《国际电影影片词典》书籍电子文献资料（英文版）International Dictionary of Films and Filmmakers Volume 1 FILMS（Q、R、S、T）

FILMS. 4th EDItION PICNIC AT HANGING ROCK Elia, Maurice, in Sequences(Haute-Ville), no. 181, November Nichols, Peter M,"In Peter Weirs Whodunit, an Otherworldly orce Did: The Director Has Moved On, but His Riddle of the lost Girls in Picnic at Hanging Rock Endures, in New York Times, Coursodon, Jean-Pierre, and others, ""Peter Weir, in Positif( Paris) no 453. November 1998 Tibbetts, John C, ""Adaptation Redux: Hanging Rock on Video, in Literature/Film Quarterly(Salisbury), voL. 27, no. 2, April 1999 At a time when New journalists such as Tom Wolfe and Truman Capote were experimenting with true stories told through fictional techniques, Australian director Peter Weir was conducting his ow exploration of filmic New Journalism with Picnic at Hanging Rock. As with the works of the American writers the basic elements of the Australian story are apparently historical facts; what the artist brings are fleshed-out characters, plot, dialogue, and the texture of actors and mise-en-scene. As a result, Picnic is far from documentary, but rather arich, almost literary meditation on a mystery unresolved by tional investigation and the passage of time. Weir's great daring in this film was to accept the tenets of the New Journalisms approach nd to allow the story to end as it happened, unresolved by a ne fictional package that might satisfy critics and audiences accustomed to artistic closure. In a victory for sophistication, this courageous rejection of convention resulted in Picnic being considered the be film ever made in Australia up to that time and the most successful Picnic at Hanging Rock Picnics factual base concerns the disappearance of three girls Articles: (one eventually rediscovered) and a teacher on a school picnic at lar australian location for Purdon, N, " Under Western Eyes: Notes Towards the Australian Appleyard College in the state of Victoria are proper Edwardian Cinema, in Cinema Papers(Melbournes), November-Decem- young women, being"finished"to take their place in Australian Hunter, I,""Corsetway to Heaven: Looking Back at Picnic at Victorian ideal of British correctness, rather than a school in the ber 1975 society. Initially, the school and its charges look more like an earlier Hanging Rock, "in Cinema Papers(Melbourne), March-April 1976. Murray, Sand A I Ginnane, ""Producing Picnic, "in Cinema Paper fact. we soon learn that class conflict is alive and well. with a student Melbourne), March-April 1976. who is an orphan treated as a poor relative. It is sexual repression, ODonnell, v."Max Lemon: Out of the woodwork. in Cinem however, that is most marked and potentially explanatory as a cause Papers(Melbourne), June-July 1976. of later events. The girls are literally strait-laced: an amusing shot Positif( Paris), July-August 1976 shows a back-to-front lineup, each pulling on the stays of the next in Wertenstein, W,"Niewyjasniona tajemnica, in Kino(Warsaw), line. Though February 14 is in the midst of the summer season, the opropriately for a cool British July, and May 1977. told they may, as a great treat, remove their white gloves because of Bonneville, L, ""Pique-nique a Hanging Rock, Sequences(Montr- eal), January 1978. Cult Movies. number 2. 1979 As the party nears Hanging Rock-a weird up-thrust of stone sacred to the Aborigines-concern about its dangers mounts. Venom- Nation(New York), 17 March 1979 ous snakes are mentioned repeatedly, and the science teacher, Miss Time(New York), 23 April 1979 MacCraw, muses darkly on the Rock's geological origin, its lava lew Australian Cinema, 1979 forced up from deep down below, perhaps suggesting the sup McFarlane, B, The Films of Peter Weir, in Cinema Papers pressed emotions in this controlled society. At the picnic grounds the Melbourne), April-May 1980 mood changes from girlish excitement to a languid, hot-summer- Ledgard, R, in Hablemos de Cine(Lima), May 1982. afternoon sensuality. The girls remove their sun hats and four receive Jankus. M nik pod Wiszaca Skala, "in Kino(Warsaw), permission to climb, ostensibly to find geologica luminous, other-worldly Miranda, who has had a prer Kindblom, M, " Stillbilden, in Chaplin(Stockholm), no 6, 198 being here much longer, hikes upward, accompanied by the dumpy McFarlane, B, The Australian Literary Adaptation: An Overview omplainer, Edith, and two others. Part way up the rock the girls in Literature/Film Quarterly(Salisbury), vol 21, no 2, 1993 remove their shoes and stockings after falling asleep as if in unison

FILMS, 4 PICNIC AT HANGING ROCK th EDITION 945 Picnic at Hanging Rock Articles: Purdon, N., ‘‘Under Western Eyes: Notes Towards the Australian Cinema,’’ in Cinema Papers (Melbournes), November-Decem￾ber 1975. Hunter, I., ‘‘Corsetway to Heaven: Looking Back at Picnic at Hanging Rock,” in Cinema Papers (Melbourne), March-April 1976. Murray, S. and A. I. Ginnane, ‘‘Producing Picnic,” in Cinema Papers (Melbourne), March-April 1976. O’Donnell, V., ‘‘Max Lemon: Out of the Woodwork,’’ in Cinema Papers (Melbourne), June-July 1976. Positif (Paris), July-August 1976. Wertenstein, W., ‘‘Niewyjasniona tajemnica,’’ in Kino (Warsaw), May 1977. Bonneville, L., ‘‘Pique-nique a Hanging Rock,’’ Séquences (Montr￾eal), January 1978. Cult Movies, number 2, 1979. Nation (New York), 17 March 1979. Time (New York), 23 April 1979. New Australian Cinema, 1979. McFarlane, B., ‘‘The Films of Peter Weir,’’ in Cinema Papers (Melbourne), April-May 1980. Ledgard, R., in Hablemos de Cine (Lima), May 1982. Jankus, M., ‘‘Piknik pod Wiszaca Skala,’’ in Kino (Warsaw), April 1984. Kindblom, M., ‘‘Stillbilden,’’ in Chaplin (Stockholm), no. 6, 1988. McFarlane, B., ‘‘The Australian Literary Adaptation: An Overview,’’ in Literature/Film Quarterly (Salisbury), vol. 21, no. 2, 1993. Elia, Maurice, in Séquences (Haute-Ville), no. 181, November￾December 1995. Nichols, Peter M., ‘‘In Peter Weir’s Whodunit, an Otherworldly Force Did: The Director Has Moved On, but His Riddle of the Lost Girls in Picnic at Hanging Rock Endures,’’ in New York Times, 1 November 1998. Coursodon, Jean-Pierre, and others, ‘‘Peter Weir,’’ in Positif (Paris), no. 453, November 1998. Tibbetts, John C., ‘‘Adaptation Redux: Hanging Rock on Video,’’ in Literature/Film Quarterly (Salisbury), vol. 27, no. 2, April 1999. *** At a time when New Journalists such as Tom Wolfe and Truman Capote were experimenting with true stories told through fictional techniques, Australian director