ŷ������

What's this ? A group read. We will read the book and watch the movie and discuss it. All are welcome and encouraged to join in and share their thoughts.

Book: The Picture of Dorian Gray

Author: Oscar Wilde
Oscar Wilde (1854-1900) was an Irish-born poet, dramatist, and novelist. His works include collections of fairy stories; the novel The Picture of Dorian Gray; and many brilliantly witty plays, including what is often considered to be his masterpiece, The Importance of Being Earnest.

When? The discussion will begin on August 15, 2013. You don't have to have the book finished on this date. It is the date you begin reading it. We discuss it as you read it.

Where? The discussion will take place in this thread.

Spoiler Etiquette: The book has 20 chapters. If you are going to discuss a major plot element please type spoiler at the top of your post as well as the chapter number.

Book Details
Paperback: 180 pages
There are numerous editions available
Available for Free for the Kindle on Amazon
Nook: .99 cents
Project Gutenberg- Free -

Synopsis:
Wilde's classic moral horror story of the magic portrait that ages while its knavish subject stays young.

The Film:
~The Picture of Dorian Gray (1945)
~Stars: George Sanders, Hurd Hatfield, Donna Reed
~IMBD link for more film info


[image error]

Discussion questions- May contain spoilers.


1. In the preface (be sure to read this), Wilde writes that "there is no such thing as a moral or immoral book." In other words, art has no effect, other than aesthetic, on individuals or society. Do you agree with Wilde's premise? Does this novel adhere to his statement?

2. What is the relationship between Basil and Dorian...from beginning to end?

3. Talk about Lord Henry: what code or set of beliefs does he live by? How does he view conventional morality and in what ways does he challenge it? Why, for instance, does he believe it is futile and wrong for the individual to resist temptation?

4. In what way does Lord Henry affect Dorian's character? Why does Lord Henry choose Dorian as his disciple? And what impels Dorian to follow his guidance? What is it that Dorian fears?

5. Is Lord Henry's belief in the freedom of the individual truly evil? Or does Dorian misconstrue it? Does Lord Henry actually practice the ideas he espouses? Does he understand the real life consequences his ideas would have, or does he exhibit a sort of naivete?

6. Talk about the role of the yellow book. (Although Wilde never gives it a title, critics believe it is based on Joris-Karl Huysman's novel, A Rebours, meaning "Against the Grain" or "Against Nature.")

7. Why does Sibyl commit suicide and what impact does her death have on Dorian?

8. Discuss Dorian's portrait. What does it represent? What does it suggest about the effect of experience on the soul? Why does Dorian hide it in the attic?

9. Dorian's scandalous behavior shocks his peers, yet he remains welcome in social circles? Why? What is Wilde suggesting about "polite" London society?

10. Dorian desires to reform his life after the death of James Vane. Why doesn't he succeed?

11. Discuss the ending: what does it mean?

12. Do you find any of these characters believable? Why or why not? (If not, do you think Wilde might have purposely drawn them as such?)

13. If you know the story of Faust, what parallels do you find in Wilde's novel?

Yay, George Sanders - he's so much fun to watch. There are a few versions of the movie, but this one seems to be more readily available and has more consistently high ratings. Glad you chose this one!

I don't think there is a state library that has a 1945 version.
I have seen the 2010 version with Ben Barnes (Dorian), and Colin Firth (Lord Henry Wotton). Trailer:

If you see the 2010 version, you can share your thoughts with us with that one.

Also if anyone listens to it on audio, please share your thoughts with us on that version.

It might be interesting to hear about the different versions of the movies. I think more recent movies from classic books try to follow the story more than they did in the past. Comments that I see about older movies tend to have more of a "it wasn't like the book!" flavor, so it would be interesting to see whether this one is the same.

And actually I just looked at Amazon Prime videos and Netflix again and both have the 2009/2010 version, though there is a $2.99 rental fee for Amazon Prime. I think I confused this with one of the other (presumably lesser) versions that have been done. If I really like the story, I may watch both - otherwise, I'll just sign up for the older one!

Also don't forget audio books. That is another media that we can compare and contrast the book and movie with.

I just started to listen to audio books now that I found I can listen to them on my i-Pod Nano.

Yeah ! I see today my library has the DVD on it's way to my local library. :)

I own the book. I have a hardcover Barnes and Noble Classics edition.

I'm watching the 1945 movie today. I own the book and will start it in a couple of days - I'm finishing up a mystery novel now.

EDITED to add: Interesting movie. I'll be interested to see how people in the book react to Dorian.

