Customer Reviews

Brideshead Revisited

5 star:		(12)
4 star:		(17)
3 star:		(10)
2 star:		(19)
1 star:		(17)

 

 

Any film of Brideshead Revisited will inevitably be compared with the 1981 mini-series, and will suffer from the comparison. Evelyn Waugh's novel was so rich and detailed that any attempt to depict it in a mere 2 hours or so will be wanting. I am a fan of the mini-series, which I have watched countless times, and I want to make it clear that there are many things about this version that I find very appealing: the use of Castle Howard, the fine acting by Michael Gambon, Emma Thompson, Hayley Atwell, Ben Whishaw, and Matthew Goode, and the beautiful sets and costumes.

Unfortunately the need to compress the story distorts much of what Evelyn Waugh intended. By making the love affairs between Charles Ryder and Sebastian and Julia Flyte occur nearly simultaneously instead of Charles first loving Sebastian and then years later falling in love with Julia, Waugh's message of spiritual and emotional growth is blunted. More troubling is the lack of positive emphasis on Christianity and Roman Catholicism. Whereas in the book and the mini-series Lady Marchmain is a tragic, sympathetic figure, the film emphasizes her hauteur and coldness. This has larger immplications than just a difference in interpretation, since Lady Marchmain in large part represents the Church. Furthermore, I am especially disappointed by the ending. In the book and mini-series we see an affirmation of both new and enduring faith, while the film is far more equivocal.

Despite these reservations, I do value this film and intend to watch it many times. While Waugh himself would be horrified over some of the modifications (he would call them distortions), this new interpretation of his work is beautiful in its own right, and its ambiguities are a challenge which allows us to re-examine our own beliefs.

When I first heard of this film I found it hard to imagine how anyone could succeed in cramming the complex narrative of Brideshead Revisited into the 120 minute format that seems to be the norm for cinema these days, maybe as a favour to audiences suffering from attention deficit disorder. Still, I didn't expect much from Pride & Prejudice the movie, yet found myself enjoying that pretty well, so I took my chances with Brideshead too. But this time the experience was rather less satisfying, to put it mildly.

For someone familiar with the large, intricate, subtly tinted canvases of Waugh's book and the phenomenal TV-series, this is like seeing a hasty copy executed in crude strokes and garish colours. Within 20 minutes from the start Charles and Sebastian aren't just friends, they actually appear to be lovers. The gay thing is plastered on way too thick and goes far beyond anything suggested by Waugh. The way the storyline is distorted, it makes it seems as if Sebastian starts drinking out of frustration over Charles's rejection of him in favour of his sister Julia. This is a result of the extreme conflation of elements from Waugh's story, which uproots its refined psychological dynamics. Indeed, subtlety is nowhere to be found; the Flytes in this movie are a pretty vulgar bunch, and Sebastian's Oxford circle too has none of the aristocratic manners and sophisticated wit we would expect from them.

There are in this film many more scenes that made me cringe than in any movie I recently watched: the Flytes gathering around a statue of the Virgin Mary, singing the Salve Regina; Lady Marchmain coming to the house of Charles's father and throwing an emotional scene; all appearances of Anthony Blanch, period (mercifully limited to only two); Charles buying Julia from Mottram for a few paintings; Sebastian making a scene at his sister's coming out ball; et cetera.

The casting doesn't help. Matthew Goode is a likeable Charles Ryder, but way too mature and confident, with the added problem of him being rather more handsome than Sebastian, who is played by the gaunt, scary-looking Ben Wishaw. Wishaw completely misses out on the complicated combination of superiority and vulnerability in Sebastian's deeply troubled character, indeed, seems to spend most of his screentime throwing fond looks at Charles (which is just about the reverse of what happens in the original story). Hayley Atwell's Julia lacks any sense of grandeur or style, and is reduced to little more than a petulant schoolgirl; I couldn't for the life of me imagine why Charles would fall in love with her, there is no chemistry at all between the characters. I'm sure Emma Thompson could have made something wonderful out of Lady Marchmain had she been given the right lines, but alas; here she is just a gorgon, who, like others characters too, may surprise you by suddenly going psychotherapist, explaining to Charles that he is so desperate to be liked. None of the subtle emotional blackmail that Claire Bloom so masterfully weaved into her performance in the series. Most other characters could have been dispensed with altogether; with their organic ties to the story severed, figures like Blanche, Ryder's father, Boy Mulcaster, cousin Jasper, Cordelia, Samgrass, or Celia make mere token appearances.