Peter Weir was conducting his own exploration of filmic New Journalism with Picnic at Hanging Rock. As with the works of the American writers, the basic elements of the Australian story are apparently historical facts; what the artist brings are fleshed-out characters, plot, dialogue, and the texture of actors and mise-en-scene. As a result, Picnic is far from documentary, but rather a rich, almost literary meditation on a mystery unresolved by conven￾tional investigation and the passage of time. Weir’s great daring in this film was to accept the tenets of the New Journalism’s approach and to allow the story to end as it happened, unresolved by a neat fictional package that might satisfy critics and audiences accustomed to artistic closure. In a victory for sophistication, this courageous rejection of convention resulted in Picnic being considered the best film ever made in Australia up to that time and the most successful internationally. Picnic’s factual base concerns the disappearance of three girls (one eventually rediscovered) and a teacher on a school picnic at a popular Australian location for outings in 1900. The students at Appleyard College in the state of Victoria are proper Edwardian young women, being ‘‘finished’’ to take their place in Australian society. Initially, the school and its charges look more like an earlier Victorian ideal of British correctness, rather than a school in the provinces of a colony struggling to escape the English class system. In fact, we soon learn that class conflict is alive and well, with a student who is an orphan treated as a poor relative. It is sexual repression, however, that is most marked and potentially explanatory as a cause of later events. The girls are literally strait-laced: an amusing shot shows a back-to-front lineup, each pulling on the stays of the next in line. Though February 14 is in the midst of the summer season, the girls are dressed more appropriately for a cool British July, and are told they may, as a great treat, remove their white gloves because of the heat. As the party nears Hanging Rock—a weird up-thrust of stone sacred to the Aborigines—concern about its dangers mounts. Venom￾ous snakes are mentioned repeatedly, and the science teacher, Miss MacCraw, muses darkly on the Rock’s geological origin, its lava ‘‘forced up from deep down below,’’ perhaps suggesting the sup￾pressed emotions in this controlled society. At the picnic grounds the mood changes from girlish excitement to a languid, hot-summer￾afternoon sensuality. The girls remove their sun hats and four receive permission to climb, ostensibly to find geological samples. The luminous, other-worldly Miranda, who has had a premonition of ‘‘not being here much longer,’’ hikes upward, accompanied by the dumpy complainer, Edith, and two others. Part way up the rock the girls remove their shoes and stockings after falling asleep as if in unison

THE PICTURE OF DORIAN GRAY FILMS. 4 EDITIoN The mood is mystical, pregnant with possibility. Edith complains that when confronting events that fail to fit a frame of reference: Picnic the walk is"nasty, and, growing steadily more fearful, turns back, may begin with fact, but ends with our most unsettling speculation seeing a"red cloudand then passing Miss Mac Craw on her way up. looking funny" since the teacher wears no skirt, only"pantaloons -Andrew and Gina Macdonald or"drawers. George Zamphir' s pan flute plays a haunting motif in the background, flocks of birds fly portentously, and the hiking girls are shot in slow motion in lazy, dance-like sequences. Mountains violate our sense of human scale: the girls, and Weir's THE PICTURE OF DORIAN GRAY amera, look upward and we see nothing as familiar or as manageable as the victorian furnishings of the school. As Miss MacCraw points USA.1945 out in an amusing correction of the buggy driver, Hangin time scale is inhuman as well, not"thousands of years old, but quite young geologically speaking, a million years old. Appleyard Director: Albert lewin Colleges hothouse environment has been shattered, and new, magi- cal reality is in operation. Everyone's watch stops at twelve noon; Production: Loews Incorporated for MGM, black and white with heavenly choir and piano music accompany sweeping camera shots of Technicolor inserts, 35mm, running time: 111 minutes flocks of birds rising. Unfamiliar fauna intrudes, including cicadas with their weird drumming call, and strange lizards. rumbling Producer: Pandro S. Berman; screenplay: Albert Lewin from the thunder-like noises roll down from Hanging Rock, but there is no novel by Oscar Wilde; photography: Harry Stradling: editor: Ferris storm, only(apparently) the wind playing through peaks and caves. Webster, sound: Douglas Shearer; production designer: Gordon A spoken prologue has told us that"What we see and what we seem, Wiles; art directors: Cedric Gibbons, Hans Peters; music: Herbert Are but a dream -a dream within a dream this reverie is Stothart; costume designer: Irene; set decorator: Edwin B. willis ightmare but more like what happens during a day-time sleep on paintings: Henrique Medina(before)and Ivan Le Lorraine Albright a hot day: a disturbing displacement of our conventional perceptions. (after) This is country Weir explored in his excellent The Last Wave Western rationalism encounters the fluid, intuitive Weltanschaung Cast: George Sanders( Lord Henry Wotton): Hurd Hatfield(Dorian of aboriginal Australia, an ancient mystical land full of spooky threat Gray): Donna Reed(Gladys Hallward); Angela Lansbury (Siby and indifference to European scientific certainties. There are also repeated references to Shakespearean characters and trees: the angelic Miranda, yearning upward, contrasted to chubby, earthbound Edith four young people disappearing into a forest inhabited by unseen sensual forces: "Shall I Compare Thee to a Summer's Day recited by some of the girls at the picnic. While Weir is not insistent about it, the suggestion is that the disappearance of the girls is motivated by repressed sexuality, with their dream-like state an escape into another The balance of the film explores the reactions to and the conse quences of the disappearances. One of the girls, Irma, is found by Michael, a young visitor entranced by Miranda at the picnic; Irma is sexually"intact, as the doctor delicately puts it, although her corset is missing and she seems different, perhaps older. Irma is shunned and then abused by her hat happened. Gardners discuss whether