SPOILERS FOR THE MOVIE:

In the movie, some people seemed to be curious and somewhat suspicious, but others were rather charmed by him. The men seemed more suspicious and the women more charmed, but I was surprised at the latter, as I found him to be rather creepy. The film mentioned that some people shunned him - I think I'm with them! I'd have feigned a headache if he came to a dinner party.

I'm trying to figure out whether it's the actor who played him (Hurd Hatfield - I've never heard of him) or the characterization that made me feel that way. He has a kind of milquetoast quality that I don't really find attractive and once the portrait was completed, he didn't seem to express emotions - but then there weren't many emotions before the painting was done. Those two elements combined made me have a visceral reaction whenever he was on the screen. So, I'm not sure that I buy that there wasn't more suspicion or more shunning of him.

I understand that the portrait is supposed to assume the emotions, but I thought that he would be "enjoying" a certain amount of debauchery and then that was played out in the painting. In this film version, he seems not to enjoy anything - he is expressionless. He's also not roguish, playful, calculating, depraved, cold/evil, maniacal, etc.; he's just sort of blank. It would have been more compelling to see him have some reactions that were then transferred to the painting - they started out doing this with the initial changes. So, I'm interested to see whether he is this way in the book or not.

The other players in the movie are good - George Sanders (though not quite as funny as usual - still sort of snide and smug, though), Angela Lansbury is lovely, Donna Reed is good and the others do a fine job. I wish someone else had played Dorian because I think I would have liked it better. I'm not sure who I'd have rather had as Dorian, but I tend to like some personality! I think he is supposed to be more "pretty" and focused on being young and beautiful than someone who is "ruggedly handsome". Maybe this is different in the book??

I'm going to get the 2009 version to see how it plays out there - by the time it comes, I should be into the book as well.

I finished reading The Picture of Dorian Gray, but I wasn't able to get a movie at a library or online. I will be out all day tomorrow, so I'll post the day after. I did like both the book and the 2010 film with Colin Firth as the self-indulgent, arrogant prig.

Just started reading the book today.

I'll start tomorrow.

I didn't pack the book, so will join in the reading, although it may not be until next week...or the week after. I won't see the 1945 movie again. As Susan was commenting on it, i was surprised to see how much of it returned to my memory.

(view spoiler)[I'm not sure i thought that the portrait was really of the physical Gray, so Susan's comments interest me. I'll be reading with an eye toward that. Unlike you, Susan, i thought the evolving portrait was more of his immortal soul, as well as his physical, so that the lack of debauched pleasure component would have been overwhelmed by the ugliness of the "sins". (hide spoiler)]

Responding to Deb's spoiler:

(view spoiler)[Let me go back and reread my post! What I meant is that the portrait was the manifestation of what he was feeling and, to some extent, what he was acting out - so that his physical self remains young and beautiful. When he was nasty to Sibyl, the cruelty was shown on the painting. I really liked this transference and expected to see a bit more of it in the film, but they seemed to bypass what he was feeling/doing that caused his soul (reflected in the painting) to become hideous. I agree with what you said about portrait being his soul and overwhelmed by the ugliness of sins - I just expected to see more sinning, I guess! He went from being pleasant at dinner parties to having this hideous soul - in the absence of a voice over about his negative thoughts/feelings or seeing him acting badly, I felt like I was missing something.

What I was saying is that the physical self just seemed so emotionless in the film. I would have expected (not having read the book or seen the movie before) that he would have felt free to indulge - this is sort of what happened in Doctor Faustus, which I read last year. Perhaps I'm just drawing on that too much. I would have thought he would have personality and would indulge his baser instincts - but I see beauty in energy and intelligence and some sort of spark. There was none of that in the Dorian of the film - maybe he was too placid for me to see him as beautiful.

In Dr. F. (by Mann, not the Marlow or Goethe versions), the main character (Leverkhn) made a pact with the devil to enhance his musical gifts in exchange for his soul. When the bargain is struck, he revels in it - he does concerts, etc. As time goes on, he becomes more of a show-off, more selfish, more cruel - some of which shows up in the music but it is reflected in his relationships with others (most of his friends are essentially driven away). Finally, Leverkhn is destroyed by his greed for musical expressiveness and the negativity that has completely engulfed his life. I didn't see that devolution in thought and deed (which makes sense to me - Leverkhn felt free to do whatever he wanted and didn't care what people thought) in the film version of Dorian. (hide spoiler)]

I am 50% through the book, and will be watching the movie this weekend. I am really enjoying the story and want to finish the book before I see the movie.

After reading Susan's post, really interested in both movie versions. Could be a double feature this weekend.

One other thing I meant to mention, I've seen somewhere that in addition to the Faust tale, there is some similarity to Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Do you see that in the book?

