BBC Play of the Month (TV Series) The Picture of Dorian Gray (1976) User Reviews

The MGM Version is Marginally Better.

[rmax304823 · 6/10 · 7 January 2009]

Everyone knows the basic story. Basil Hallward (Jeremy Brett) paints a portrait of young Dorian Gray (Peter Firth) that perfectly captures his innocence and beauty. Lord Henry (Sir John Gielgud) is entranced by both the portrait and the model. He more or less woos Dorian Gray and corrupts him with his cynicism. Gray begins to treat people heartlessly in his selfish search for sensation, beginning with his rejection of the actress he was in love with (Judi Bowker) because, being distracted by Gray's presence in the theater, she gave a poor performance as Juliet. She kills herself but Gray is unmoved. In the end, the butler discovers Gray, dead apparently by his own hand, shriveled and ugly, as wicked-looking as his portrait has become over the years.

The performances aren't bad, and neither is the script. (Adaptation by John Osborne.) But it's a filmed play, after all, and it looks like one.

Peter Firth doesn't look particularly unsullied to me at the start, or especially handsome either. In the MGM film, Hurd Hatfield wasn't especially attractive either but he DID look like he was ready to be thoroughly debauched. And George Sanders in 1945 was the equal of John Gielgud here, slinging around those Wilde aphorisms.

The early film, sadly, had been cleaned up by MGM to promote domestic consumption, I suppose, so some anti-Americanisms and anti-feminist barbs were deleted. "America has never actually been 'discovered,' merely 'detected'." And "When good Americans die they go to Paris. When bad Americans die they go -- to America." Both the play and the novel had a little trouble depicting Gray's descent into the obscene. In the novel, Gray engages in such morally corrupt enterprises as examining rare stones, viewing barbaric paintings, and fondling fabrics.

It's doubtful that a Victorian audience would have approved of what Gray was really up to, namely hanging around and having love affairs with both sexes. The MGM version couldn't deal with it either, but this play makes the homoeroticism about as explicit as it can. Basil the artist is clearly jealous of Sir John. The men talk of "loving" one another. And in the penultimate scene, Gielgud is awed by Gray's perpetual beauty and kneels to kiss his hand, a gesture Firth rejects with contempt.

Sir John's witticisms come thick and fast and they're always amusing but I found this version a little static and was disappointed. The 1945 movie had its flaws but the production values were higher and it showed.

Conscience and cowardice are the same thing; the former is merely the trade name

[TBJCSKCNRRQTreviews · 7/10 · 25 April 2010]

This comes on a DVD together with the 1986 TV release of The Importance of Being Earnest by Stuart Burge. After we watched the latter for English class, I asked our teacher if I could borrow the disc and watch this, and she was kind enough to agree to it. I haven't read the novel, so I don't know how much justice this does to it. The concept, however, I've known and been intrigued by for years. This is the first adaptation I've seen. I love the wit and poetry of Oscar Wilde, and at least some of it clearly made its way into this(much of it spoken by Gielgud, including my summary; nearly every word of what he says is excellent). Perhaps I should point out that this is not "funny", albeit it is quite clever and can be amusing. It isn't meant to be. This uses the die-hard myth of sins altering one's physical appearance to the worse(or if one is already ugly, that it is as a result of "evil"), through the experiment of negating that; would one be able to stop oneself? The script is well-written, and every character is credible. All of the acting performances are solid, and often powerful; the three leads in particular, with a stunning Firth showing that young age(23!) doesn't have to equal less talent. I don't know if the homosexual undertones in this are in other version in this medium, but I can imagine that, intentional or not, they were somewhat present in the original book, and it was interesting to go for them. Kudos to British television for having the guts to go with that. This is technically well-produced. There is a bit of moderate(if not graphic) violence and disturbing content in this. I recommend this to any fan of the author. 7/10

Great

[thomas-391 · 8/10 · 25 September 2005]

I enjoyed this film and after it finished it still makes you think about it. I believe Jeremy Brett is brilliant in this role although his "death" acting was a little over the top, but as its Jeremy Brett I didn't mind.

