19 reviews
Young Shane Briant was the prettiest Dorian Gray ever on screen. In this version of The Picture Of Dorian Gray I got the distinct feeling that this is how Oscar Wilde probably saw his character in real life. His inspiration probably was some pretty twink he met in passing in the London underground gay scene.
Although Briant narrates this story of his life which dates from 1891 to 1911 which was after Wilde himself was gone, the story is seen from two pairs of eyes. One is that of Nigel Davenport the freewheeling hedonist who takes Gray under his wing. He's the witty Wilde and full of aphorisms which he tosses off to express his attitudes about life and love. The other is the artist Charles Aidman who paints that infamous portrait showing Gray in the full bloom of youth and attractiveness. This was Wilde the closeted gay man so hopelessly in love with the pretty Mr. Gray.
Of course Briant is taken with the portrait and wishes a strange wish that the opposite of life comes true, that he remain young and attractive and the portrait age like we humans do. But not all of us lead a life of total debauchery. It's that which the portrait shows as his pleasures age him rapidly on canvas. And his sins which includes the deaths of several people either by accident or very much design.
This is a nice television production of the Oscar Wilde classic, Briant is the quintessential Dorian Gray. If they do it again I could see Robert Pattinson playing the part.
Although Briant narrates this story of his life which dates from 1891 to 1911 which was after Wilde himself was gone, the story is seen from two pairs of eyes. One is that of Nigel Davenport the freewheeling hedonist who takes Gray under his wing. He's the witty Wilde and full of aphorisms which he tosses off to express his attitudes about life and love. The other is the artist Charles Aidman who paints that infamous portrait showing Gray in the full bloom of youth and attractiveness. This was Wilde the closeted gay man so hopelessly in love with the pretty Mr. Gray.
Of course Briant is taken with the portrait and wishes a strange wish that the opposite of life comes true, that he remain young and attractive and the portrait age like we humans do. But not all of us lead a life of total debauchery. It's that which the portrait shows as his pleasures age him rapidly on canvas. And his sins which includes the deaths of several people either by accident or very much design.
This is a nice television production of the Oscar Wilde classic, Briant is the quintessential Dorian Gray. If they do it again I could see Robert Pattinson playing the part.
- bkoganbing
- Aug 23, 2012
- Permalink
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.
- Bunuel1976
- Oct 11, 2013
- Permalink
The story is familiar - Oscar Wilde's Dorian Gray wishes his painting would grow old whilst he remain young. This is the version from Dan Curtis Productions, which produced the TV-series "Dark Shadows" from 1966-1971; the television show incorporated a version of "Dorian Gray" into the series' "1897 flashback" (1969). The next film, the sexually charged "Dorian Gray" (1970), starred Helmut Berger. But, the most well-known version remains "The Picture of Dorian Gray" (1945), which starred Hurd Hatfield.
This "The Picture of Dorian Gray" (1973) was produced for late night TV, and the "videotape" quality shows, sadly. Still, it plays. Few actors could play the part as deliciously as Helmut Berger (who fitted the part like a glove); but, Shane Briant takes a fine turn in the lead role. Mr. Briant's Dorian is sweeter-looking, but much more evil. Nigel Davenport, John Karlen, and Fionnula Flanagan head a great group of supporting players.
The 1973 TV film, oddly enough, portrays Dorian as more wicked than other versions. For example, Briant's character has sex with a child; and, it's not ambiguous! In addition to upping the wickedness, the film is played more for horror than drama. Briant's blackmailing of pal John Karlen (as Alan) by reciting his lovers' names tops other versions; the 1970 movie had Dorian and Alan's wife in some naked photographs.
****** The Picture of Dorian Gray (4/23/73) Glenn Jordan ~ Shane Briant, Nigel Davenport, John Karlen
This "The Picture of Dorian Gray" (1973) was produced for late night TV, and the "videotape" quality shows, sadly. Still, it plays. Few actors could play the part as deliciously as Helmut Berger (who fitted the part like a glove); but, Shane Briant takes a fine turn in the lead role. Mr. Briant's Dorian is sweeter-looking, but much more evil. Nigel Davenport, John Karlen, and Fionnula Flanagan head a great group of supporting players.