I'm only about 1/3 of the way into the book, but I hope to make a lot of progress tonight and tomorrow morning.

Clearly I need to get out the vortex of hell that is Candy Crush, Jewel Pirates and Bejeweled Blitz and get off this computer and read the book or watch the movie. :-O

Another interesting tie in to this book is through the author. I saw the movie on TV ages ago. Unfortunately, my library doesn't have a copy. Though they do have the book. Which I also read years ago.

Book / Movie

Gross Indecency: The Three Trials of Oscar Wilde~~Moisés Kaufman

and

the 1960 movie - The Trials of Oscar Wilde
The Trials of Oscar Wilde also known as The Man with the Green Carnation and The Green Carnation, is a 1960 British film based on the libel and subsequent criminal cases involving Oscar Wilde and the Marquess of Queensberry.


Stars:Peter Finch, Yvonne Mitchell, James Mason

Susan wrote: "Responding to Deb's spoiler:..."

Thanks, Susan, for fleshing out your impressions. I see what you mean. I haven't read Faust & am barely aware of the theme, lest i "spoil" my future reading. As you may imagine, this leaves me stranded when discussions mention it, and i'm surprised at how often they do.

ANYway, i think the movie is a letdown, in contrast to the book. The investment for the film was the scene with the worst depiction of Gray, which didn't seem awful to me, a child of another era. The book, however, seemed to better address Gray's intellectual interests beyond philosophical pondering. As annoying as i found those chapters, which almost seem to be encyclopedic, i understood they were to inform readers his tastes were eclectic.

As an aside, Stephen Fry portrayed Oscar Wilde in the film Wilde several years ago. It was a great depiction, helping to flesh out more of his private life, away from the more flamboyant actions for which Wilde was known.

Susan wrote: "One other thing I meant to mention, I've seen somewhere that in addition to the Faust tale, there is some similarity to Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Do you see that in the book? ..."

I don't think i'll be able to reread the book, although last night i looked through my notes about it. I didn't notice the The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde similarity at the time i took the notes but now that you mention it, i can see touches of that. There is an element of the philosophic versus the hedonistic, which remind me of the Robert Louis Stevenson novel. Interesting.

I am having company this weekend. So I don't think I'll be able to read the book until Monday. Sorry !

Madrano wrote: "Susan wrote: "Responding to Deb's spoiler:..."

Thanks, Susan, for fleshing out your impressions. I see what you mean. I haven't read Faust & am barely aware of the theme, lest i "spoil" my future ..."

That is an interesting thought concerning the "encyclopedic" chapters. I am reading the book for the first time and am currently at that point in the book. My first thought is that it illustrates his compulsive greed and jealousy over others who had lived more interesting lives. I am curious to see how I feel later in the book.

I have finished reading today. It certainly has some interesting 'one-liners' throughout. I don't have much too add to the discussion above, except that I don't find the characters of Dorian or Lord Henry at all believable as posed in Q12 (message 2). Could anybody really be so vain and false? Possible so, at that time ..?

Lesley, i agree about the one-liners in the book. Indeed, when i reread my notes from previous readings, it's those one-liners which are most often noted. I was particularly drawn (then, as now) to the media. From the 1st chapter, the artists makes reference to a picture of his that "made a great success at the time, at least had been chattered about in the penny newspapers, which is the nineteenth-century standard of immortality." LOL--can we say Facebook or YouTube?

While their comments seem quite vain and false, there are several i interpreted as young men with opinions who never hesitate to share them. I could imagine myself in the same room, seething as they opined, particularly about themselves. Oh!

Lori, this was the first novel where i read what seemed to be chapters sharing knowledge the main character learned, in almost an encyclopedia fashion, without explanations about what intrigued them. I've since read it in others, more a laundry list of "what was learned" & i don't care for it any better. My notes in this book have me wondering if Wilde just wanted to show off what he'd researched, rather than share about the character. I'm sure there was a point but it was missed on me.

To be fair, though, later, when i felt the same thing happened in Moby-Dick; or, The Whale, i initially thought the same thing about Herman Melville's character "Ishmael". In my second reading i understood it better, so the same might turn out to be true if i could stomach Dorian one more time. ;-)

So, I finished the book and am answering the questions. So, there are spoilers below!

In the preface (be sure to read this), Wilde writes that "there is no such thing as a moral or immoral book." In other words, art has no effect, other than aesthetic, on individuals or society. Do you agree with Wilde's premise? Does this novel adhere to his statement?

I disagree with the interpretation of the statement in that I don't think it is saying that it has no effect, but more that it is not to blame for the consequences of experiencing it. I agree with that to some extent - it is what the person brings to the material and how s/he acts on the emotions generated. However, art or other material can influence a person in a positive or negative way. It makes real what might otherwise be only a vague concept or unformed thought. As to whether it leads to better or worse behavior, though, seems to me to be more about the person than the art.

