The Picture of Dorian Grey is a difficult film for me to rate. It's not a bad film by any means on its own, and it does follow the bare plot of the original, but -- the problem is that the original is for the most part not translatable into a visual medium.
Oscar Wilde may have written "The Picture of Dorian Grey" as an experiment in writing about the senses. Lord Henry Wotton, for instance, seems to have been a metaphor for scent; his scenes in the book are imbued with descriptions about aromas such as flower fragrances, tobacco smoke, and the like. Sybil Vane the singer is the metaphor for sound; once she is no longer the angelic soprano, she no longer exists to Dorian. Despite being a painter, Basil appears to have represented taste; once Dorian kills him, Dorian does not eat or drink again in the novel. James Vane is perhaps touch; the touch of death? Dorian himself is sight, false vision at least; his portrait in the attic the truth about himself.
But how does a director show that in a film? And how does he show the layers upon layers of social commentary that Wilde piled upon the metaphors? Albert Lewin perhaps wisely decided not to. The story of the movie stands as is. However, the reader looking for a faithful adaptation of the book would not find it here. I'm not sure if he would or could find it in any movie.
Oscar Wilde may have written "The Picture of Dorian Grey" as an experiment in writing about the senses. Lord Henry Wotton, for instance, seems to have been a metaphor for scent; his scenes in the book are imbued with descriptions about aromas such as flower fragrances, tobacco smoke, and the like. Sybil Vane the singer is the metaphor for sound; once she is no longer the angelic soprano, she no longer exists to Dorian. Despite being a painter, Basil appears to have represented taste; once Dorian kills him, Dorian does not eat or drink again in the novel. James Vane is perhaps touch; the touch of death? Dorian himself is sight, false vision at least; his portrait in the attic the truth about himself.
But how does a director show that in a film? And how does he show the layers upon layers of social commentary that Wilde piled upon the metaphors? Albert Lewin perhaps wisely decided not to. The story of the movie stands as is. However, the reader looking for a faithful adaptation of the book would not find it here. I'm not sure if he would or could find it in any movie.