This is a good piece of drama and does follow Oscar Wildes novel very closely. If you enjoy this film then I recommend you also watch "An Ideal Husband" with Jeremy Brett as Lord Goring.

This film gives a great insight into Oscar Wildes way of thinking.And while watching it the viewer is reminded of how in a way Dorian Grey is Lord Alfred 'bosie' Douglas and Basil Halward is Oscar Wilde.

exceptionally 'queer' reading of Wilde's classic

[didi-5 · 22 August 2003]

This BBC 'play of the month' positively revels in the gay subtext of 'Dorian Gray', and perhaps with the cast it has (John Gielgud as Henry, Jeremy Brett as Basil, Peter Firth as Dorian) this was inevitable. However it came about, it certainly gives the novel's dramatisation (courtesy of John Osbourne) considerable zip.

I do have a bit of a quibble with Peter Firth's Dorian, he is a bit too much of a petulant, self-centred brat to really highlight the complex character created by Wilde. But this is offset by the marvellous acting of Gielgud and Brett (and of Nicholas Clay as the unhappy scientist Alan, and Judi Bowker as Sybil Vane). Despite only being able to restrict the settings to 3/4 interiors the story comes through strongly - the only problem is how to convincingly convey the passing of a number of years, and I'm not quite sure the make-up department succeeded here!

Overall, though, this is an excellent version and great to see it dusted off and available again.

Too skimpy to be truly BBC

[Dr_Coulardeau · 7/10 · 30 June 2019]

The film is luxurious and beautiful as for the setting, the costumes, the music, and even the acting since some of the actors are well-known and have been well-trained by well-seasoned careers. At first, the film is very closely faithful to the book, but we plainly jump from Sibyl Vane's affair that ends badly to quite a few years later when Dorian Gray dispatches Basil Hallward and finally eighteen years after Sibyl Vane, with absolutely no element to know what happened in the meantime. Such an enormous ellipse is by far too much to be realistic. We just jump into the unknown and we are supposed to know what he did, that is to say, to know the book, which by the way was not yet uncensored in 1976.

But even after this quick jump, the film shortens the end. Dorian Gray does not make Lord Wotton pay for his perverting advice by seducing his daughter, which gets rid of the vengeful motivation of Lord Wotton then and it also gets rid of Dorian Gray's ethical and even simply rational stance at the age of something like just under forty when he realizes in his mind that has aged even if his body hasn't that he has to look at life in a different light. And maybe he has to get to some existential stability. And then Lord Wotton cannot accept that at all, and he will do what he can to get rid of him. All that is taken away and summarized in one killing dagger-blow from Dorian Gray at the painting and the very improbable, too rapid and even skimpy shift of the monster in the painting to the monster on the floor with a dagger in his chest whereas the eternally young Dorian Gray is back in the picture.

That's a shame because the BBC has a better reputation and here it is not up to it.

Dr. Jacques COULARDEAU

Brilliant Acting Highlights This Production.

[peacham · 9/10 · 2 December 2002]

Onstage John Osborne's adaptation of "Picture of Dorian Gray" is a fine tribute to Oscar Wilde's talents as both novelist and playwright.On screen with some editing it becomes a bit sloppy due to the cutting of 3 crucial scenes from the play (one being an important scene between Basil and Henry showing that time has passed.)The acting however is brilliant. Sir john Gielgud return's to his Wilde roots as lord Henry,and although about a decade too old for the role,he totally becomes the enigmatic,life loving cad and cynic that Wilde brought to life so meticulously in his novella. Jeremy Brett is also strong,offering a touching portrait of the anguished artist Basil Hallward.Peter Firth,while not originally my vision of Dorian, handles the role with style and grace...and later with a convincing strain of cruelty. The supporting cast is equally fine, Gielgud's former 'Importance Of Being Earnest" co-star Gwen Francon-Davies plays his philanthropic Aunt Agatha with dignity and Judi Bowker makes a touching Sybil Vane. The wit,pathos and tension of Wilde's work have been remarkably transferred to the screen. My only other qualm is with the hair styles. Many of them seemed out of place,looking more like 1970's versions of Victorian hairdos rather than the actual style. Overall however,the acting and writing elevates this production to a high level of small screen excellence.