What is the relationship between Basil and Dorian...from beginning to end?

IMO, Basil has his own obsessions that he is dealing with - there is something about Dorian that occupies his thoughts and feelings. He cares about Dorian. However, I think whatever "force" inhabits the painting (or inhabits Lord Henry??) also influences Basil for a time; when the painting leaves, Basil is more aware that there was something wrong or odd about it - it haunts him.

Dorian at first was his friend, but then becomes aloof and finally cannot tolerate Basil. This is probably because Basil sees what is happening with Dorian and realizes that it is not normal.

Talk about Lord Henry: what code or set of beliefs does he live by? How does he view conventional morality and in what ways does he challenge it? Why, for instance, does he believe it is futile and wrong for the individual to resist temptation?

His true beliefs are unclear to me. On one hand, likes to verbally challenge convention; on the other hand, he seems to live a relatively conventional life. He tempts and provokes, but doesn't seem particularly cruel, nor does he seem to follow Dorian's exploits with great attention.

I think he liked to be "shocking" and liked to intellectually challenge people. But how tame/outrageous was his definition of temptation? My guess is that he did not wade into decadence to the depth that Dorian eventually reached.

In what way does Lord Henry affect Dorian's character? Why does Lord Henry choose Dorian as his disciple? And what impels Dorian to follow his guidance? What is it that Dorian fears?

Lord Henry shows Dorian things he had not seen before. He sanctioned activities that most people would believe scandalous. He probably saw in Dorian someone who was looking for something. Dorian had not grown up in "society" and therefore was open to new ways of looking at life - he was inexperienced and vulnerable and alone. He was in a period of transition to having money and property, so there was already a state of uncertainty. For Dorian, Lord Henry is provides some stability and aspiration - he is clever and popular and seems to have it all.

Talk about the role of the yellow book. (Although Wilde never gives it a title, critics believe it is based on Joris-Karl Huysman's novel, A Rebours, meaning "Against the Grain" or "Against Nature.")

This book opens up possibilities that Dorian had probably never considered and, in his case, inspired him to take action.

Why does Sibyl commit suicide and what impact does her death have on Dorian?

She is devastated that Dorian fell out of love with her at the point that she realized she loved him. She believed that he loved her and his cruelty to her was demeaning and awful. In addition, she had exchanged her love of acting to her love of Dorian - in her eyes, she despaired that she was ruined because she had lost herself.

Her death sets Dorian on his self-destructive course. He not only feels guilt and wants comfort, but he also realizes that he liked the cruelty he inflicted. He started to see the changes in the portrait and it became a bit of a game to him. How would the painting look if he took the next step.

Continued in next post ....

Discuss Dorian's portrait. What does it represent? What does it suggest about the effect of experience on the soul? Why does Dorian hide it in the attic?

The portrait represents his soul - it starts out as beautiful as his outward appearance but then becomes more hideous as he begins to enjoy indulging his baser instincts. A part of Dorian knows it is wrong to engage in these behaviors - internally, his shame is part of why he hides the painting. In addition, he knows that there is some external "force" that is behind the changes in the painting and does not want to be associated with it or answer questions or be tagged with the "mark of the devil" in some sense. But, even with these reasons, I think he also wanted to keep his secret because it became a private game.

Dorian's scandalous behavior shocks his peers, yet he remains welcome in social circles? Why? What is Wilde suggesting about "polite" London society?

I think part of it is that they are excited by the rumors of scandalous behavior. Society (both capital and small "s" versions) likes and functions on gossip. It is possible that many did not believe the rumors - the book mentioned that he would travel and be away for long stretches of time, so presumably many of these actions took place away from home.

In addition, because he was still handsome and charming, they could not believe the stories - there was no "wear and tear" that would come with such a lifestyle. So, it was easy to dismiss them or believe them exaggerated.

Dorian desires to reform his life after the death of James Vane. Why doesn't he succeed?

One is that the portrait seems to have a mind of its own and doesn't want to stop - it didn't change as he tried to redeem himself. He felt there was no way back even though he felt "free" after James Vane's death. Even though he tried to reform his behavior with Hetty, the portrait represented these actions as cruel and hypocritical. He despaired that he was not redeemable.

Do you find any of these characters believable? Why or why not? (If not, do you think Wilde might have purposely drawn them as such?)

I find Dorian and Basil somewhat unbelievable - Dorian because he was too naive at the beginning and fell too far into decline; Basil because his character seemed to be more of a plot device than a person. Perhaps had there been a greater emphasis on Dorian's drug use driving his behavior, it would have been more believable. Basil was a fairly weak character who could have perhaps intervened earlier.