the girls unwilling--to say could have fallen down a hole or whether a Jack the Ripper has struck. Parents withdraw their children; a lonely student commits suicide. leaping into a greenhouse; the picnic grounds become a media circus; the headmistress descends into alcoholism The window into another eality has been opened, and nothing can Weirs refusal to provide a neat explanation has a variety of artistic consequences. Besides being true to the historical record, the film has the complex resonances of real life, resonances which would be completely absent in the presence of a rational explanation. The thematic point is that it is impossible to speak about the unspeakable-in this society that denies the existence of sex, even the consequences of sex have no name(the maids call illegitimately conceived students you know). The film, like Weirs Wave and witness, thus becomes an anthropological commentary on the blindness and limits of culture The Picture of Dorian Gray

THE PICTURE OF DORIAN GRAY FILMS, 4th EDITION 946 The mood is mystical, pregnant with possibility. Edith complains that the walk is ‘‘nasty,’’ and, growing steadily more fearful, turns back, seeing a ‘‘red cloud’’ and then passing Miss MacCraw on her way up, looking ‘‘funny’’ since the teacher wears no skirt, only ‘‘pantaloons’’ or ‘‘drawers.’’ George Zamphir’s pan flute plays a haunting motif in the background, flocks of birds fly portentously, and the hiking girls are shot in slow motion in lazy, dance-like sequences. Mountains violate our sense of human scale: the girls, and Weir’s camera, look upward and we see nothing as familiar or as manageable as the Victorian furnishings of the school. As Miss MacCraw points out in an amusing correction of the buggy driver, Hanging Rock’s time scale is inhuman as well, not ‘‘thousands of years old,’’ but ‘‘quite young geologically speaking, a million years old.’’ Appleyard College’s hothouse environment has been shattered, and new, magi￾cal reality is in operation. Everyone’s watch stops at twelve noon; heavenly choir and piano music accompany sweeping camera shots of flocks of birds rising. Unfamiliar fauna intrudes, including cicadas, with their weird drumming call, and strange lizards. Rumbling, thunder-like noises roll down from Hanging Rock, but there is no storm, only (apparently) the wind playing through peaks and caves. A spoken prologue has told us that ‘‘What we see and what we seem, Are but a dream—a dream within a dream.’’ This reverie is no nightmare but more like what happens during a day-time sleep on a hot day: a disturbing displacement of our conventional perceptions. This is country Weir explored in his excellent The Last Wave: Western rationalism encounters the fluid, intuitive Weltanschauung of aboriginal Australia, an ancient mystical land full of spooky threat and indifference to European scientific certainties. There are also repeated references to Shakespearean characters and trees: the angelic Miranda, yearning upward, contrasted to chubby, ‘‘earthbound Edith’’ four young people disappearing into a forest inhabited by unseen sensual forces; ‘‘Shall I Compare Thee to a Summer’s Day’’ recited by some of the girls at the picnic. While Weir is not insistent about it, the suggestion is that the disappearance of the girls is motivated by repressed sexuality, with their dream-like state an escape into another reality. The balance of the film explores the reactions to and the conse￾quences of the disappearances. One of the girls, Irma, is found by Michael, a young visitor entranced by Miranda at the picnic; Irma is sexually ‘‘intact,’’ as the doctor delicately puts it, although her corset is missing and she seems different, perhaps older. Irma is shunned and then abused by her fellow students when she is unable—or perhaps unwilling—to say what happened. Gardners discuss whether the girls could have fallen down a hole or whether a Jack the Ripper has struck. Parents withdraw their children; a lonely student commits suicide, leaping into a greenhouse; the picnic grounds become a media circus; the headmistress descends into alcoholism. The window into another reality has been opened, and nothing can be the same. Weir’s refusal to provide a neat explanation has a variety of artistic consequences. Besides being true to the historical record, the film has the complex resonances of real life, resonances which would be completely absent in the presence of a rational explanation. The thematic point is that it is impossible to speak about the unspeakable—in this society that denies the existence of sex, even the consequences of sex have no name (the maids call illegitimately conceived students ‘‘you know’’). The film, like Weir’s Wave and Witness, thus becomes an anthropological commentary on the blindness and limits of culture when confronting events that fail to fit a frame of reference: Picnic may begin with fact, but ends with our most unsettling speculations. —Andrew and Gina Macdonald THE PICTURE OF DORIAN GRAY USA, 1945 Director: Albert Lewin Production: Loew’s Incorporated for MGM, black and white with Technicolor inserts, 35mm, running time: 111 minutes. Producer: Pandro S. Berman; screenplay: Albert Lewin from the novel by Oscar Wilde; photography: Harry Stradling; editor: Ferris Webster; sound: Douglas Shearer; production designer: Gordon Wiles; art directors: Cedric Gibbons, Hans Peters; music: Herbert Stothart; costume designer: Irene; set decorator: Edwin B. Willis; paintings: Henrique Medina (before) and Ivan Le Lorraine Albright (after). Cast: George Sanders (Lord Henry Wotton); Hurd Hatfield (Dorian Gray); Donna Reed (Gladys Hallward); Angela Lansbury (Sibyl The Picture of Dorian Gray