So what you are left with is a bunch of fairly good-looking, nicely dressed people cavorting in attractive surroundings. No cliché is spared. We don't just go to Venice, no, of course it has to be the Carnival and the Lido. Castle Howard is always a pleasure to look at but hardly an original choice (and I don't understand by the life of me why everybody is constantly arriving at and departing from the garden front - maybe so as not to disturb the business of tourism? We do not once see the other side. The house was used much more fully in the TV-series.) Surprisingly, the series despite its 4:3 ratio generally has a far more cinematic feel to it than this film, which often looks made-for-TV. No doubt some will argue that such comparisons are unfair and the film should be judged on its own merits alone; I disagree. Right up to the final scene, the entire point of Waugh's story is lost. Anyone who films the work of a great author takes on a responsibility towards that work, and the makers of this film have definitely failed in that regard, i.e., they just mangled it.

Having read Waugh's classic on the "tugs" of faith and watched the original mini-series more times then I remember over almost thirty years now, I seriously doubted this story could be condensed into two hours. A last, I was not disappointed! It wasn't the same story. The movie twists and turns in directions never written by Waugh. (Sadly as Andrew Davies, one of the films writers, has done excellent work over the years.) This, however, is not another version of Brideshead Revisted but a new creation; a creation built more on pretty scenery and anti-climatic moments lost to all depth of the characters.

The underlying issues of faith and religious up-bringing are totally lost, spun into a broad statement about Catholicism rather then its personal meaning to individual lives. The central message of the book has been stripped to a minor secondary theme. The faith journey is lost.

Charles' relationship with Sebastian is dumbed down to mere sexual experimentation rather then human bond. This Charles would never carry his feelings for Sebastian throughout his life. Without the former, you cannot truly grasp the latter relationship with Julia. The relationships are separate not concurrent, they are paths on his journey to faith. Sadly the desire and depth of Charles and Julia's relationship, so strongly captured in the mini-series "Orphans of the Storm" episode, is totally lost here. In this, their reunion seems more like a 3AM quickie.

Take the $20 you planned on spending for this, add another $20 and buy the mini-series instead. The larger investment returns so much more....so much more!

Many cinematic adaptations of famous novels fail miserably because of poor casting, bad acting, horrible scripts, or a general inability to capture the spirit of the book, all of which are true about this adaptation of Brideshead Revisited. However, I have never before seen a movie which has deliberately and maliciously perverted the core message- the very soul- of its source material, as this movie does. "Brideshead Revisited- 2009" is an abomination. It is an artistic and spiritual obscenity that deserves utter oblivion. Let it be anathema.

Evelyn Waugh, a Catholic convert, wrote a novel steeped in very Catholic ideas of sin and redemption, with its main theme being the operation of Divine Grace upon the soul. This putrid and dishonest movie has utterly discarded the central theme of the book and replaced it with a tawdry bisexual love triangle and anti-religious agitprop. This movie resembles the story we know only in outward appearance- the names of characters, certain locales and plot superficialities- but it is a gutted structure; its very heart and soul have been removed and replaced with something vile.