If you know the story of Faust, what parallels do you find in Wilde's novel?

I read Thomas Mann's version of the Faustian legend and the parallels are in the selling of one's soul, and the willing descent to satisfy desires: music (Doctor Faustus) and youth (Dorian). In both cases, the excesses of the main character both repelled some people and drew others in. And in both there was a point when they wanted redemption - both were unsuccessful.

A note on the movies:

In posts 9 and 14, I discussed the 1945 movie and what I perceived to be a weakness in the portrayal of Dorian. I liked much of the rest of the movie, though, and thought some of the changes they made helped with telling the story on film versus on the page.

I watched the 2009 Chaplin/Firth movie this morning. I really didn't care for it. Initially, I thought Dorian was more charming than in the 1945 version, but then he seemed to just become an annoying frat boy obsessed with sex, drugs and partying. But, IMO, it was done in such an over-the-top way that there is no way that Society would still find him engaging. There was no subtlety to the story. I feel like a fuddy-duddy writing this (!) but it just seemed to be geared toward a younger audience.

They also seemed to change a lot from the novel. I'm not one that feels the story needs to conform to the book - so long as the movie keeps the overall spirit of the book - but I don't think these changes enhance the story. Then, I made the mistake of listening to the "Making of" included on the DVD and it always annoys me when screenwriters justify changes by implying that the original material doesn't work and he's "fixing" it (me to TV screen: Dude, the book's a classic - get over yourself). It's fine to update or to do something more theatrical/visual or to make changes that help tell the main story without getting bogged down with side stories. But, don't act like you had to rewrite the material. You wanted a movie that had more horror and more explicit sex/drug use/etc., so we have the dark and mottled Dickensian attic, rather than the dusty old school room, a maggot coming out of the painting and falling at Dorian's feet, etc.

I preferred George Sanders over Colin Firth as Lord Henry - I thought the book had an element of humor that the earlier movie captured better. I liked elements of the Basil character in each movie, but neither particularly made a strong impression. I did like the painting in the 2009 version better than the 1945 version. It seemed more disgustingly real than the more cartoon-y one in 1945, IMO.

Edited to clarify: I wasn't overly fond of all the CGI/effects of the painting in the 2009 version, but the "still" version of the painting was more like the one that had formed in my head.

Susan wrote: Angela Lansbury is lovely, Donna Reed is good and the others do a fine job.

I thought Lansbury and Reed were so pretty. I didn't really recognize Landsbury at first I know her as a much older women in Murder She Wrote.


Susan wrote:n the preface (be sure to read this), Wilde writes that "there is no such thing as a moral or immoral book." In other words, art has no effect, other than aesthetic, on individuals or society. Do you agree with Wilde's premise? Does this novel adhere to his statement?

I disagree with the interpretation of the statement in that I don't think it is saying that it has no effect, but more that it is not to blame for the consequences of experiencing it. I agree with that to some extent - it is what the person brings to the material and how s/he acts on the emotions generated. However, art or other material can influence a person in a positive or negative way. It makes real what might otherwise be only a vague concept or unformed thought. As to whether it leads to better or worse behavior, though, seems to me to be more about the person than the art.


I just finished watching the movie. (1945) I enjoyed it a lot. Gosh, I made so many notes during the movie. Did anyone watch the commentary with Landsbury on the DVD?
I saw part of it but will try to watch the rest.

Where to begin??? The Landsbury commentary notes that when Wilde was at Oxford one of his dons, Walter Pator (sp?, was an advocate of aestheticism and taught the theory of "Art for art's sake" and Wilde agreed with it and tried to live that precept. Though the movie is just the opposite so Wilde's view changed at some point. So the theme of the movie was quite personal to Wilde.

Wiki

Aestheticism (or the Aesthetic Movement) is an art movement supporting the emphasis of aesthetic values more than social-political themes for literature, fine art, music and other arts.[1][2] It was particularly prominent in Europe during the 19th century.

is the usual English rendering of a French slogan from the early 19th century, ''l'art pour l'art'', and expresses a philosophy that the intrinsic value of art, and the only "true" art, is divorced from any didactic, moral or utilitarian function. Such works are sometimes described as "autotelic", from the Greek autoteles, “complete in itself��, a concept that has been expanded to embrace "inner-directed" or "self-motivated" human beings.

The Landsbury interview on the DVD comments on the idea of art only on surface. Beauty is only what you see, no morality is attached to it. You live for pleasure only.