FILMS. 4th EDItION THE PICTURE OF DORIAN GRAY Vane ) Lowell Gilmore( Basil Hallward ) Peter Lawford( David Felleman, Susan, ""How high was his brow? Albert Lewin, his critics tone ): Richard Fraser (James Vane); Miles Mander(Sir Robert and the problem of pretension, in Film History(New York), Bentley ): Lydia Bilbrook (Mrs Vane): Morton Lowry(Adrian Single- Winter 1995 on): Douglas Walton(Allen Campbell); Mary Forbes(Lady Agatha): Piazzo, Philippe, Les reves d'un amateur, in Telerama(Paris),no obert Greig(Sir Thomas): Moyna MacGill (Duchess ): Billy bear 2406, 21 February 1996 (Malvolio Jones); Renie Carson (Young French Woman); Lillian Lillian Bonesteel, Michael,"Ivan Albright: Artist of the Living Dead, in Bond (Kate Devi Dja and her Balinese Dancers, Sir Cedric Hardwicke Outre (evanston). no 9. 1997. Bonesteel, Michael, * The Man Who was dorian gray, in Outre Evanston), no 9, 1997. Awards: Best cinematography in black and white, Harry Stradling Turner. Georg he Picture of Dorian Gray: Wor Words, in American Cinematographer(Hollywood), voL. 78,no Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, 194 5,May1997. Publications: Albert Lewin. who made his directorial debut in 1942 after fifteen Books years as a writer and producer at MGM, directed three films during the 1940s. All featured George Sanders, fin-de-siecle European Thomas, Tony, The Films of the Forties, Seacaucus, New Jer settings, and viewed life, art decadence and sexual thrall through the prism of a pictorial, complex and studied mise-en-scene. The Picture Silver, Alain, ""The Picture of Dorian Gray, Magill's Survey of of Dorian Gray was the most expensive and elaborate of the three Cinema, Frank N. magill, ed. Vol. Il. Englewood Cliffs. New productions(the other two, The Moon and Sixpence, 1942, and The Jersey, 1980 Private Affairs of Bel Ami, 1947, were produced more economically Parish, James Robert and Gregory W Mank, The Best of MGM: The by Loew-Lewin, a relatively short-lived independent production Golden Years(1928-59), Westport, Connecticut, 1981 Aachen, George, The Picture of Dorian Gray, Memorable Films of consciousness and density, The Picture of Dorian Gray is a psycho- the Forties, Sydne sexual horror film based on oscar wilde's novel about a beautiful Mayne, Judith, Textual Analysis and Portraits of Spectatorship, young man who through a Faustian compact remains eternally young Cinema and Spectatorship London and New York, 1993 while his portrait registers his sins and iniquities Edelman. Rob and Wilde and Lewin shared a profound disdain for realism, the y Kupferberg, Angela Lansbury: A Life on dominant literary mode of wilde's time and the dominant cinematic Stage and Screen, Secaucus, 1997. mode of Lewins. And although a film made under the auspices of Felleman, Susan, Botticelli in Hollywood: The Films of Albert Lewin Hollywood s largest, most conservative studio in 1945 was subject to New York. 1997 more pressure to conform to convention than a novel written by an already (in )famous aesthete in 1890, Lewins version of wildes story did avoid dullness-realism's danger of the commonplace, ac- cording to its director. And, although criticized for either its literary Tyler, Parker, ""Dorian Gray: Last of the Movie Draculas'"in View pretensions, its Hollywood compromises, or both, it is arguably (New York), October 1946. Lewins best film, and certainly his most widely admired. Arkadin John Russell Taylor]," Film Clips"in Sight and Sound The Picture of Dorian Gray avoided the dangers of the common- London), Winter 1967-68 place by subjecting itself to dangers of a different order, those Arnaud, Claude, Les statues meurent aussi, in Cinematographe resulting from a kind of tightrope act: this self-described equilibrist's (Paris), January 1982 concerted negotiation of intellectual, artistic and commercial viabil Combs, Richard, " Retrospective: The Picture of Dorian Gray"and ity. In its realization of a not very visually detailed source, its Tom Milne, ""You Are a Professor, Of Course, in Monthly film divergences, often necessitated by Code, from Wilde's story, and its Bulletin (London), November 1985 figuration of content explicitly disallowed or formally problematic, Beuselink, James, "Albert Lewins Dorian Gray, in Films in Lewins film presents a fascinating mediation between Wilde's effete aestheticism and Hollywood,s conventional realism. Review(New York), February 1986 The storys sexual subtext is embodied in Lewins film visually Reid's Film Index( wyong), no. 1, 1987 rather than narratively. The most remarkable instance of this Nacache, Jacqueline " Le portrait de dorian gray, in Cinema mportant scene of Dorian Gray's"by Lord (Paris), 4-10 March 1987 Henrys credo of youth and pleasure; it features a butterfly, a classical Garsault, Alain, "Albert Lewin: un createur a Hollywood, "in Positif figurine and a bust that in one crafty dissolve momentarily reconfigure (Paris), July-August 1989 themselves into a kind of inverted image of sexual penetration, thus Bensmaia, Reda, "La Figure d' u ou Inconscient pingle: L Coity.lu tum 992. ray d AiDer tewin, m Irs fans and owa inst pse of lsewin' wpse of sligpendg hyo mhs otis ande osher taboo Smith, S.D., The Picture of Dorian Gray, in Monsterscene(Lom- content past the producers and censors, to whom even the slightest bard), no 3, Fall 1994 whiff of perversion was anathema 947

FILMS, 4 THE PICTURE OF DORIAN GRAY th EDITION 947 Vane); Lowell Gilmore (Basil Hallward); Peter Lawford (David Stone); Richard Fraser (James Vane); Miles Mander (Sir Robert Bentley); Lydia Bilbrook (Mrs. Vane); Morton Lowry (Adrian Single￾ton); Douglas Walton (Allen Campbell); Mary Forbes (Lady Agatha); Robert Greig (Sir Thomas); Moyna MacGill (Duchess); Billy Bevan (Malvolio Jones); Renie Carson (Young French Woman); Lillian Bond (Kate); Devi Dja and her Balinese Dancers, Sir Cedric Hardwicke (narrator). Awards: Best cinematography in black and white, Harry Stradling, Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, 1945. Publications: Books: Thomas, Tony, The Films of the Forties, Seacaucus, New Jer￾sey, 1977. Silver, Alain, ‘‘The Picture of Dorian Gray,’’ Magill’s Survey of Cinema, Frank N. Magill, ed., Vol. III, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1980. Parish, James Robert and Gregory W. Mank, The Best of MGM: The Golden Years (1928–59), Westport, Connecticut, 1981. Aachen, George, ‘‘The Picture of Dorian Gray,’’ Memorable Films of the Forties, Sydney, Australia, 1987. Mayne, Judith, ‘‘Textual Analysis and Portraits of Spectatorship,’’ Cinema and Spectatorship, London and New York, 1993. Edelman, Rob, and Audrey Kupferberg, Angela Lansbury: A Life on Stage and Screen, Secaucus, 1997. Felleman, Susan, Botticelli in Hollywood: The Films of Albert Lewin, New York, 1997. Articles: Tyler, Parker, ‘‘Dorian Gray: Last of the Movie Draculas’’ in View (New York), October 1946. Arkadin [John Russell Taylor], ‘‘Film Clips’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Winter 1967–68. Arnaud, Claude, ‘‘Les statues meurent aussi,’’ in Cinématographe (Paris), January 1982. Combs, Richard, ‘‘Retrospective: The Picture of Dorian Gray’’ and Tom Milne, ‘‘You Are a Professor, Of Course,’’ in Monthly Film Bulletin (London), November 1985. Beuselink, James, ‘‘Albert Lewin’s