A thoughtful approach to Wilde's only novel

[veebee2 · 6/10 · 24 February 2023]

Rather than exploit the classic tale for its horrific aspect (the moral corruption of an apparently ideal young man), this adaptation looks to the philosophical or intellectual side of things: what are the natures of good and evil; does it really matter if we are one or the other; isn't human life and society just a sham on so many levels we may as well do what we like?

Most of this debate takes place in scenes between the artist Hallward (Brett) and Henry Wootton (Gielgud). And the debate goes on at length, several times through the production. Hallward is sincere and human, while Wootton is cynical and superficial and insists in talking in aphorisms (fine in small doses, but when every line becomes a piece of carefully crafted repartee, it feels overdone). Between them they battle for the soul of their mutual friend Dorian Gray (Firth).

In my view this adaptation falls short in breaking the classic writer's rule: "show, don't tell". We are told that Gray is engaging in the most disgraceful activities, that he is banned from some houses, that people actively avoid him, but when Firth appears you can't take this anything like seriously. He is rather camp, and behaves like a teenager in a sulk now and again, but there are no signs of him revelling in cruelty and immorality behind that eternal, androgenous beauty.

A few years after this, the BBC produced an adaptation of 'Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde' with David Hemmings. Taking a more graphic view of Hyde's crimes give this story (which has a very similar theme) far more impact.

Invites comparison with the 1945 film with Hurd Hatfield and George Sanders

[fisherforrest · 9/10 · 24 August 2006]

In dramatising Wilde's novel, John Osborne has condensed events, eliminated a number of characters, and generally implied rather than shown Dorian's essential wickedness. If you want a more explicit rendering, see the 1945 film. Wilde and Robert Louis Stevenson lived in about the same time frame, but were certainly vastly different men and writers. This story really treats of a theme similar to Stevenson's "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde", but note that Wilde chose to treat his story as fantasy, whereas RLS took the scientific route. Both the protagonists are men in whom good wars with evil, with evil winning in the end.

The actors in this BBC movie, take a different route, too, from those in the 1945 film. John Gielgud says all the same caustic and cynical quips as George Sanders, in his role really projecting Wilde himself, but with a subtle difference. You'll suspect that Sanders really believed what he was saying, but Gielgud may be saying what is expected of him rather than what he sincerely believes. Peter Firth, too, shows the two sides of his character in restrained fashion, but then we don't get to see as many of his escapades as Hurd Hatfield had a chance to display.

It's a very good production, with the dramatisation reflecting the essentials of the novel, if not all of its ramifications.

Marvelously acted adaptation uniting two superb writers

[enubrius · 9/10 · 28 May 2002]

Playwright John Osborne's (Look Back in Anger, The Entertainer) dramatisation of Oscar Wilde's only novel positively revels in the homosexual subtext of the original, perhaps too much so. Nonetheless, the dialogue, the acting, with a cast headed by Sir John Gielgud & Jeremy Brett, and the brilliantly cerebral production (marred only by a "too quick" ending) make this worth the while of any lover of Theater, with a capital "T".

Absolutely Brilliant!!!

[serpentiger666 · 10/10 · 13 October 2007]

I will always think of Mr. Firth as Dorian Gray, if I live to be 100.

Perfectly acted and directed, bringing Oscar Wilde's insight, wit and humor alive with an absolute and utter perfection unusual in television.