Susan wrote: I understand that the portrait is supposed to assume the emotions, but I thought that he would be "enjoying" a certain amount of debauchery and then that was played out in the painting. In this film version, he seems not to enjoy anything - he is expressionless.
-------------
I noted at the very start of the film it is said, "His greatest pleasure was to observe the emotions of his friends while experiencing none of his own."

He also says,"I don't want to be at the mercy of my emotions." I want to enjoy them and dominate them."

Playing armchair psychoanalyst how would you diagnose Gray?

I think Gray definitely had what is known as blunted affect.


I also immediately thought of a psychopath. They can do all horrible things and lack a conscience. They don't experience feelings themselves. They can't even conceive what it is that others feel. Though Gray can't seem to even fake it. Which I good psychopath could.

It's also a bit of Asperger syndrome trait.


He also was a narcissist.

Susan wrote: I preferred George Sanders over Colin Firth as Lord Henry
----------
I've only seen the 1945 picture. However, I thought Sanders spoke too quickly. I had to turn on the subtitles and halt the picture a few times to catch all his bon mots.

The movie opens with a quote from
The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam Explained

I sent my Soul through the Invisible,
Some letter of that After-life to spell:
And by and by my Soul return'd to me,
And answer'd: 'I Myself am Heav'n and Hell��

Anyone read this book? What do you think of the quote as it relates to Dorian Gray ?

I thought it was brilliant. It fit the novel perfectly.

�� Omar Khayyám

Dorian Gray says in the movie, "When one loses their youth they lose everything."

Do you agree?

In our society today it is no fun getting older. People seem to try everything under the sun, including going under the knife to stave off aging. Some cultures prize the elderly. I think in the U.S. we clearly do not.

I've read that in various polls people say they would rather be pretty than smart. Here is just one poll.

Study: Facebook Users Prefer Looks Over Intelligence


Which would you choose? It's a hard question. In school, children who are deemed "attractive" are often given higher grades. It does seem that attractive people win on many fronts. From finding a mate to getting a nice job.

The movie brings to mind so many sayings.

Be careful what you wish for. You might just get it !

Youth is waisted on the young.

In the movie a sign when Gray goes into one of his haunts reads, Eat Drink and be Merry. It doesn't finish the quote which is "for tomorrow we shall die."

That reminds me of "life is short" so enjoy yourself the fullest now.

A big deal is made out of Gray playing Chopin's Prelude.

The brevity and apparent lack of formal structure in the Op. 28 preludes caused some consternation among critics at the time of their publication.

After reading Wiki, I can see how this fit well with Gray. He doesn't play by the rules and moral standards of his day. He doesn't like structure. And likes brief encounters with women not long term one. Which is what Lord Henry advocates.

It's also a contrast to the other song heard in the movie, The Yellow Bird.
I'd rather be cold
on a leafless tree
then a prisoner be
in a cage of gold.

Didn't Gray become a prisoner of his desire to remain youthful and handsome? He traded his soul for it. His beauty became his cage.

Hmmm. I may have to get the DVD of the 1945 movie - I watched it on Amazon Prime (no commentary) and then got the 2009 DVD via Netflix. If I send back the 2009, I can get the 1945 in a couple of days. I'd like to hear Angela's comments.

Alias, years ago I couldn't believe that the older lady in Murder She Wrote was the same person as in Gaslight! a great movie, by the way. So I was a little prepared to see AL as a young woman.

On art - I don't know. It seems to me that some art is just meant to be enjoyed, while other art is meant to have a purpose. If I look at Monet's water lilies, I am enjoying the painting's "superficial" quality - as in, it's lovely and relaxing to look at. If I look at a painting that is meant to provoke thought or represent a particular era or issue (e.g., human rights), then the art is something more than superficial. It may influence my views or inspire me to read a book on the topic or donate money/time to a cause. I make the decision (the art doesn't drive me to that) but it may stimulate me in a way that a "lovely painting" doesn't.

On my comments about "enjoying" his activities, in the book, I think he was excited by what the painting would "do" next - what it would express. He would use the changes in the painting to be part of the pleasure-seeking experience. It seems to me that as he went along, it was less about specifically what he did and more about how it was reflected.

He was not devoid of emotion, though. He mentioned a sudden hatred of Basil before he killed him and fear related to James Vane. He seemed to use people up - Basil and several of the young men mentioned in the book (though not in the 1945 film).

I think what is not clear is the role of the painting (or ... whatever) in driving his actions and thoughts, in addition to reflecting his soul. Was he driven by an internal force (e.g., psychopath), an external force or some combination?? I don't think we are given enough information to really know what is going on with him!

Part of what I liked about the book is that it doesn't answer the questions but it raises a lot of them and let's the reader ruminate.