Dorian Gray,’’ in Films in Review (New York), February 1986. Reid’s Film Index (Wyong), no. 1, 1987. Nacache, Jacqueline ‘‘Le Portrait de Dorian Gray,’’ in Cinéma (Paris), 4–10 March 1987. Garsault, Alain, ‘‘Albert Lewin: un créateur à Hollywood,’’ in Positif (Paris), July-August 1989. Bensmaïa, Réda, ‘‘La Figure d’inconnu ou l’inconscient épinglé: Le Portrait de Dorian Gray d’Albert Lewin,’’ in Iris (Paris and Iowa City, Autumn 1992. Smith, S.D., ‘‘The Picture of Dorian Gray,’’ in Monsterscene (Lom￾bard), no. 3, Fall 1994. Felleman, Susan, ‘‘How high was his brow? Albert Lewin, his critics, and the problem of pretension,’’ in Film History (New York), Winter 1995. Piazzo, Philippe, ‘‘Les rêves d’un amateur,’’ in Télérama (Paris), no. 2406, 21 February 1996. Bonesteel, Michael, ‘‘Ivan Albright: Artist of the Living Dead,’’ in Outré (Evanston), no. 9, 1997. Bonesteel, Michael, ‘‘The Man Who Was Dorian Gray,’’ in Outré (Evanston), no. 9, 1997. Turner, George, ‘‘The Picture of Dorian Gray: Worth a Million Words,’’ in American Cinematographer (Hollywood), vol. 78, no. 5, May 1997. *** Albert Lewin, who made his directorial debut in 1942 after fifteen years as a writer and producer at MGM, directed three films during the 1940s. All featured George Sanders, fin-de-siècle European settings, and viewed life, art, decadence and sexual thrall through the prism of a pictorial, complex and studied mise-en-scène. The Picture of Dorian Gray was the most expensive and elaborate of the three productions (the other two, The Moon and Sixpence, 1942, and The Private Affairs of Bel Ami, 1947, were produced more economically by Loew-Lewin, a relatively short-lived independent production company Lewin founded with David Loew). A film of stunning self￾consciousness and density, The Picture of Dorian Gray is a psycho￾sexual horror film based on Oscar Wilde’s novel about a beautiful young man who through a Faustian compact remains eternally young while his portrait registers his sins and iniquities. Wilde and Lewin shared a profound disdain for realism, the dominant literary mode of Wilde’s time and the dominant cinematic mode of Lewin’s. And although a film made under the auspices of Hollywood’s largest, most conservative studio in 1945 was subject to more pressure to conform to convention than a novel written by an already (in)famous aesthete in 1890, Lewin’s version of Wilde’s story did avoid dullness—realism’s ‘‘danger of the commonplace,’’ ac￾cording to its director. And, although criticized for either its literary pretensions, its Hollywood compromises, or both, it is arguably Lewin’s best film, and certainly his most widely admired. The Picture of Dorian Gray avoided the dangers of the common￾place by subjecting itself to dangers of a different order, those resulting from a kind of tightrope act: this self-described equilibrist’s concerted negotiation of intellectual, artistic and commercial viabil￾ity. In its realization of a not very visually detailed source, its divergences, often necessitated by Code, from Wilde’s story, and its figuration of content explicitly disallowed or formally problematic, Lewin’s film presents a fascinating mediation between Wilde’s effete aestheticism and Hollywood’s conventional realism. The story’s sexual subtext is embodied in Lewin’s film visually rather than narratively. The most remarkable instance of this occurs during the all-important scene of Dorian Gray’s ‘‘seduction’’ by Lord Henry’s credo of youth and pleasure; it features a butterfly, a classical figurine and a bust that in one crafty dissolve momentarily reconfigure themselves into a kind of inverted image of sexual penetration, thus alluding in a flash to many ‘‘perverse’’ possibilities (see Bensmaïa). The psycho-sexual lapse configured by this dissolve is a signal instance of Lewin’s wont of slipping homoerotic and other taboo content past the producers and censors, to whom even the slightest whiff of perversion was anathema

PIROSMANI FILMS. 4 EDITIoN The film employs other subtle indices of Dorian Gray's narcissi- PIROSMANI tic and ambiguous sexuality, including copies of Donatello's and Verrocchio's sculptures representing the biblical David as erotically provocative youth. These Renaissance reproductions figuratively USSR, 1971 Hurd Hatfield, enacts his every movement, gesture, and expression Director: Georgy Shengelaya with circumspect grace. Like a somnambule(as Parker Tyler put it)or a living doll, his Dorian Gray moves with choreographic precision Production: Gruzia Films: Sovcolor, 35mm; running time: 100 about the films exquisite and mannered late-Victorian interiors. Hatfield,s austere, almost minimalist performance achieves a psycho- ical uncanniness worthy of a horror film--an appropriate mood for Screenplay: Erlom Akhvlediani and Georgy Shengelaya; photogra- Lewins variation on the theme of the double. Herbert Stothart's score phy: Constantin Opryatine: music: V. Koukhianidze contributes to the films eeriness, employing Chopins 24th Prelude as an elegiac leitmotif. Cast: Avtandil Varazi(Niko Pirosmanichvili: David Abachidze In its first shots, of Lord Henry Wotton(Sanders) sitting in his eimouraz beridze. Bo carriage reading Baudelaire's Les Fleurs du Mal, the film establishes Daouchvili: Maria Guaramadze. Nino Setouridze. Rosalia mintshine its characteristic mise-en-scene, focusing on frames within the film frame, creating a tension between static, manifestly*composed compositions and cinematic movement. Windows, doors, mirrors, screens, signs, and paintings are among the frames that permeate the Publications film. This propensity for conspicuous Lewin's bold foregrounding of art works as decorative and symbolic Script rames, particularly in the many scenes set in Dorians house, where neo-classical bas-reliefs and Oriental figurines, often symmetrically Akhvlediana, Erlom, and Georgy Shengelaya, Pirosmani, in Avant- arranged, as well as Renaissance paintings and Aubrey Beardsley Scene du Cinema(Paris), 15 December 1979 ustrations are among the images that seem to delimit the character and the cameras movement Book. The scene set at"The Two Turtles, the pub where Dorian first encounters Sibyl Vane(Angela Lansbury ), broadens the field of Liehm, Mira, and Antonin Liehm, The Most Important Art: East visual plenitude in which the film revels. The pub, which is as replete European Film after 1945, Berkeley, 1977 with props, placards, tchotchkes and other lower-class items as Dorian's home is with high art, is the