Category Archives: film analysis

Ditty’s Favorite Movies of 2010

As is tradition, here’s my year-end list of my favorite movies from 2010.


INCEPTION
Writer/Director: Christopher Nolan

While this film left a lot of people amazed but feeling cold, I think a compelling case could be made that this is really an epic love story wrapped up in an incredibly ambitious storytelling device that sometimes works and sometimes just makes you say, “What the hell?”  Frankly, the rotating room fight scene with Joseph Gordon-Levitt is worth the price of admission alone.  I won’t go on at length here, as I think this film has practically been talked to death and I don’t want to give anything away for folks who haven’t seen it yet, but I don’t think anyone can deny it’s a landmark film.


SHUTTER ISLAND
Writer: Laeta Kalogridis / Director: Martin Scorcese

This is another film you can’t really talk much about without giving too much away.  Suffice to say, the performances were great, as expected from Leonardo Dicaprio and the perhaps under-appreciated Mark Ruffalo; the direction was excellent, never revealing too much but never letting the audience get more lost than they should have been; and the ending, in my opinion, was absolutely perfect.


THE SOCIAL NETWORK
Writer: Aaron Sorkin / Director: David Fincher

Seeing the evolution of a tool that has become so ubiquitous in our everyday lives was always bound to be interesting.  Jesse Eisenberg portrays Mark Zuckerberg in such a fashion that you never really know if he’s an asshole, just incredibly socially inept, or perhaps borderline autistic — all while inspiring some sympathy, mind you.  No small feat.  Justin Timberlake is appropriately slimy, but also with an impressive handle on the brink-of-sanity aspects of Sean Parker’s personality in the movie.  And I wanted to reach into the screen and give Eduardo a big hug the entire film, which made me incredibly interested to see what Andrew Garfield does with Spider-Man.  The framing of the story inside the two depositions was a particularly intelligent way to tell the tale, as it allowed us to see the emotional effects of the events down the road essentially as they were happening on screen.  With a writer like Aaron Sorkin, great writing isn’t much of a surprise, though.


TOY STORY 3
Writer: Michael Arndt / Director: Lee Unkrich

I’m admittedly a bit of a crier when it comes to television and movies. I routinely find myself dehydrating on a weekly basis thanks to Glee, The Biggest Loser, Modern Family, or even Chuck or Community. It just happens. I’ve given up feeling ashamed and invested in waterproof mascara.  I own it.  Despite that, I was feeling a bit silly because I was literally sobbing my poor little childlike heart out during this movie — until I realized that 90 percent of the theatre was just as torn up as I was.  I think we all felt a bit ridiculous, but I think we all also probably went home afterward and found our old favorite toys, the ones with which we’ve never quite been able to part, and hugged them to bits.  And any film that grab that many people in such an intense way deserves a place in the top films of the year.


THE KING’S SPEECH
Writer: David Seidler / Director: Tom Hooper

There a number of elements that will always get me to a movie theatre.  One of them is Colin Firth.  Another is the non-sports-related underdog historical drama genre (see FROST/NIXON, for example).  And Geoffrey Rush will at least get me to look a movie’s way.  So, this movie had a lot going for it to begin with, but that also means it’s saddled with high expectations.  I put my go-see-this-non-mainstream-movie-with-me credibility on the line by convincing my family to see it on Christmas Day, and I was thrilled that the movie lived up not only to my own expectations but that my family enjoyed it, too.  Even my dad, who falls asleep at nearly every movie he sees, stayed awake the entire film — which I think is saying a lot for a historical drama.  The performances, as you’ve likely heard and would likely expect from the calibre of actors involved, are fantastic.  The cinematography was interesting for a movie like this: the angles were just a little off-kilter, a little uncomfortable, as if to mirror what King George must have been feeling.  The story itself is a rather amazing one, and it felt honestly told, not too sugary.  At the end, you feel the triumph, but also the weight of what is yet to be endured.  I’m hoping this film will be well-rewarded during the awards season.


