Brideshead Revisited (2008)

[DMsquared2]

Posted: 8/4/08 at 11:12pm

I saw a matinee of this the other day. I haven't seen the 80's miniseries but I enjoyed the film for the most part. Emma Thompson gives a great performance and the visuals and costumes are gorgeous!

Has anyone else seen it?

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 8/5/08 at 10:48am

I saw it. You're right: it's visually stunning, and I thought the music was gorgeous as well.

Taken on its own, it's enjoyable. But I've never known a literary adaptation to show such disregard--almost contempt--for its source. The same people and events are present, but the motivations for most of their actions are the exact opposite to what they were in the original. I don't object to simplifying and streamlining, but there were moments that were unrecognizable. For example, rather than Julia marrying Rex to spite her mother, here it's her mother who FORCES her to marry Rex. And nonsensically, the one criterion her mother had for Julia's husband--that he be Catholic--is apparently brushed aside. Rex wasn't Catholic until a week before the wedding, and Lady Marchmain never thought to ask???

I'm a huge Emma Thompson fan, but I thought she was not good at all. I quickly realized that it's not her fault, really: this version of character is so badly written. Lady Marchmain is one of the most enigmatic characters in modern literature. Saint or vampire? Villain or hero? In this film, she's more like Lady Bracknell or Lady Catherine de Bourgh: rude and condescending from the first time you meet her.

Surprisingly, the casting that I worried most about--Michael Gambon and Ben Whishaw--proved most successful for me.

I certainly don't regret seeing it; hell, I'll probably see it again on DVD. But the missteps and missed opportunities are numerous.


Updated On: 8/5/08 at 10:48 AM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 8/5/08 at 11:26am

Such a shame. The original was pretty perfect.

[Scripps2]

Posted: 8/5/08 at 2:26pm

They did at least get Sir John Vanburgh in to do the set again.

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 8/5/08 at 3:03pm

Seriously. And the film is worth it just for some stunning views of Castle Howard.

[DMsquared2]

Posted: 8/5/08 at 7:30pm

Reginald Tresilian, I agree with you about Ben Whishaw's performance. He turned what could've been an annoying spoiled brat of a character into a sensitive and misunderstood young soul.

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 8/5/08 at 8:09pm

DM, yes, well said.

I confess I missed the charisma and elusiveness that Anthony Andrews brought to the role. But again, taken on its own terms, I thought it was a lovely, heartbreaking performance.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 8/5/08 at 8:29pm

I'll still see it, if only to discuss the differences with Reginald.

Actually, though, I never expected it to be better.

[DMsquared2]

Posted: 8/5/08 at 9:00pm

I think a lot of people, the critics included, didn't expect it to be better than the miniseries.

[WestEndAndy]

Posted: 8/6/08 at 4:52am

The TV series was very special, and had some stellar casting. Olivier and Gielgud, for example. I never thought Anthony Andrews was right for Sebastian.

The problem for me is with the book, which like so much British fiction and drama of the period is actually a gay love story that dares not speak its name. Other examples are Noel Coward's Brief Encounter and Rattigan's The Deep Blue Sea, which were both originally about gay characters but were re-packaged as man-woman love dramas.

The first part of the book, about the Sebastian/Charles romance, is much the most interesting and convincing. Having Sebastian fade out a third of the way through and become a sad old drunk chasing boys in Morocco is bad enough, but expecting the reader to be equally interested in the tedious Julia is too much. The book is a rambling, shapeless cop-out with an unforgettable opening.

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 8/6/08 at 8:20am

While I wouldn't go quite so far as that, Andy, I absolutely see your point.

The film tries to deal with that by having the Charles-Julia relationship start much earlier. Unfortunately, this leads to a series of bad decisions, plotwise. But it does make that second relationship seem less stuck on to the story.

It's always fascinated me, though, to see how differently gay men and straight women can respond to it. I've always seen Julia as a poor second best to Sebastian; a woman friend who loves the book equally always saw Sebastian as a precursor to Julia.

[Scripps2]

Posted: 8/6/08 at 2:19pm

"Other examples are Noel Coward's Brief Encounter and Rattigan's The Deep Blue Sea, which were both originally about gay characters but were re-packaged as man-woman love dramas."

I didn't realise that. I understand there is a script for a stage-play that was Brief Encounter's predecessor - is that where the gay love story is?

I saw a production of Terence Rattigan's Separate Tables at the Royal Exchange in Manchester a couple of years ago, which had a sub-plot whereby a retired army officer gets arrested for gay activity in the 1950s, a little later than the Brideshead or Brief Encounter period but still when such things were illegal. It struck me as being a brave, sympathetic and moving piece of writing, particularly for that time.