site of unabashed spectacle. Its Articles verloaded artifice is highlighted by the" Dr Look sandwich-board that follows Dorian in. The single, disembodied eye of the advertise Matei, G, in Cinema(Bucharest), April 1972. talisman, seems to watch over the scene. The strange, almost explic Marazov, I, in Kinoizkustvo(Sofia), June 1972. itly sexual performance of Mr and Mrs. Ezekiel, a xylophone-puppet Bensch, S, in Film a Doba (prague), October 1972. act, and any number of cinematic puns and echoes make this scene, Trujillo, M, in Cine Cubano(Havana), nos 86-88, 1973 along with that set in a den of unspecified iniquities at Blue Gate Gow, Gordon, Unfamiliar Talents, "in Films and Filming(Lon Field, one of the films strongest and most original. don), February 1974 The film s preoccupation with the framing and scrutiny of visual Variety(New York), 12 June 1974 experience and desire is brought into focus around the central image Elley, D, in Films and Filming(London), September 1974 the picture of Dorian Gray itself. While in Wildes novel, it is the Glaessner, Verina, in Monthly Film Bulletin (London), Septem- idea of such a phenomenon-a portrait that ages in lieu of its sitter- ber 1974 that means to horrify, in the film it is the picture itself that moves. Thus Capdenac, Michel, in Ecran(Paris), 15 November 1975 the fastidiously disgusting, hyper-real portrait by Ivan Albright Gauthier, G, in image et Son(Paris), December 1975 suspensefully withheld and then shown in Technicolor insert, casts Haustrate, G, ""Pirosmani: Une Osmose quasi pariaite, in Cinema a shadow across the cultivated visual exquisiteness of the black-and (Paris), September-October 1975 white scenes. The idea that Beauty is Truth, the evident credo of Portal, M, in Jeune Cinema(Paris), September-October 1975 Dorian Gray s friends and would-be lovers, is revealed as fallacy. In Horton, A in Film Quarterly(Berkeley), no. 2, 1979 fact, the truth is uglier than can be imagined In the end, The Picture of Aidan, M, ""Notes sur Auteur de Pirosmani: Gueorgui chenguelaia Dorian Gray is, if not a subversion, at least a rather disturbing in Jeune Cinema(Paris), October-November 1989 ontemplation, paradoxically, of the very forces that ensured its success-the seductiveness of beauty and the rapture of spectacle and the perils that accompany succumbing to these. Pirosmar of the works that has contributed to the reputa- -Susan Felleman tion of recent Georgian Soviet film. The director, Georgi Shengelaya

PIROSMANI FILMS, 4th EDITION 948 The film employs other subtle indices of Dorian Gray’s narcissis￾tic and ambiguous sexuality, including copies of Donatello’s and Verrocchio’s sculptures representing the biblical David as erotically provocative youth. These Renaissance reproductions figuratively and, on one occasion, literally reflect Dorian, who, as portrayed by Hurd Hatfield, enacts his every movement, gesture, and expression with circumspect grace. Like a somnambule (as Parker Tyler put it) or a living doll, his Dorian Gray moves with choreographic precision about the film’s exquisite and mannered late-Victorian interiors. Hatfield’s austere, almost minimalist performance achieves a psycho￾logical uncanniness worthy of a horror film—an appropriate mood for Lewin’s variation on the theme of the double. Herbert Stothart’s score contributes to the film’s eeriness, employing Chopin’s 24th Prelude as an elegiac leitmotif. In its first shots, of Lord Henry Wotton (Sanders) sitting in his carriage reading Baudelaire’s Les Fleurs du Mal, the film establishes its characteristic mise-en-scène, focusing on frames within the film frame, creating a tension between static, manifestly ‘‘composed’’ compositions and cinematic movement. Windows, doors, mirrors, screens, signs, and paintings are among the frames that permeate the film. This propensity for conspicuous framing is reinforced by Lewin’s bold foregrounding of art works as decorative and symbolic frames, particularly in the many scenes set in Dorian’s house, where neo-classical bas-reliefs and Oriental figurines, often symmetrically arranged, as well as Renaissance paintings and Aubrey Beardsley illustrations are among the images that seem to delimit the characters’ and the camera’s movement. The scene set at ‘‘The Two Turtles,’’ the pub where Dorian first encounters Sibyl Vane (Angela Lansbury), broadens the field of visual plenitude in which the film revels. The pub, which is as replete with props, placards, tchotchkes and other lower-class items as Dorian’s home is with high art, is the site of unabashed spectacle. Its overloaded artifice is highlighted by the ‘‘Dr. Look’’ sandwich-board that follows Dorian in. The single, disembodied eye of the advertise￾ment, with its uncanny background as Surrealist icon and apotropaic talisman, seems to watch over the scene. The strange, almost explic￾itly sexual performance of Mr. and Mrs. Ezekiel, a xylophone-puppet act, and any number of cinematic puns and echoes make this scene, along with that set in a den of unspecified iniquities at Blue Gate Field, one of the film’s strongest and most original. The film’s preoccupation with the framing and scrutiny of visual experience and desire is brought into focus around the central image of the picture of Dorian Gray itself. While in Wilde’s novel, it is the idea of such a phenomenon—a portrait that ages in lieu of its sitter— that means to horrify, in the film it is the picture itself that moves. Thus the fastidiously disgusting, hyper-real portrait by Ivan Albright, suspensefully withheld and then shown in Technicolor insert, casts a shadow across the cultivated visual exquisiteness of the black-and￾white scenes. The idea that Beauty is Truth, the evident credo of Dorian Gray’s friends and would-be lovers, is revealed as fallacy. In fact, the truth is uglier than can be imagined. In the end, The Picture of Dorian Gray is, if not a subversion, at least a rather disturbing contemplation, paradoxically, of the very forces that ensured its success—the seductiveness of beauty and the rapture of spectacle, and the perils that accompany succumbing to these. —Susan Felleman PIROSMANI USSR, 1971 Director: Georgy Shengelaya Production: Gruzia Films; Sovcolor, 35mm; running time: 100 minutes. Released 1971. Filming completed 1971. Screenplay: Erlom Akhvlediani and Georgy Shengelaya; photogra￾phy: Constantin Opryatine; music: V. Koukhianidzé. Cast: Avtandil Varazi (Niko Pirosmanichvili); David Abachidzé; Zourad Carpianidzé; Teimouraz