The 1973 TV film, oddly enough, portrays Dorian as more wicked than other versions. For example, Briant's character has sex with a child; and, it's not ambiguous! In addition to upping the wickedness, the film is played more for horror than drama. Briant's blackmailing of pal John Karlen (as Alan) by reciting his lovers' names tops other versions; the 1970 movie had Dorian and Alan's wife in some naked photographs.
****** The Picture of Dorian Gray (4/23/73) Glenn Jordan ~ Shane Briant, Nigel Davenport, John Karlen
- wes-connors
- Sep 8, 2007
- Permalink
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.
- Leofwine_draca
- Jan 26, 2018
- Permalink
- BandSAboutMovies
- Mar 26, 2020
- Permalink
- PacNW_filmfan
- Mar 26, 2009
- Permalink
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).
This TV adaptation of Oscar Wilde's novel, produced by Dan Curtis, the creator of the daytime TV soap opera "Dark Shadows," is a rip-off of the 1945 MGM version of the same book. Yet, its TV aesthetics contain none of cinematic beauty of that classic film, and what alterations it does make to the adaptation and book are either trivial or for the worse. The only elements barring this from being entirely unbearable are that there's something left of Wilde's great Victorian Gothic novel: I mean, the portraits look OK, and the acting isn't too bad. Dorian is handsome, and Harry is cynical. Although the story's artists, the painter Basil and the actress Sybil are a bore and vapid, respectively, that was always the case (except Sybil isn't an actress here). Regardless, for a movie based on Wilde's story, and one that ludicrously quotes his preface, "Those who go beneath the surface do so at their peril," it hardly begins to even scratch the surface of that work.
Like the 1945 film, this one includes a niece of Basil, who will later become the second love of Dorian's life. It's the first of many telltale signs of how derivative this picture is, as there was no such character in the book. Perhaps, my biggest qualm with the 1945 version was that it reduced Sybil to a pub singer, whereas Wilde's Sybil acted in Shakespeare, but at least she was still an artistic performer. Here, she's a barmaid. Consequently, when Harry refers to her as Dorian's "Juliet," it's merely a generic reference, and all of the book's allusions to Shakespeare, especially the narrative's similarities to "Hamlet," are ignored, if not outright contradicted. Changing Sybil's brother's revenge plot to a blackmail scheme is especially contrary to this and smacks of soap-opera histrionics. Meanwhile, the fornication foil invented by the 1945 film is reused, which replaces how Wilde's Dorian falls out of love with Sybil based on her refusal to perform on stage.
Moreover, while this 1973 TV version is in some ways a bit more frank about Dorian's sins than either the 1945 film or the book, the gay subtext is actually lessened. Sure, there's a glance here or a touch there that may suggest something to someone with the knowledge that its author was gay, but nothing like in the book, or even the 1945 film, really, which still included the suggestion of Basil's inspiration for his portrait of Dorian. Nothing of such remains here. The God-like narration in the 1945 film is also replaced by that of Dorian. It's especially unfortunate because instead of the painting being the record of Dorian's conscience, as the movie states, we have to endure his actual conscience via the needlessly talkative voiceover. Also unfortunate is the introduction of gambling debts, which replace Wilde's focus of aestheticism and his collection of beautiful objects.
The 1974 Dracula TV movie by Dan Curtis, while not very good, nonetheless was original for introducing the Vlad the Impaler connection and a reincarnation romance to a screen, which Francis Ford Coppola, among others, later stole for their Dracula movies. Despite its TV look, his Dracula also effectively employed those blasted TV zooms a couple times and in a rather painterly way, including with a painting of the Count and his love. Yet, with a story that is all about a portrait and about art, that imitates the 1945 film, which complemented this by itself being a gorgeous piece of art, here, we have a TV movie that is dreadfully dull to look at. Even the canted angles and mirror shots are uninspired. A pair of point-of-view tracking shots look horrendous with the awkward TV dolly movement and videotape recording. The cheap production values result in a claustrophobic and stagy appearance. Plus, the TV zooms and a score recycled from "Dark Shadows." I burst out laughing when Dorian's servant reports, "Your coffee, sir," in one scene, only for the music to blare, "dun dun dun" as the show, apparently, went to a commercial break. I mean, what was that? As inexplicable, the opening sequence focuses our attention on Dorian's ring, including with those infernal zooms again. Seemingly, the ring, the source of his identification in the novel, partly replaces the cat statue from the 1945 film as some sort of mystical explanation (again, not in the book) for the supernatural portrait, but, then, nothing comes of it. It's as if Chekhov's gun never fired. Somebody or somebodies must've been napping when they cobbled this mess together.