BLACK SWAN
Writers: Mark Heyman and Andres Heinz and John J. McLaughlin / Director: Darren Aronofsky

Half psychological horror, half meditation on the line between artistic passion and insanity, this dark film ended up one of my favorite films of the year.  It’s a bold film, trippy and sometimes difficult to watch. It’s really hard to sum up how I feel about it, to be honest.  I was utterly compelled in moments by Natalie Portman’s portrayal of Nina Sayers.  I found myself both captivated by and feeling intensely uncomfortable about Lily, portrayed by Mila Kunis.  And I was equally drawn to and disgusted by Vincent Cassel’s Thomas Leroy, director of the ballet troupe.  This is a movie that’s not going to hit for everyone, but when it does hit, it knocks the wind out of you.


TANGLED
Writer: Dan Fogelman / Directors: Nathan Greno, Byron Howard

Finally, Disney returns to form with a cheeky, romantic, gorgeous and musically memorable film to join its animated classics.  TANGLED had echoes of some of my favorite Disney films, like THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME , SLEEPING BEAUTY, and CINDERELLA, but they all feel natural and original in this reimagining of Rapunzel.  It also has a bit of the feel of films like STARDUST and THE PRINCESS BRIDE.  The voice acting is pitch perfect.  The part of Flynn Rider feels like it was written for Zachary Levi, and Donna Murphy is fantastic as Mother Gothel.  Really, I can’t recommend this film highly enough, for anyone of any age.


AND THE REST…

It was going to be too difficult to expand my list to 10 or narrow it from about 17, so I said, “This is my list! Damn the man! Save the Empire!”  The following 10 movies are films that didn’t quite measure up to the seven above in one aspect or another (either critically or on enjoyability) but are still worth your time.

HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON: It was a strong year for animation; in another year, this might have made my Top 10.  It’s from the same folks who did LILO & STITCH, one of my favorite Disney movies of all time, and they deliver another movie with the same sort of quirkiness, darkness and heart that made that film so great.

KNIGHT & DAY: You need to go into this movie knowing it’s a farce.  They’re poking fun at the action and romantic comedy genres, and Tom Cruise is poking fun at himself.  The film plays it straight, which makes it a kooky, super fun, summer popcorn movie.

FLIPPED: Sort of like The Wonder Years but not so depressing. While some critics took issue with the he said/she said storytelling device, I found it was used in a fresh manner int hat it did a nice job sparing the audience redundancies.

IT’S KIND OF A FUNNY STORY: A sweet coming-of-age story about a kid who checks himself into a mental hospital.  The real stand-out in this movie is Zach Galifiankis, who shows that he’s not just a goon making a career on his ability to be awkward.  He acts in this movie, and he does it brilliantly.

THE TOWN: A gritty crime thriller with heart, with solid performances from the entire cast.

MORNING GLORY: I’m a sucker for journalism movies thanks to my education.  Add the always-delightful-to-watch Rachel McAdams, and you’d have to do something really wrong to make me dislike something like this film.  Luckily, the filmmakers did not try to make me dislike it; quite the opposite.  The characters walk the balance between caricature and complete human being.  It’s sweet; it’s funny; it’s feel-good.  And that’s generally good enough for me.

HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS – PART ONE: More brooding character piece than we’ve seen before in the series, I found this to be one of the most interesting of the series.  It’s lovely to see how the trio of actors have really come into their own; they handle this heavy material very well.  Also worth noting, the animated sequence used to tell the story of the Deathly Hallows is absolutely brilliant.

THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA: THE VOYAGE OF THE DAWN TREADER: I’m on the fence as to whether this trumps PRINCE CASPIAN as my favorite Narnia film.  It’s certainly the most beautiful of the three, and I think it does a nice job of re-capturing some of the magical elements of the first one while embracing the maturity of the second.  I was incredibly impressed by Georgie Hensley, who plays Lucy.  Not only is she growing up into a lovely young woman, but she showcased her growing acting talent here as well.