More proof that the BBC more than makes up in talent what it doesn't always have in money.

A must have for all Wilde fans-and indeed for everyone else. Inspired and perfected, every one of the actors looked exactly right for the role and every shot was well done.

By the end I found that I loved every single character in a way that no other movie of the type had ever inspired. Watch it, then try to watch another version. It's just not the same, is it?

Novel by a Playwright Turned into a Play

[Cineanalyst · 1/10 · 8 September 2018]

I detest filmed plays--videotaped TV ones such as this even more so. As far back as the late 1900s to early 1910s, when primarily French and Italian studios began to introduce the feature-length film by recording well-regarded stage performances, I detest them. They place us in the position of a second-generation spectator, removing the benefits of live theatre. The use of the camera is typically uninspired. Sure, by 1976, they'd learned to change up the camera positions once in a while, and this one has those wretched TV zooms, but it remains tediously stagy, which isn't helped here by the fact that all of the scenes take place in a few interiors.

It's rather odd to see the book by Oscar Wilde, who was mostly a playwright--this being his only novel, crammed into a claustrophobic, limiting theatrical performance. This one is so bad that it misses its greatest opportunity for a play-within-a-play structure, via the Shakespearean performances by the character Sibyl Vane. Instead, there are merely scenes where her performances are talked about; they're never shown to us.

Moreover, this is a cowardly adaptation. Although it has few qualms with depicting the violence of Wilde's Victorian-age story, this TV movie shies away from its suggestions of sex and drugs. This is most confusing in the scene where Sibyl's brother attacks Dorian in some unknown room. In the book, he was attacked outside an opium den, but since this TV version makes no reference to such a taboo subject, there's no indication of where this scene is taking place. They don't even complete this storyline, so there was no good reason to even include it here, either. You know it's bad when a 1976 production is more censored than a product from the 19th century. This is also the case across the pond in the 1983 American TV movie "The Sins of Dorian Gray." A 1970 Italian Dorian Gray film, however, is much more explicit.

To say something somewhat nice, though, this version probably contains more of Wilde's words than any other screen adaptation I've seen since seeking them out after reading the novel. But, I don't care about that; I'm not a lazy schoolchild who needs to pretend they read the book for class tomorrow. Also, John Gielgud, although he's too old for the part as Wilde wrote it, he quotes the epigrams and witticisms of Lord Henry with vigor.

There aren't as many movie adaptations of "The Picture of Dorian Gray" as there are for other 19th-century Gothic horror classics, such as "Frankenstein," "Dracula" and "Jekyll and Hyde," so I'd only recommend the 1945 MGM version, which is a beautiful cinematic showing rather than a shoddy videotaped play.

great

[Kirpianuscus · 15 March 2023]

Loving the novel, I was seduced by this admirable crafted adaptation. For acting, off course - not easy to not be victim of the Lord Harry proposed by Sir John Gielgud or to not be impressed by the way to create his Basil Jeremy Brett ( not stranger by Dorian Gray story ) and the young Peter Firth developing his Dorian but, more important, by the science to reflect the universe created by Oscar Wilde in the art, precise and charming, of John Osborne.

You just feel the story out of easy formulas proposed by other adaptations. And you admire some exercises of courage to define , in fair - honest terms , the universe of Dorian Gray.

John Osborne play adaptation of Wilde's great novel

[kijii · 10/10 · 16 November 2016]

This 'BBC Play of the Month' is my first viewing of what appears to be a great 2-DVD set: The Oscar Wilde Collection from BBC TV. It also makes an ideal set of BBC plays to collect right along with the George Bernard Shaw Collection from the same series of productions. The other three Oscar Wilde plays in this set include: The Importance of Being Ernest, The Ideal Husband, and Lady Windermere's Fan. Each play runs around 90 minutes, and the set also includes a biography of Wilde.

