I’m unnecessarily putting myself out there by trying to “review” this film, the most recent adaptation of Wilde’s The Picture of Dorian Gray. Years and years have passed since I read the novel, too, which does nothing to bolster my confidence. But…Here goes.

The actor who played Dorian Gray must have a touch of Jekyll and Hyde in him. He needs to be able to command two personas: The sweet, innocent Dorian that opens the film, and the debauched, cynical Dorian that he becomes. Ben Barnes, while absolutely convincing in the former, couldn’t quite pull off the latter. He tried, I’ll give him that, but it was a tough sell and one I never fully bought into. Therein lies my one real problem with the movie: I should have felt something for or towards Dorian, whether it be disgust or sympathy or a shade in between, but once he shed his ingenuous skin it was difficult to rouse anything at all. Perhaps my lack of sentiment for Dorian cements one of the story’s (possible) commentaries: that of man’s depravity being fed by a superficiality of feeling. Lord Henry (Colin Firth) insisting that man take every pleasure without thought to consequence, without any ties to bind the conscience to the act. Dorian followed Henry’s lead down that path and when regret came it was too little, too late. And yet…however successful the film was at staying true to Wilde’s intent – and I can’t say if it was, not really – Barnes never truly looked corrupted or jaded. Or haunted. His face, with all that bad boy potential, only once delivered on Dorian’s seductive, uninhibited grace. I guess I wanted more; I wanted all in. For Barnes – who I thought excellently cast after hearing his name tied to the part – to own the role. To my eyes, he didn’t.*

Colin Firth as Lord Henry Wotton; I never knew he could do smarmy so well. I loved that Firth literally acted as the devil on Dorian’s shoulder; he was always so close, whispering in Dorian’s ear, tempting him with the promise of pleasure and vice, pushing him over the edge, beyond redemption. Firth imbued Wotton’s character with a mixture of paternal command and conspirator’s wit, which made Dorian’s willingness to follow him easy to understand, even while you rail at the foolishness of such an action. For all that Wotton was hypocritically corrupting Dorian, in Firth’s hands his character’s anger at the end was convincing and somehow justifiable. I enjoyed seeing Firth in this role; he pulled it off.

Shortly after viewing the movie, I tweeted about director Oliver Parker’s decision to put the story’s excess and hedonism on display.** Because you really do get to see Dorian’s descent; the sex, the drugs and alcohol, the bondage and blood. It manages to stay just on this side of the explicit line, but make no mistake: Dorian Gray earns its R rating with bare breasts and backsides to spare. And the painting…

So beautiful and so very, very gruesome. Mostly the special effects with the painting were well done; it was like a living, breathing thing in its own right, gasping as it took on the ills Dorian inflicted on his body. And at the end? Shudder. Ghastly. (One aside: My viewing companion had never read the book and had a hard time grasping how Dorian’s age and damage came to be transferred to the painting. There is a brief, subtle scene that stands as the bargain, but it’s so subtle as to be unclear. A blink and you miss it moment. And it doesn’t do much, if you’re watching with a skeptic or someone who needs to understand the mechanics of things – whether it be by witchcraft, voodoo, or whatever – to explain how it came to be.)

What else? Well. London in the late 1890′s, Whitechapel, piano recitals and costume balls, the film was visually lovely (and suitably unsettling and dark, in Whitechapel’s case.) And the supporting cast was good; I especially enjoyed Ben Chaplin’s turn as artist Basil Hallward. He played the role of the smitten man quite well and you really felt as though, if there were one person Dorian could trust, it was him.

Overall, I’d have to say that the movie was good if not stellar; there’s certainly enough to commend it. If you like period pieces, adaptations, or just want to look at Barnes’ handsome face, give it a try. And then come back and share your thoughts.

______________________________________________________________
*While I did not particularly like Stuart Townsend as Dorian Gray in The League of Extraordinary Gentleman, I can say this for him: The confidence he conveyed was heady. It was the confidence of a man who knew his appeal, who took what he wanted without apology and without asking. I could never see him as sweet or believe that he had once been innocent, but he did happily corrupted well. If Barnes had mastered that arrogance, well, this review would have been very different.

**I understand why the focus was put on Dorian’s seedy encounters, but I can’t help but think it detracted from the film in some way I can’t articulate. Concentrating on the sex and drugs in the moment made it impossible to know the Dorian behind the mask; how did he feel as the painting began to disintegrate, became a revolting parody of himself? You never fully know, not until it’s all almost over. Maybe some would think it unnecessary to the story the film was trying to tell; I just know I would have appreciated it.