Like the 1945 film, this one includes a niece of Basil, who will later become the second love of Dorian's life. It's the first of many telltale signs of how derivative this picture is, as there was no such character in the book. Perhaps, my biggest qualm with the 1945 version was that it reduced Sybil to a pub singer, whereas Wilde's Sybil acted in Shakespeare, but at least she was still an artistic performer. Here, she's a barmaid. Consequently, when Harry refers to her as Dorian's "Juliet," it's merely a generic reference, and all of the book's allusions to Shakespeare, especially the narrative's similarities to "Hamlet," are ignored, if not outright contradicted. Changing Sybil's brother's revenge plot to a blackmail scheme is especially contrary to this and smacks of soap-opera histrionics. Meanwhile, the fornication foil invented by the 1945 film is reused, which replaces how Wilde's Dorian falls out of love with Sybil based on her refusal to perform on stage.
Moreover, while this 1973 TV version is in some ways a bit more frank about Dorian's sins than either the 1945 film or the book, the gay subtext is actually lessened. Sure, there's a glance here or a touch there that may suggest something to someone with the knowledge that its author was gay, but nothing like in the book, or even the 1945 film, really, which still included the suggestion of Basil's inspiration for his portrait of Dorian. Nothing of such remains here. The God-like narration in the 1945 film is also replaced by that of Dorian. It's especially unfortunate because instead of the painting being the record of Dorian's conscience, as the movie states, we have to endure his actual conscience via the needlessly talkative voiceover. Also unfortunate is the introduction of gambling debts, which replace Wilde's focus of aestheticism and his collection of beautiful objects.
The 1974 Dracula TV movie by Dan Curtis, while not very good, nonetheless was original for introducing the Vlad the Impaler connection and a reincarnation romance to a screen, which Francis Ford Coppola, among others, later stole for their Dracula movies. Despite its TV look, his Dracula also effectively employed those blasted TV zooms a couple times and in a rather painterly way, including with a painting of the Count and his love. Yet, with a story that is all about a portrait and about art, that imitates the 1945 film, which complemented this by itself being a gorgeous piece of art, here, we have a TV movie that is dreadfully dull to look at. Even the canted angles and mirror shots are uninspired. A pair of point-of-view tracking shots look horrendous with the awkward TV dolly movement and videotape recording. The cheap production values result in a claustrophobic and stagy appearance. Plus, the TV zooms and a score recycled from "Dark Shadows." I burst out laughing when Dorian's servant reports, "Your coffee, sir," in one scene, only for the music to blare, "dun dun dun" as the show, apparently, went to a commercial break. I mean, what was that? As inexplicable, the opening sequence focuses our attention on Dorian's ring, including with those infernal zooms again. Seemingly, the ring, the source of his identification in the novel, partly replaces the cat statue from the 1945 film as some sort of mystical explanation (again, not in the book) for the supernatural portrait, but, then, nothing comes of it. It's as if Chekhov's gun never fired. Somebody or somebodies must've been napping when they cobbled this mess together.
- Cineanalyst
- Sep 7, 2018
- Permalink
This is a TV thriller based on Oscar Wilde's novel - a suspenseful plot from beginning to end about young English aristocrat Dorian Gray, whom after meeting the hedonistic Sir Harry Wotton, dives into a life of decadence and self-indulgence. The story gets even more thrilling when a self portrait of Dorian changes appearances, reflecting his sinful ways.
Great-pacing with decent acting and a good setting that captures the beauty but eeriness of the atmosphere. There is hardly any dull moment in the movie and the drama, though a little too theatrical in some ways, keeps you glued to the screen. Overall, a captivating thriller!
Grade A-
Great-pacing with decent acting and a good setting that captures the beauty but eeriness of the atmosphere. There is hardly any dull moment in the movie and the drama, though a little too theatrical in some ways, keeps you glued to the screen. Overall, a captivating thriller!
Grade A-
- OllieSuave-007
- Jul 7, 2018
- Permalink
This one I was planning on watching again after not seeing it in years but I ended up skimming though it because I found it not as good as I was remembering it was.
The movie has a the look and feel of an older TV show or older soap opera. It felt very stagy and didn't play out as well as I had remembered. I guess some movies really are best left to a childhood memory. It's a shame I wasn't as happy with this film as I once was.