The Picture of Dorian Gray was really Wilde's only successful novel, but this play, adapted from the novel by John Osborne, is every bit as powerful (if not as complete) as any movie. The fact that it IS a play, gives the viewer a better insight into the dialogue of the characters as well as a liberal dose of Wilde's biting epigrams, and wit.

In the 1945 movie based on the same novel, Greoge Sanders (as Lord Henry Wotton) becomes Dorian Gray's friend and then (more or less) narrates the story about the picture.

In the play described here, Sir John Gielgud--in the George Sanders movie role as Wotton--becomes closer to the other two main characters, Dorian Gray (Peter Firth) and his portrait artist, Basil Hallward (Jeremy Brett). Here, Wotton is a dead ringer for the person that we always hear about whenever Oscar Wilde is described.

This play is very generous in relaying the homoerotic relationship among these three characters, with Dorian Gray being the fulcrum. Hallward paints his lifetime masterpiece in his portrait of Dorian Gray. Wotton desires to own it, but Hallward will not sell it to anyone; he will only give to its rightful owner, Dorian Gray.

When Wotton and Hallward meet, Wotton pontificates about the difference between the classes, the needs of the urban versus the rural folk, the manners of the day, the importance of art, and the relationship between the flesh and the soul (hedonism).

When Wotton meets Gray, he talks about the genius of youth and the evilness of age. He talks about the ideal of 'dissecting every virtue and every sin from the past.' When Gray is given the picture from Hallward, he says, 'This picture will always remain young. It will never be older than this particular day in June. If only it would grow old instead of me, I would give my soul for that...

Then later Gray says to Hallward-- 'I'm jealous of the portrait..every moment it takes something from me..Why did you paint it, so that one day I will be mocked by it?'

After Gray takes possession of the portrait, he becomes obsessed with it. He first shrouds it, then later moves it up to his attic. As time passes and Dorian Gray slips into noticeable depravity as the people around him grow older while he remains young. The secret of his youthful appearance lies in the portrait itself.

If this play presents a Gothic tale of the philosophical interplay between pure aesthetics (represented by Basil Hallward) versus pure hedonism (represented by Lord Wotton), it also presents the narcissism of Gary's need to be eternally young. The 'victim' of this strange blend of ideals is its object, Dorian Gray.

All of the subplots of the novel are presented in the play. But, the three central characters stand out in greater relief here. While there are female characters in his play, such as Grays' ill-fated lover, Sibyl Vane (Judi Bowker), they only seem to be plot-moving props here. For any really love, passion, or jealousy, one need look no further than the male characters.

This 1976 play shows clearly that the British were well ahead of the Americans in openly bringing 'the love that dare not speak its name' out of the closet.

Very good, but . . .

[Leahcurry · 20 March 2006]

I was already familiar with the 1945 version of Dorian Gray, and saw this only because Jeremy Brett was in it. In this I felt he made Basil Hallward quite unlike any other character, secluded yet very humane and wiser than even Lord Henry (John Gielgud) and Dorian Gray (Peter Firth). Unfortunately, Brett hardly ever gets to be emotionally dramatic (and those parts are wonderful!) The acting between the three leads in particular is quite good, with Frith getting several chances for drama.

Lord Henry and Dorian are two of a kind in snobbishness and insincerity, and it became crystal clear at the end that despite Lord Henry appearing to know much, he hardly knows anything and can almost be pitied. I hated both of the characters. Peter Firth is so much like a boy who thinks he knows everything. His appearance, though very attractive at 24, is much younger. Someone at least in their late 20s would have been generally better, but not here. Blame the curly hair--it actually makes the very handsome Jeremy Brett look ridiculous when he is the one lead character that is farthest from that!

Dorian's painting (at the end) is appropriate without being downright grotesque. The reactions to it are over the top. Also, what I felt was worst of all, the look seems to suffer from too much dim lighting. I suppose it is done to convey the impression of the film being very dark and stagy. But the acting does that.