127 HOURS: Danny Boyle always delivers interesting movies, and Simon Beaufoy is one of my favorite screenwriters, as he knows make the heart of a character evident to the audience.  And with this incredibly challenged premise, they once again deliver.

THE TOURIST: I found this to be a highly enjoyable comedic thriller in the vein of CHARADE, though admittedly not as good as CHARADE (but what is?).  Like KNIGHT & DAY, it’s a movie that plays it straight on the surface but isn’t taking itself seriously at all underneath.  Go in, turn off your brain, and just enjoy the ride (and Johnny Depp… and Angelina Jolie).

 

That sums it up. What were your favorite movies of 2010?

The Inaugural Episode of the No-Name Movie Podcast

Matt and I argue about movies a lot. After doing our little debate a while back about THE BICYCLE THIEF, we got to thinking that maybe a podcast would be a good forum for that sort of thing, too.  And so, we figured, why not give it a shot? So we have.

Here’s what we cover in our first episode:

  • 2D vs. 3D
  • Movies out now worth seeing
  • Movies coming out soon worth seeing
  • 127 HOURS
  • BLACK SWAN
  • Netflix Picks (our non-current-release recommendations)

If you’ve got something to add to the conversation, suggestions, comments, criticism, etc., we’d love to hear from you in the comments.  That is, after all, the point of us doing this whole thing. :-)

So, without further ado, here it is.


(Direct download here.)

As you may have noticed, we’re still looking for a name, as the one we had in mind is already taken. So, if you’ve got any ideas, share in the comments, or tweet at us (@ditty1013 and @litrock). If we use your idea, we’ll send you an Amazon gift card to say thanks!

[Split Screen] The Bicycle Thief

This is the first in what will likely be a series of articles from myself and Mr. Matt Marko. We both watch way more movies than any sane person should, and we often find ourselves developing wildly differing opinions on them. So instead of just agreeing to disagree (what fun is that?), we’ve decided to take our arguments to the interwebs, or, as Matt so eloquently puts it, “to make it a learning opportunity and explore our opinions in writing.”  Obviously, spoilers abound. Be sure to check out his companion article on his blog.


THE BICYCLE THIEF

Life — what’s the point of it all?  Why are we here?  Why do things happen?  Many films try to take on a slice of that question and provide an answer.  THE BICYCLE THIEF takes on the question, but its conclusion is that there is no answer.  There is no point.  It doesn’t matter why we’re here.  Things just happen, without reason, and there’s no use in trying to make sense of it all.  In short, life sucks and you’d better get used to it.

THE BICYCLE THIEF follows a man who is, by all accounts, good.  His life is hard — so hard that his wife has to pawn their bedsheets in order to buy him a bike so he can perform his newly found job — but he’s a man of integrity, and beyond that, a good attitude.

But then, the unthinkable happens.  His newly purchased bike is stolen.  He and his son search the streets of Italy and finally find the lost bike and its thief, but to no avail.  The thief simply feigns a seizure, drawing ire for the man who’s done no wrong.  On top of that, he has no proof that the bicycle was stolen, so the police refuse to help him.

What is he to do?  Driven to desperation, he becomes a thief himself — but he has poorer luck, as is his lot.  He is caught, and only through the pleading of his son is he let go with a warning.  It is there that the film ends, with father and son, ashamed, confused, distraught and without hope, walking away in tears.

So, what are we to take from this?  It has none of the redemptive power of, say, LES MISÉRABLES, where Jean Valjean faces similar circumstances, is cruelly punished, beaten down, and then shown mercy, which is the catalyst for him to overcome his trials.  It inspires the audience to become better themselves, by looking upon others with more compassion than we think they might deserve at first glance.  On the other hand, watching THE BICYCLE THIEF is like watching a man being driven off a cliff.  We learn nothing.  No one changes; no circumstances change significantly.  Things simply get worse.  We aren’t encouraged or inspired.  We’re simply left wondering, “Is this all there is? For this man and his son? For us?”