The Picture of Dorian Gray (1945) and Dorian Gray (2009) I have both enjoyed very much. This 1973 version will still be a good childhood memory for me, just not one I would care to watch these days.
5/10
The movie has a the look and feel of an older TV show or older soap opera. It felt very stagy and didn't play out as well as I had remembered. I guess some movies really are best left to a childhood memory. It's a shame I wasn't as happy with this film as I once was.
The Picture of Dorian Gray (1945) and Dorian Gray (2009) I have both enjoyed very much. This 1973 version will still be a good childhood memory for me, just not one I would care to watch these days.
5/10
- Rainey-Dawn
- Feb 3, 2017
- Permalink
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.
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.
- Kirpianuscus
- Mar 18, 2023
- Permalink
I bought a tape of this film based on the recommendation of other IMDb users and have to say that I was very disappointed. I'm a college professor and showed this movie to my class; they unanimously voted that it's a terrible film. I guess that if you like the old Dark Shadows series, then maybe you'll like this. (I liked Dark Shadows when I was a kid in the '70s, but now I think it's just awful). The first half hour or so at least has the virtue of some fidelity to Wilde's novel. After that, the story veers wildly off course, at least as compared with the 1945 MGM version (which won two Oscars). Nigel Davenport as Lord Henry is really about the only thing watchable in the whole production. A lot of the other acting is bad, the music is melodramatic, and look of the film is terrible. Actually, it's not a film at all--it was obviously shot on video and has that characteristically claustrophobic BBC look about it. The opening scenes are particularly poorly lit, the women's costumes are terrible (the men look all right), and a lot of the characters--including Dorian--seem to have 1970s rather than Victorian hairstyles. The movie does well to include a lot of Wilde's dialog, but the voice-over narration in the voice of Dorian contains a lot of rubbish that directly contradicts Wilde's character. I'm a big Oscar Wilde fan, and I fear that he must have rolled over violently in his grave when this monstrosity was made. Its only improvement over the 1945 version is that the homosexual subtext is definitely more apparent, without being heavy-handed. I haven't seen either of the more recent versions, but if one is interested in seeing the story well told, I would have to recommend the 1945 MGM black-and-white over this one.
I first saw this one when it was first shown, so I'm not too objective about it. It really managed to scare me, partly because it was so late at night, but partly because of that whole feeling from a videotaped suspense story (the same thing that helped Dark Shadows itself). And the casting was so right. I hardly know Shane Briant from anything else, so it might not be so right to call HIM "well-cast," but to me, he IS Dorian Gray. And as far as the other male actors, the one who fit his part so well was Nigel Davenport (who's so good at "larger than life" characters) as Sir Henry. And John Karlen, a sort of Dan Curtis "repertory player" at the time, because of Dark Shadows. As one poster points out, this version manages to include the involvements with men, in a fairly subtle way. The scene where Dorian recites a list of men's names to John Karlen's character, as a way of blackmailing him, and the look on Karlen's face, were very well-done. (If that scene were done now, it would probably be done in a TOO OBVIOUS way, and be bad by comparison.) I saw it when "Dorian Gray" was barely a name to me, let alone more, so even more than the famous 1945 version (which is rightly famous), this is THE version to me.
Whereas the book is nowhere close to my favorite read, this adaption is a horrendous cheapening of the novel. Not only is it not true to the book, it is a dumbed down interpretation.
Want a closer version, watch Penny Dreadful. Obviously not the story, but the characterization is much closer!
Want a closer version, watch Penny Dreadful. Obviously not the story, but the characterization is much closer!
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.
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.
- planktonrules
- Aug 20, 2012
- Permalink
I was supremely disappointed with this one. Having just read the wonderful Oscar Wilde story, I had hoped for at least a little of the magic to translate onto the screen. Well, there was none. This version played like a condensed, dumbed down Reader's Digest movie. Not only did it feel rushed, it was cheapened and needlessly re written. Major characters and plot points were either changed or completely removed. I appreciate the difficulties in trying to bring a novel to the screen, especially on what may very well have been a limited (TV) budget, but there is no excuse for mangling a great story in this way. I thoroughly recommend reading Wilde's tale of the depravity that exists under even the most beautiful exteriors. But I cannot advise anyone to rent this travesty.
- basia-76363
- Oct 7, 2020
- Permalink
- Dr_Coulardeau
- Jul 30, 2012
- Permalink