The scriptwriters were quite honest in their intentions. They announced that God would be the villain of the story, and religious guilt its theme. To be sure, I don't recall ever having seen a movie animated by such naked anti-Catholic hatred. Lady Marchmain, a figure of Mother Church in the novel, is portrayed here as a diabolic cult leader, a dead-eyed, heartless monster who robotically spews Church dogma and controls her family through manipulation of their religious feelings. In this movie, Julia's conscience was aroused not by grace but only because she was indoctrinated when she was young. Sebastian conducts a pantomime Eucharistic celebration with Charles. Charles' conversion isn't even acknowledged. One anti-Catholic diatribe follows another. When even Christopher Hitchens says that the movie was "motivated by the cheaper sort of malice" against Catholicism, you know that what you're witnessing is a bona fide hate crime.

To give one example of how mendaciously this movie has perverted the novel's original intent, take the dialogue between Cara and Charles about how much Lord Marchmain hates his wife - here's the book: "And how has she deserved all this hate? She has done nothing except be loved by someone who was not grown-up...She is a good and simple woman who has been loved in the wrong way. When people hate with all that energy, it is something in themselves they are hating. Alex is hating all the illusions of boyhood-innocence, God, hope. Poor Lady Marchmain has to bear all that." Now, the movie: "That woman nearly suffocated him...Just look at her children. Even when they were tiny in the nursery they must do what she want them to do, be what she want them to be, only then would she love them. It's not Lady Marchmain fault. Her God has done that to her."

The movie tells us that if not for religion, Sebastian could be a happy homosexual, Julia and Charles could enjoy their adulterous relationship and Lord Marchmain could divorce his wife. To the scriptwriters, as to their modern audience, the idea that guilt may be a natural and salutary reaction to sin is completely foreign. For we in the West live among a pullulating mass of spiritual barbarians (and I mean spiritual in the broadest sense): not so much nihilistic as just morally retarded. They are shiny, one-dimensional bipeds, mere simulacra of human beings, who never even possessed a faith that they could reject. Marinated in the shabbiest materialism and various trendy theories of self-esteem, the plastic generations of the past few decades grew up to hold one, enduring core value: narcissism. If previous generations of atheists declared that Man is the Measure of All Things, these empty, tattooed husks who fill the schools and are starting to enter into positions of power, declare that_I_Am the Measure of All Things. Even the pagans valued the cultivation of the higher sensibilities- aesthetics, ethics, philosophy- but these savages whom the West has nurtured in its bosom are unable to grasp any concept beyond that of physical comfort- never mind Truth or Beauty! Incapable of even "sinning boldly", they go about joylessly gratifying the banal impulses of consumerism. Ignorant of where they came from, unaware of where they're going and barely cognizant of where they are now, they are the audience for Brideshead Revisited-2009.

Because of that, I'm afraid the anti-religious message was probably wasted on an audience who's never known God in the first place. I could just see them watching this movie, their senses momentarily diverted by vivid scenery and semi-attractive people, but their dull minds in a state of perplexity, as if faced with the inexplicable taboos of a primitive tribe: "God? Who? Sin? What? Guilt? Huh?".

As for the rest of it, this movie fails in every respect. The "epicene beauty" Sebastian looks like an angry gnome and minces about in revoltingly queenly style. Charles resembles a gormless halibut. The "Byronic" Lord Marchmain (played by Dumbledore from Harry Potter) looks and acts like a plumber. Julia has all the grace and charm of a reality show contestant who lifts her top for the cameras. And worst of all, Evelyn Waugh's absolutely exquisite prose was replaced with the most insipid and nonsensical dialogue that the products of modern government education factories could churn out. If you possess a modicum of good taste, or intelligence, or a spark of the Divine, I warn you not to waste your time or soil yourself with this trash.

It's doubly ironic, before being taken over by Disney Miramax under the Weinsteins used to produce wonderful adaptations of British novels. For instance Gwyneth Paltrow was such a definitive "Emma" we've been permanently spared the Keira Knightly cockney version.

But for this debacle there's no one to blame but British filmmakers. Every "Brideshead" fan on both sides of the Atlantic being insulted by the choice and performances of the worst imaginable British cast. After a while one suspected all involved looked at the perfection of the internationally acclaimed Made-for-TV series - and proceeded to do the opposite.