The film is a landmark in the neo-realist movement.  It is supposed to show life as it really is.  But if this is a slice of the everyman’s real life, then we might as well all slit our wrists and save ourselves the emotional turmoil.  Not every film has to have a happy ending, but the audience should be able to take something from it.  Short of nonsense films like Buñuel & Dali’s UN CHIEN ANDALOU, where the point of the film is there is no point of the film, we should be able to walk away understanding the reason behind what we’ve just watched.  Even if we’d watched THE BICYCLE THIEF’s main character descend further, that would’ve been something.  I’d have disagreed with the filmmakers’ thesis, but at least there would have been one.

Perhaps this is a problem in the neorealist movement itself rather than just in THE BICYCLE THIEF.  Either way, if a film sets out to say nothing, but simply to observe life-as-is, then wouldn’t a documentary be a better format?  Film should be a painting; documentary should be a photograph.  Neorealism lazily and perhaps even irresponsibly attempts to do what a documentary does without relying on real life for material.

[Movies That Made Going to the Movies Suck] #27: It Happened One Night

Hi everyone!  I’m participating in a fun little film analysis list this month with the Desert Island DVDs crew, spearheaded by Mike over at You Talking to Me? The idea is to take a look at movies that brought forth a movement in film and inspired a bunch of generally lackluster copycats trying to cash in on the magic without creating any themselves.  When Mike came to us with the idea, there was one film that immediately popped into my mind as something great that inspired a whole lot of films that, well, aren’t.  Here’s my essay, and head on over to Mike’s blog all month long to see what other folks have designated as Movies That Made Going to the Movies Suck.


Ah, the romantic comedy.  Once a person begins to self-identify as a film enthusiast or a cinephile, one is supposed to turn down his or her nose at the modern entries in the genre.  And let’s face it: the romantic comedy of today is quite often a pale and weak imitation of the great romantic comedies of the past.  Whether it’s Bringing Up Baby, His Girl Friday, The Lady Eve, or any of the other stellar picks from the 1930s and 1940s, there’s one romantic comedy for everyone that more or less forever ruins the genre.  The king of them all, the one that ushered in the screwball comedy and the modern romantic comedy, is It Happened One Night.

Starring Claudette Colbert and Clark Gable, it follows the story of Ellie Andrews, a young, spoiled woman who, in a fit of rebellion, marries fortune hunter Westley King.  Her father collects her before the marriage can be consummated only to have her run away once again.  On board a bus to New York City, she happens upon one Mr. Peter Warne.  Turns out he’s a down-on-his-luck reporter in need of a good story, so he blackmails her: either she gives him an exclusive, or he’ll rat her out to her father (and collect a handsome reward for it, too).  Not a complete cad, he does offer to help reunite her with her beloved quasi-husband (readers love a happy ending).

Now, because the story arc of 90 percent of romantic comedies to follow used this one as a template, we can guess what happens.  They hate each other at first, but she’s a little charmed by him, and he’s a little amused by her.  Charm and amusement turn to affection, and all of a sudden it’s “Westley who?”  Of course, there’s confusion and misunderstanding that leads to Boy Losing Girl, only to prove his worth and eventually get her back.

Along with the now-familiar storyline, we also get now-familiar comedic set pieces.  The Anything You Can Do I Can Do Better Moment, for instance, features Gable’s Peter trying to flag down a car, claiming to be an expert at hitchhiking.  He must fail so that Ellie can hike up her skirt, show a little leg, and convince the very next car (screeching tries and all) that he needs to offer this woman a ride.  There’s also the Forced Into Close Quarters bit, where Peter and Ellie are forced to pretend to be man and wife to hide her identity.  This means they have to share a motel room, of course, though the morals of the time demanded separate beds and a curtain strung up between them for propriety’s sake.  And the ever-important I’m Not The Man She Thinks I Am moment, where Peter takes the high road by not accepting the cash reward for returning her to her father because he’s fallen in love with her.