I recently visited one of the homes of the Bloomsbury Group (not quite in the same league as Castle Howard) and learnt rather more about them than I had previously known and there does seem to be so much repressed homosexuality amongst the British intelligentsia then. It's pretty obvious that the original Brideshead has plenty of basis in reality.

I'll post more when I've actually seen the film and not just the trailer.

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 8/6/08 at 2:28pm

I never thought of "Brideshead" as being "coded," particularly; whatever the physical manifestation of the Charles and Sebastian relationship may or may not have been, it's clearly a romantic, even homoerotic, one.

I always found the shift of romantic attachment from Sebastian to Julia odd. But it fits in with things I've read about the nature of same-sex relationships in public schools and universities in the earlier part of the last century: after school, you were supposed to just get over it.

I wonder, also, to what extent Waugh's ambivalence about his own sexuality, plus his conversion to Catholocism, informed the story he was telling.

[Scripps2]

Posted: 8/6/08 at 3:58pm

"after school, you were supposed to just get over it."

I wonder how much gay men actually understood about the nature of physical and romantic attraction then. I was intrigued to read a description from John Maynard Keynes diary about being beaten at public school and how pleasurable it was for both his teacher and himself! He later got married, as did a number of high-profile men, of whom our gaydar now alert us to being gay. Maybe some of them genuinely believed they had got over it, simply because they weren't quite sure what "it" was.

(and what did I miss out on having gone to state school!)

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 8/6/08 at 4:15pm

Does anyone remember that scene at the end of "Another Country," when someone says to the Guy Burgess (Rupert Everett) character "If only our parents knew what goes on here . . ."

And he responds, "They know. The fathers, anyway."

[DMsquared2]

Posted: 8/6/08 at 6:25pm

Another Country was definitely in the back of my mind while I saw this.

[Scripps2]

Posted: 8/10/08 at 8:40am

I've never seen Another Country although I do remember seeing Julian Mitchell collect his Olivier Award on TV and gloating gleefully at the producers who had turned the play down (I think he even named them).

I've now discovered the new Brideshead film doesn't open here until October! I can understand that it isn't perceived as being a summer film here but then surprised that it is perceived as a summer film in the US. The target audience is presumably cultured, sophisticated intellectuals on both sides of the Atlantic. Or is it aiming for the young adults who enjoyed The Princess Diaries when they were children in the US?

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 8/11/08 at 9:58am

Of course, I have no real information about this. My guess would be that they thought they could be successful with people seeking relief from the summer blockbusters (such as "The Dark Knight").

And given the tepid critical response, I imagine they foresaw that they might not have competed successfully in the fall and winter, when the usual highbrow Oscar-contender stuff is trotted out.
Updated On: 8/11/08 at 09:58 AM

[Scripps2]

Posted: 10/15/08 at 3:00pm

Now it's October and the critical response in the UK has been unenthusiastic too. Understandably - for all the reasons noted above.

But there were some good things in there that did improve on the original. Jonathan Cake's performance as Rex Mottram for a start. And also the actress playing Mrs Ryder, although she suddenly disappears from the film without explanation (as do Nanny and Curt). I don't remember Castle Howard being so well used in the original, although they used the garden front as the entrance and missed the view across the lake. Michael Gambon made the most of what little he had to do as well.

And doesn't age maturity change one's perspective: I used to think Charles Ryder was so wise and perceptive when I saw the original as a juvenile, and now I realise he's just a half-empty glass of tepid water.

Updated On: 10/15/08 at 03:00 PM

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 10/15/08 at 3:08pm

Thanks for revisiting (!) this, Scripps.

I liked Cake's performance, as well. I just didn't think his character, as written, made much sense. And the whole "selling" Julia bit just seemed nonsensical to me. I didn't get it.

You're right: we didn't see nearly as much of Castle Howard in the original. The scene where he and Charles first go there, and go in through a back way (if you'll pardon the image), with all the statues covered in dust cloths was wonderful. And the scene where Lady Marchmain kicks Charles out of the ball--which, of course, she would never have done--has that wonderful view with the snow beginning to fall.

I liked Gambon a lot in this, though I originally thought he was an awful bit of casting. It was nice being surprised, since I do like his work very much.

[Scripps2]

Posted: 10/15/08 at 3:31pm

It was as though they were trying to make it into The Buccaneers (the 1990s TV adaption of which was also filmed at Castle Howard) with Julia marrying New World money, as happenned a lot amongst the real aristocracy at that time. However with the beautiful clothes and cars, and the Marchmains still being able to "get the staff" the family do not suggest being in financial trouble.

I liked Michael Gambon's performance although I don't think he looked like he was of aristocratic genealogy: perhaps the previous Lady Marchmain liked a bit of rough.

And that scene at the ball was ridiculous in so many ways!