The book, The Light Of Asia, which Basil gives DG in the movie was also a movie (1920s)

An original concept of a black and white movie (silent movie directed by Franz Osten in 1929 ) from the 20's about the story of the Bouddha with a live musical accompaniment by Divana (musics from Rajasthan)

Wiki

Prem Sanyas (The Light of Asia) (Die Leuchte Asiens in German) was 1925 silent film, directed by Franz Osten and Himansu Rai. It was film adapted from the book, The Light of Asia (1879) in verse, by Edwin Arnold, based on the life of Prince Gautama Buddha, who after enlightenment became the Buddha, or the "Enlightened one".

The Light Of AsiaEdwin Arnold

I thought the story of Siddhārtha Gautama was a good contrast to Gray. Siddhārtha goes out into the world to experience suffering and becomes enlightened and the Buddha. Dorian Gray choses to shut that out and live for pleasure and seeks beauty for beauties sake.

In the movie you also see many statues of Buddha. Why do you think Lord Henry gave DG the book? It seems to be the opposite of what he is telling Gray. Devils advocate maybe ?

One of the lines in the movie stood out to me. "What is more horrible, the signs of sin or the signs of age."

Another good turn of phrase was, "moral leprosy".

They bible and morality are center stage in the movie.

In the movie we hear this line from the bible.
Mark 8:36

King James Version (KJV)

36 For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?

Also before basil is murdered he begins to pray the Our Father and says, "prayer of your pride was answered. The praer of your repentance may be answered also."

And it is.. Gray sees a small change in the painting after he spares Gladys. Hope. It's a nice message. There is hope for all. Even one who murders for some type of redemption. Reminds me of the Prodigal son from the bible.

Our Father, Who art in heaven,
Hallowed be Thy Name.
Thy Kingdom come.
Thy Will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven. Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those who trespass against us.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil. Amen.

In the movie there is also this bible quote.
Isaiah 1:18 (KJ21) | In Context | Whole Chapter

18 “Come now, and let us reason together,�� saith the Lord. “Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.


also in the movie is
Penitential Act (Confiteor and/or Kyrie):

I confess to almighty God, and to you, my brothers and sisters,
that I have greatly sinned in my thoughts and in my words,
in what I have done and in what I have failed to do,
through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault;
therefore I ask blessed Mary ever-Virgin, all the Angels and Saints,
and you, my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the Lord our God

Sign, symbols, themes etc.

Did you notice that Dorian Gray's address is 7. It made me think of the 7 deadly sins.

The butterfly that Lord Henry catches while trying to lure Dorian Gray to his philosophy of Aestheticism.

In the book Dorian has dark hair and is deadpan and void of emotion. In the book he is blond blue-eyed and emotional.

Which do you thinks works better? I need to re-read the book as I read it years ago before I answer.

Though I have to say I didn't think the actor who played Dorian, Hurd Hatfield, was that handsome.

[image error]

Okay... it's late... more tomorrow ! Thanks for reading my ramblings.
:)

Alias Reader wrote: "The movie opens with a quote from
The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam Explained

I sent my Soul through the Invisible,
Some letter of that After-li..."

I'm not sure this is fully quoted in the book - I've seen two movies and read the book in fairly short order, so I'm not sure what's where anymore!

There is a line on Heaven and Hell in the book. Dorian to Basil in chapter 13: "Each of us has Heaven and Hell in us, Basil."

In Chapter 11, Dorian refers to the book from Lord Henry and its impact:

"Dorian Gray had been poisoned by a book. There were moments when he looked on evil simply as a mode through which he could realize his conception of the beautiful."

It's been informative to read the posts here. One thing which seems to crop up, something which bothered me in the book. Dorian seems to imbue items with the power to lead him astray. The book from Lord Henry and even the very idea that the portrait might be compelling him to evil, rather than his own self succumbing to temptations which in the past might have intrigued him.

I won't say i always feel this way when i read about him. Rather, when he tries to suggest the book & art are the problems, rather than his own choices, i see a sort of rash (hopeful?) deflection. Is this just an illusion, a way to deny he could be so base on his own or did he really believe it? I think the denial, as it allows him to continue to see himself in a forgiving light. Indeed, it bugged me to agree with Lord Henry at the end, when he pretty much said what i have stated here, it's not the art, bucko.

We had to read the Rubaiyat in high school, too long ago to remember all but the actual fact we read it. There was a beauty to it but what message i got from it isn't to be found in my memory. Gotta reread it!

The exchanges about art i've read here leads me to ponder Lord Henry's declaration about what it meant to "their" class, as opposed to "the lower orders". He stated to them, their class, art was, "simply a method of procuring extraordinary sensations." I didn't know what to think of that, as it's nothing i can recall feeling when looking at art. What am i doing wrong, i wondered? I guess it's the way he put it. I am pleased with art which strikes a cord but i'm not sure i would have labeled it an "extraordinary sensation."