The difference between this film and the cookie-cutter romantic comedies that follow is that, even now, the film has a certain energy you can’t quite describe.  It feels fresh, even though we’ve seen it hundreds of times over.  Every once in a while, a romantic comedy captures some of that same spark, even if just for a moment.  And I think that’s why we keep coming back, hoping for the best from the genre, even when we’re not supposed to.  We’re waiting for that moment when the romantic comedy can prove its worth, regain its honor, and recapture those magical moments we experienced in the past together with films like It Happened One Night.  The truth is, when romantic comedy is at its best, the genre contains some of the greatest films and film moments in history.

Legend tells us that, after finishing, Colbert complained to a friend that she’d just completed “the worst picture in the world” — funny considering the film went on to win the Big Five Oscars, including a Best Actress statue for Colbert herself.  Perhaps a more accurate lament would have been that she’d just cemented the rise of the genre that created some of the worst pictures in the world — but also some of the best.

Dorian Gray on Film

Having finally gotten to see the movie I was most anticipating for 2009, the most recent film version of my favorite novel, and because I’ll take any opportunity I can get to discuss Dorian Gray in any way, shape, or form, I thought I’d take some blog space to look at the two most well-known attempts to turn Oscar Wilde’s only novel into a cinematic experience.  Obviously, spoilers abound, both for the novel and the specific films.

I’ll be looking at what I consider key elements in telling of the story of Dorian Gray, which include: Sybil’s Fall, Dorian’s Arc, Hedonism, The Portrait, Lord Henry as the Devil, and the Opportunity for Salvation.


THE PICTURE OF DORIAN GRAY (1945)

Writer/Director: Albert Lewin
Dorian: Hurd Hatfield
Lord Henry: George Sanders
Basil: Lowell Gilmore
Sybil: Angela Lansbury
3rd Act Love Interest: Donna Reed (as Gladys Hallward)

Sybil’s Fall: Taken by her beauty and her voice (in this version, Sybil is a chanteuse rather than a Shakespearean actress), Dorian is enthralled by this first love experience.  He’s ready to commit to the fantasy and to Sybil, until Lord Henry suggests that he test her chastity.  Dorian agrees, and Sybil, albeit reluctantly, fails that test.  By giving herself to Dorian, she proves her unworthiness to him.  He drops her; she commits suicide.  While different and a bit more crude (but perhaps necessarily so for a cinematic version), this cut-and-dry destruction of the relationship is effective as Dorian’s first foray into manipulating those around him.

Dorian’s Arc: My issue with this version of Dorian is that we never really get to see any reaction from him.  He never seems all that fazed by anything.  He’s always wearing a mask, and he never shows his cards to anyone — not even the audience.  In the novel, Dorian is extremely emotional and impetuous.  When Lord Henry first needles him about the fact that he will age and his painting will not, Dorian petulantly throws himself onto the divan and has himself a good cry.  We never get to see this sort of emotion from Hurt Hatfield’s Dorian.  Whether by actor’s interpretation, writing or direction, he appears bored most of the film.  As a reader, Dorian’s journey was of foremost interest to me.  In this film version, we don’t get to go on that journey with Dorian; we only get to witness the events as they happen to him.

Hedonism: One aspect of the novel that is particular hard to translate to cinema is Dorian’s hedonistic lifestyle.  The 1945 version takes the approach of the novel: it doesn’t show much at all, leaving the worst of Dorian’s sins to our imagination.  In the novel, this is very effective.  It’s less so in the film.  However, considering the social climate at the time this film was made, the approach was appropriate.  It pushed no boundaries on screen, but perhaps it did it the minds of the audience.

The Portrait: The only thing shot in technicolor in 1945′s otherwise black & white version, the portrait is certainly striking if a bit cartoonish.

Original

Defiled

Lord Henry as the Devil: In the 1945 version, Lord Henry gets the quips of the novel without as much of the bite.  He’s not quite the master manipulator of either the novel or the 2009 version.  For his role in Sybil’s fall, he simply tells Dorian what to do.  He remains blissfully unaware of most of Dorian’s atrocities.  He gives Dorian a philosophy, but it’s Dorian who runs with it full tilt.