Beridzé; Boris Tsipouria; Chota Daouchvili; Maria Guaramadzé; Nino Setouridzé; Rosalia Mintshine. Publications Script: Akhvlediana, Erlom, and Georgy Shengelaya, Pirosmani, in Avant￾Scene du Cinéma (Paris), 15 December 1979. Book: Liehm, Mira, and Antonin Liehm, The Most Important Art: East European Film after 1945, Berkeley, 1977. Articles: Matei, G., in Cinema (Bucharest), April 1972. Marazov, I., in Kinoizkustvo (Sofia), June 1972. Bensch, S., in Film a Doba (Prague), October 1972. Trujillo, M., in Cine Cubano (Havana), nos. 86–88, 1973. Gow, Gordon, ‘‘Unfamiliar Talents,’’ in Films and Filming (Lon￾don), February 1974. Variety (New York), 12 June 1974. Elley, D., in Films and Filming (London), September 1974. Glaessner, Verina, in Monthly Film Bulletin (London), Septem￾ber 1974. Capdenac, Michel, in Ecran (Paris), 15 November 1975. Gauthier, G., in Image et Son (Paris), December 1975. Haustrate, G., ‘‘Pirosmani: Une Osmose quasi pariaite,’’ in Cinéma (Paris), September-October 1975. Portal, M., in Jeune Cinéma (Paris), September-October 1975. Horton, A., in Film Quarterly (Berkeley), no. 2, 1979. Aidan, M., ‘‘Notes sur l’auteur de Pirosmani: Gueorgui Chenguelaia,’’ in Jeune Cinéma (Paris), October-November 1989. *** Pirosmani is one of the works that has contributed to the reputa￾tion of recent Georgian Soviet film. The director, Georgi Shengelaya

FILMS. 4th EDItION PIXOTE A LEI DO MAS FRACO is a member of a prominent film family(His father was one of the and long shots predominate, with simple decor and stark lighting, pioneers of the Georgian industry; his mother was an early star, and imitating the primitivism of the paintings we see in the film. In this his brother is also a director. The film portrays the life of Georgia way the art itself becomes the most significant structuring principle of primitive artist Niko Pirosmanishvili, who died in 1918. Yet if the the film and its central subject. film is considered in terms of the familiar category of the art bio-pic, it is obvious that it minimizes the dramatic and psychologizing tenden- ies frequently associated with this genre. The film presents events from the artists life in episodic form: through the accretion of ndividual scenes, the status of the artist is gradually defined. But the films point of view toward, and explanation of, its main character is PIXOTE A LEI DO MAS FRACO leveloped almost elliptically. a distinct reticence characterizes the film as a whole and the people within it. In part this is due to the measured pauses in dialogue and silences within specific scenes. In (Pixote) addition, the narrative is not developed in terms of strong casual links but can only be fully understood in terms of retrospective reconstruc Brazil 1981 tion; each sequence does not proceed clearly and unambiguously to the next. Instead, mid-way through a particular scene, some event or Director: Hector Babenco line of dialogue may indicate that it is now one week, or three years, later than the previous scene. Production: H. B. Filmes Embrafilme: Eastmancolor 35mm: run- For example, at one point Pirosmani opens a diary store. Some ning time: 127 minutes. Released 26 September 1980. Filmed in Sao time later his sister and her husband unexpectedly come for a visit Paulo and rio de janeiro eir conversation indicates it has been some time since they have seen one another. His sister suggests that he should get married. The Producers: Paolo Francini and Jose Pinto; screenplay: Hector scene is immediately followed by one of a wedding In mostly long Babenco, Jorge Duran, based on the novel A Infacias dos Mortos by shots one sees guests arriving, receiving flour, dancing, toasting the Jose Louzeiro: photography: Rodolfo Sanchez; editor: Luiz Elias couple, and generally engaging in those activities associated with assistant director: Maria Cecilia M. de Barros, Fatima Toledo: art wedding receptions. The scene ends when Pirosmani gets up from the director: Clovis Bueno; music: John Neschling; sound editor: Hugo table and walks out. Back at his store he explains to his partner that the Gama: sound recording: Francisco Carneiro wedding was a trick, that the bride's relatives have stolen his flour However, their treachery is not at all clear during the marriage scene, Cast: Fernando Ramos da Silva (Pixote): Jorge Juliao (Lilica); n context, the distribution of the flour appears as something on the Gilberto Moura(Dito): Edilson Lino( Chico); Zenildo Oliveira Santos der of a social custom. Moreover, whatever reticence and uneasi-(Fumaca): Claudio Bernardo( Garotao ) Israel Feres David(Roberto hess Pirosmani exhibits during the wedding not any different pede lata): Jose Nilson Martin Dos Santos(Diego): Marilia Pera from his appearance and behaviour through most of the film. Thus, (Sueli); Jardel Filho(Sapatos Brancos--The Inspector); Rubens de one can make sense of his departure and understand that something is Falco (Judge): Elke Maravilha(Debora); Tony Tornado(Cristal) wrong only after the fact; even then the extent of our comprehension Beatriz Segall(The Widow); Joao Jose Pompeu(Almir): Aricle Perez is limited. Pirosmani subsequently causes his business to fall by (The Teacher); Isadora de Farias(The psychologist) raising prices exorbitantly on his steady paying customers and by are a response to his wedding experience, an expression of general Awards: New York Film Critics Award for Best Foreign Film. 1981 Los Angeles Film Critics Award for Best Foreign Film. 1981 disgust and of feeling exploited. But his attitude is not fully clarified National Society of Film Critics Award for Best Actress(Marilia by the film Pera), 1981; Locarno Festival Silver Leopoard Award, 1981; San Through such episodes the status of the artist is seen to be that of outsider. Pirosmani never fits into any defined social Sebastian Festival Special Mention Awards, 1981 he rejects his business and marriage. At one point some artists are interested in his work and invite him to the city. But his glory is short lived. He is uncomfortable and out of place in the world of salon intellectuals, and his work is ridiculed by a mainstream art critic in a newspaper Articles. The film uses painting to structure its narrative of the artists life. The major segments of the film are indicated by images of Pirosmani Pereira, Edmar, Jonal da Tarde (Sao Paulo), 19 September 1980. paintings, Giraffe, White Cow, """Easter Lamb, and others Arco e Flexa, Jairo, Veja( Sao Paulo), 1 October 1980. The paintings function as titles and transitional devices. For example, Angelica, Joana, O Globo(Rio de Janeiro), 20 October 1980. the picture of the white cow precedes a shot of the main character Schild, Susana, Jornal do brasil (rio de Janeiro), 24 October 1980 walking through the streets among a herd of cows. Later the painting Canby, Vincent, New York Times, 5 May 1981 hung outside his store, so people will know what we sell. ' In fact Variety(New York), 6 May 1981 the filmic mise-en-scene is modeled on the paintings. Frontal medium Stone, Judy, San Francisco Chronicle, 13 June 1981