Conversely, toward the end (same paragraph as above-mentioned, when i agree with Lord H about the book & painting), he opines that art annihilates the desire to act. How could i so vehemently disagree with one man in the space of one paragraph?! In literature, i think this yahoo is the only one to bug me this way!

Alias Reader wrote: "Susan wrote: I preferred George Sanders over Colin Firth as Lord Henry
----------
I've only seen the 1945 picture. However, I thought Sanders spoke too quickly. I had to turn on the subtitles an..."

He tends to do that and he sort of swallows his words sometimes.

ETA: Actually, I've found a lot of British actors speak at a snappy pace.

Alias Reader wrote: "Dorian Gray says in the movie, "When one loses their youth they lose everything."

Do you agree?

In our society today it is no fun getting older. People seem to try everything under the sun, inc..."

I glanced at the article - it didn't specify whether the question was asked in general or for Facebook specifically. If related to Facebook, it makes sense - it's a social medium. If it's overall, well, it's hard to know without a bit more information about what was actually asked and how it was asked.

It is true that looks are important in many areas of life. I think there is a difference, though, in losing "youth" because I think that includes more than just beauty - there is a vitality component. Some people who are older still appear young and vigorous while some are prematurely old and stodgy.

Alias Reader wrote: "They bible and morality are center stage in the movie.

In the movie we hear this line from the bible.
Mark 8:36

King James Version (KJV)

36 For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the w..."

I feel like the "if he shall gain the world ..." is in the book, but I'm not sure.

In chapter 11, there is some reference to religion as part of Dorian's exploration.

In chapter 13, Basil asks Dorian to pray - "What is that one was taught to say in one's boyhood? 'Lead us not into temptation. Forgive us our sins. Wash away or iniquities.'"

There may be other references as well, but these stuck in my mind.

Alias Reader wrote: "In the book Dorian has dark hair and is deadpan and void of emotion. In the book he is blond blue-eyed and emotional.

Which do you thinks works better? I need to re-read the book as I read i..."

I like the book's version where he had some emotions - he needed to be able to function in Society and be thought of as charming in addition to being beautiful. The 1945 actor was (sorry) not handsome enough and he was creepy! The 2009 version of Dorian was adolescent and annoying, IMO, and I didn't find the actor particularly handsome or beautiful.

It's a tough role. Dorian is about 20, has exceptional beauty, is able to fit into London Society, can also let loose and engage in rather raucous activities on the side, and the actor needs to have enough depth to show Dorian grappling with issues of good and evil over nearly 20 years.

If you could assemble a cast (without regard to era, e.g., you could have Hugh Grant play Dorian and Richard Burton play Lord Henry) Who would you cast as Dorian? As Lord Henry? As Basil? As Sibyl? As others?

If you could replace the 1945 guy with someone of that era, who would you have cast as Dorian?

Susan wrote: "In Chapter 11, Dorian refers to the book from Lord Henry and its impact:

"Dorian Gray had been poisoned by a book. There were moments when he looked on evil simply as a mode through which he could..."
-------------------------
I still have to read the book. My comments are only about the movie. In the book is it clear which book is influencing Dorian?

It seemed there were a few books. Lord Henry is reading one, and tosses it to the driver before entering the house.

We see the Buddha book.

And there is The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam.

As to the influence, I need to watch the interview with Landsbury again. I thought it was said the title of the book that impacts Gray is not mentioned.

Madrano wrote: "It's been informative to read the posts here. One thing which seems to crop up, something which bothered me in the book. Dorian seems to imbue items with the power to lead him astray. The book from..."

----------------

I don't know if everyone has the same intro. I am reading a B&N hardcover edition. I read the intro on the way to the dentist this morning. It mentions Dorian's "neurotic rationalization". It cites 3 examples.

Chapter 7- Cruelty! Had he been cruel? It was the girl's fault, not his. He had dreamed of her as a great artist...There she ha disappointed him.

Chapter 11- It was true that the portrait still preserved, under all the foulness and ugliness, its marked likeness to himself, but ...he'd not painted it. What was it to him how vile and full of shame it looked?

Chapter 20- Basil had said things to him that were unbearable, and that he had yet borne with patience. The murder had been simply the madness of a moment.

In the movie, DG blames the Egyptian cat. I don't know if that is in the book as I haven't read it yet.

I think we agree that DG is a narcissist. Blame shifting is part of a narcissists bag of tricks. I see there is an essay titled, Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited~~Sam Vaknin