The Opportunity for Salvation: Here we find Dorian also having grown bored with life, though his demeanor is not significantly changed from his youth.  When he finds the opportunity for love with Basil Hallward’s niece, Gladys, he decides he must destroy the painting once and for all, so as not to fall back into temptation.  Unfortunately, in doing so, he destroys himself.  He dies as the man in the picture.  The picture returns to its state of eternal, youthful beauty.  Because we never saw the depths of Dorian’s despair, it was hard to feel the tragedy in his end.  It felt neither earned or unfair; it was simply another event in the strange tale of Dorian’s life.


DORIAN GRAY (2009)

Writer: Toby Finlay
Director: Oliver Parker
Dorian: Ben Barnes
Lord Henry: Colin Firth
Basil: Ben Chaplin
Sybil: Rachel Hurd-Wood
3rd Act Love Interest: Rebecca Hall (as Emily Wotton)

Sybil’s Fall: In this version, Sybil once again gives herself to Dorian, though it’s worth noting she doesn’t take much convincing. (Who could blame her?) It’s not this that leads to Dorian’s shunning of her.  Instead, it requires a bit more finagling on the part of Lord Henry, who takes Dorian to an opium den where he experiences both the pleasures of opium and the ladies selling it — an experience which also causes him to miss Sybil’s play.  After the performance, when Sybil is already suspicious of Dorian’s whereabouts, Lord Henry pushes another thorn into Dorian’s side by asking Sybil when they plan to start a family.  Her answer of “soon” causes a bit of hemming and hawing from Dorian.  Lord Henry takes his leave (to the balcony to watch the fallout he’s masterminded).  Dorian is extremely cold to Sybil, who begs him to make her his wife rather than one of his “whores.”  At this point, Dorian walks away, lured by a life of new and unlimited experience rather than one of constancy.

If Sybil had been written as she was in the novel, Rachel Hurd-Wood would have been perfect casting.  However, in the 2009 version, they make her much less of a wilting flower. It was never clear whether she was truly in awe of Dorian, as she was in the novel, or whether she simply wanted to make a good catch, so to speak.  In some ways, they make her character much stronger, such as when she yells at Dorian to make her his wife instead of one of his whores.  Because of this, we never see her crumble, never see her so fully crushed as we would need to to believe she would throw herself off a bridge.

Dorian’s Arc: One of the things I liked best about the 2009 version is that we followed Dorian’s journey much more closely.  Ben Barnes as Dorian was as emotional as I’d hoped he’d be.  We got to see him be frustrated with Lord Henry one moment and charmed by him the next.  In one of his last scenes with Basil, we see him flip the switch from annoyed and cruel to the picture of innocence in one take.  In that scene especially, we understand how hard it is for people to reconcile the rumors of Dorian’s lascivious lifestyle with that of his appearance.  In contrast with Hatfield’s Dorian, Barnes’ Dorian runs the emotional gamut.  He is constantly searching for more, both horrified by his actions but even more impressed by his own achievements.  Only when he returns after a 25-year absence do we see that he has become bored with a life of hedonism.  As he puts it, “pleasure is very different from happiness.”

Hedonism: The 2009 version takes the opposite approach of the 1945 version.  It attempts to showcase Dorian’s hedonism: from an opium den threesome to engaging in a little “double or nothing” bet at a debutante ball to bisexual orgies and finally forays into sadomasochistic sex.  The problem with such an approach, of course, is that this sort of behavior, visually sanitized for a UK rating of 15, is not quite as shocking as it perhaps should be.  That being said, what was more effective than the actual events themselves was seeing their effects on Dorian.  Seeing his reactions go from shocked and uncomfortable to manipulative and obsessed with consumption was much harder to watch than the shock-value sex scenes themselves.  The occasional glimpse of clarity for Dorian (the news of Sybil’s death, the realization that he’s killed Basil, the moment of Jim Vane’s demise) are truly heartbreaking.  It’s an emotional ride that isn’t present in the 1945 version.