FILMS, 4 PIXOTE A LEI DO MAS FRACO th EDITION 949 is a member of a prominent film family. (His father was one of the pioneers of the Georgian industry; his mother was an early star; and his brother is also a director.) The film portrays the life of Georgian primitive artist Niko Pirosmanishvili, who died in 1918. Yet if the film is considered in terms of the familiar category of the art bio-pic, it is obvious that it minimizes the dramatic and psychologizing tenden￾cies frequently associated with this genre. The film presents events from the artist’s life in episodic form: through the accretion of individual scenes, the status of the artist is gradually defined. But the film’s point of view toward, and explanation of, its main character is developed almost elliptically. A distinct reticence characterizes the film as a whole and the people within it. In part this is due to the measured pauses in dialogue and silences within specific scenes. In addition, the narrative is not developed in terms of strong casual links but can only be fully understood in terms of retrospective reconstruc￾tion; each sequence does not proceed clearly and unambiguously to the next. Instead, mid-way through a particular scene, some event or line of dialogue may indicate that it is now one week, or three years, later than the previous scene. For example, at one point Pirosmani opens a diary store. Some time later his sister and her husband unexpectedly come for a visit; their conversation indicates it has been some time since they have seen one another. His sister suggests that he should get married. The scene is immediately followed by one of a wedding. In mostly long shots one sees guests arriving, receiving flour, dancing, toasting the couple, and generally engaging in those activities associated with wedding receptions. The scene ends when Pirosmani gets up from the table and walks out. Back at his store he explains to his partner that the wedding was a trick, that the bride’s relatives have stolen his flour. However, their treachery is not at all clear during the marriage scene; in context, the distribution of the flour appears as something on the order of a social custom. Moreover, whatever reticence and uneasi￾ness Pirosmani exhibits during the wedding scene is not any different from his appearance and behaviour through most of the film. Thus, one can make sense of his departure and understand that something is wrong only after the fact; even then the extent of our comprehension is limited. Pirosmani subsequently causes his business to fall by raising prices exorbitantly on his steady paying customers and by giving his stock away to poor children. One gathers that these actions are a response to his wedding experience, an expression of general disgust and of feeling exploited. But his attitude is not fully clarified by the film. Through such episodes the status of the artist is seen to be that of an outsider. Pirosmani never fits into any defined social group; he rejects his business and marriage. At one point some artists are interested in his work and invite him to the city. But his glory is short￾lived. He is uncomfortable and out of place in the world of salon intellectuals, and his work is ridiculed by a mainstream art critic in a newspaper. The film uses painting to structure its narrative of the artist’s life. The major segments of the film are indicated by images of Pirosmani paintings, ‘‘Giraffe,’’ ‘‘White Cow,’’ ‘‘Easter Lamb,’’ and others. The paintings function as titles and transitional devices. For example, the picture of the white cow precedes a shot of the main character walking through the streets among a herd of cows. Later the painting is hung outside his store, ‘‘so people will know what we sell.’’ In fact the filmic mise-en-scène is modeled on the paintings. Frontal medium and long shots predominate, with simple decor and stark lighting, imitating the primitivism of the paintings we see in the film. In this way the art itself becomes the most significant structuring principle of the film and its central subject. —M. B. White PIXOTE A LEI DO MAS FRACO (Pixote) Brazil, 1981 Director: Hector Babenco Production: H. B. Filmes Embrafilme; Eastmancolor, 35mm; run￾ning time: 127 minutes. Released 26 September 1980. Filmed in São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro. Producers: Paolo Francini and José Pinto; screenplay: Hector Babenco, Jorge Duran, based on the novel A Infacias dos Mortos by José Louzeiro; photography: Rodolfo Sanchez; editor: Luiz Elias; assistant director: Maria Cecilia M. de Barros, Fatima Toledo; art director: Clovis Bueno; music: John Neschling; sound editor: Hugo Gama; sound recording: Francisco Carneiro. Cast: Fernando Ramos da Silva (Pixote); Jorge Juliao (Lilica); Gilberto Moura (Dito); Edilson Lino (Chico); Zenildo Oliveira Santos (Fumaca); Claudio Bernardo (Garotao); Israel Feres David (Roberto pede Iata); José Nilson Martin Dos Santos (Diego); Marilia Pera (Sueli); Jardel Filho (Sapatos Brancos—The Inspector); Rubens de Falco (Judge); Elke Maravilha (Debora); Tony Tornado (Cristal); Beatriz Segall (The Widow); Joao Jose Pompeu (Almir); Aricle Perez (The Teacher); Isadora de Farias (The Psychologist). Awards: New York Film Critics Award for Best Foreign Film, 1981; Los Angeles Film Critics Award for Best Foreign Film, 1981; National Society of Film Critics Award for Best Actress (Marilia Pera), 1981; Locarno Festival Silver Leopoard Award, 1981; San Sebastian Festival Special Mention Awards, 1981. Publications Articles: Pereira, Edmar, Jornal da Tarde (Sao Paulo), 19 September 1980. Arco e Flexa, Jairo, Veja (Sao Paulo), 1 October 1980. Angelica, Joana, O Globo (Rio de Janeiro), 20 October 1980. Schild, Susana, Jornal do Brasil (Rio de Janeiro), 24 October 1980. Canby, Vincent, New York Times, 5 May 1981. Variety (New York), 6 May 1981. Stone, Judy, San Francisco Chronicle, 13 June 1981