The Portrait: Perhaps the aspect that has received the most criticism in the 2009 version is the heavily CGI portrait.  This painting not only decays and devolves, but it also groans, moves, and is infested with maggots.  In essence, it is supposed to be a living, breathing manifestation of Dorian’s soul: his unfortunate, trapped doppelganger.  When Dorian attempts to kill it, it tries to escape from the confines of the canvas.  It’s a good thought, but it’s not really all that effective.  But again, with a modern audience, would a stationary painting really have provided the shock and awe required?  There’s no denying that the CGI goes over the top, but the effort to visualize the incident is impressive in its gusto if not in its success.

Original

Defiled

Lord Henry as the Devil: Lord Henry is a much more active figure in the 2009 version.  He not only provides the philosophy, but he pushes Dorian to explore it.  He introduces him to gin, cigarettes, opium and sex.  He opens Dorian’s eyes to the world of pleasure and encourages him to explore it to the fullest: “People die of common sense, Dorian, one lost moment at a time. Life is a moment; there is no hereafter. So make it burn, always, with the hardest flame.”  At times he is explicit in his guidance, as when he places the “double or nothing” bet at the debutante ball.  Other times, he is more serpentine, as in his role in the demise of Dorian & Sybil’s engagement.  Dorian is everything he wishes he could be, and he enjoys pushing him.  Only when he has something of his own to lose — his daughter, Emily — does he chastise Dorian for his actions.  Even so, he never truly admits to his role in Dorian’s demise.  Dorian, in some ways, finds his redemption.  Lord Henry never does.

The Opportunity for Salvation: After having exhausted even his own depths for hedonism, Dorian returns to London, bored with life, cut off from the world he used to know both by rumor and by appearance.  The society he knows has aged; internally, he has aged perhaps more than anyone, but none of that is visible.  He has a notion that he might try to be good at this point — after all, what’s left? — but even that is an effort void of any joy.  He is finally beginning to see the consequences of his actions, to truly feel them, and it’s not a pleasant experience. At a charity piano performance that hearkens back to his day as a true innocent, he is interrupted by the shouts of a man angry that his daughter has attended.  He bellows to the crowd how absurd it is that such a cruel and morally decrepit man has received “a babe’s face.”

Later, Dorian finds himself accosted by Jim Vane, his mind ravaged by the loss of his sister 26 years ago.  He escapes him once by way of his youthful looks and finally by a cruel twist of fate resulting in Jim’s death.  Though he avoids bodily injury, the incident shakes him, perhaps for the first time since Sybil’s death.  In a moment of panic, distraught, searching for some bit of salvation, he finds himself on the doorstep of his old friend, Lord Henry.  Emily answers, and she comforts him, having already begun to fall for his tortured soul in the weeks since his return.  She is the first source of comfort he’s had in years, and he seems to begin to understand the concept of love once again.

Despite Lord Henry’s understandable objections, the pair make plans to leave London so Dorian can start over. Lord Henry throws a party as a diversion so he can sneak into Dorian’s attic where the painting resides.  This leads to a showdown between Lord Henry and Dorian.  Emily arrives to find Dorian locked in the fiery attic with his painting.  He has the key, and she begs him for it to unlock the door.  Knowing what she will see, and knowing that he has the opportunity to spare her, he refuses.  He professes his love and then sends her away, finally understanding what it is to put someone’s needs above his own.  He turns to face his portrait, and thus his own demise.  The last scene of the film shows the portrait, having survived the fire, returned to its innocent, youthful state, being locked in Lord Henry’s attic.


For me, 2009′s DORIAN GRAY has surpassed 1945′s THE PICTURE OF DORIAN GRAY as the pre-eminent film version of Wilde’s novel.  While the 1945 take is perhaps more faithful to the events of the novel, the 2009 version is a far more effective take on the heart of the novel.  In the places where the 2009 version fails, it does so because it attempts to do more.  I have a soft spot for films that are earnest in their endeavors, even when they’re not entirely successful.  2009′s DORIAN GRAY falls into that category.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.