So by way of apologizing for the depths to which these British filmmakers sank this is my review written for and posted on Amazon UK ...

This entire British crew - especially scriptwriters Andrew Davies and Jeremy Brock are to be congratulated for their courage in making so many judicious alterations and omissions to help modern audiences comprehend what Waugh really meant to say in his much-loved but unusually loquacious novel "Brideshead Revisited".

Their most important improvement being to use a montage of flashbacks to let everyone know this was going to be a wholesome love story. And to erase any possible confusion cast an anemic actor as the "arrestingly beautiful" Sebastian thereby eliminating any sexual ambiguities in Waugh's first four chapters when Charles and Sebastian are obsessed with each other and Julia treats his "chum" with undisguised contempt.

Despite the limited time at their disposal the 2 scriptwriters ingeniously fabricated 9 scenes (from their imagination) to spruce-up Waugh's carefully constructed meandering storyline which confined Charles and Julia's maudlin romance to the last quarter of the novel.

But very soon the only fun to be had watching this appalling adaptation came from spotting every non-Waugh moment. This is my checklist from one viewing. Amazon reader may have noted many more.

1)Conversation at Sebastian's get-together when Charles sensitively explains what it means to be an artist before he knew he might become one.
2)Julia doesn't return to London - but accompanies the boys to Venice to gambol in the sand.
3)Julia and Charles are irresistibly attracted after a Venetian Carnival scene (not in the book). Sebastian instantly becomes a dipsomaniac.
4)Lady Marchmain invites Charles to witness the Flytes pray in their RC chapel.
5)Fictitious 21st Birthday Party for Julia - with obligatory elegant dance scene where everyone chats.
6)Lady Marchmain drives to Paddington for a one-on-one with Charles.
7)Charles becomes extremely macho - twice promising to "fix" Rex.
8)Julia overhears Charles purchasing her from Rex in exchange for 2 pictures- causing heartbreak on account of his putting such a cheap price on her head.
9)Dramatic moment when the happy pair's departure for wedded bliss is forestalled by the sudden return of Lord Marchmain to die in England - almost instantaneously.

I'm sure all those involved have reasonable explanations as to why 20 minutes of spurious scenes were added while 4 important characters - Mr. Samgrass. Anthony Blanche, Rex Mottram and Cordelia were reduced to ciphers. And why the audience was left in the dark as to the fate and location of the 3 Flyte children. Perhaps a sequel is in the works? No bets are off after the creativity of "Becoming Jane".

Speaking of Julian Jarrold it seems the challenge of recreating a novel which many consider one of the masterpieces of 20th century English literature turned-out to be a creative burden. Or was it the folk at Buena Vista who asked him to mangle Waugh's plot? But surely he alone instructed Emma Thomson to play Lady Marchmain as a malicious "head-matron" rather than the "flirtatious and feminine" mother Waugh describes? One wonders too why he cast an actor resembling a permanently drunk farm labourer as a noble English aristocrat?

The more important question is how much longer can the British film industry survive if it continues to milk English history and allow second-rate writers to eliminate the last vestiges of English cinematic pride with implausible fabricated period junk every time a Hollywood Production Company requests just one more embarrassing dip into our literary well?

The Granada TV series with Jeremy Irons is a riveting masterpiece. So why this remake? Emma Thompson and Michael Gambon are out of place in this decidedly amateurish and pathetic remake. So many of the richly portrayed characters from the TV series are missing. This is rather like the Chipmunks doing Miles Davis.

It's been nearly 30 years since I watched the miniseries with Jeremy Irons and Anthony Andrews, falling immediately and irrevocably in love with both. I knew going in that a 2-hour movie treatment could only scratch the surface of a 12-hour series, but I was curious, especially given the raves for Emma Thompson. I confess that's it's been far too long since I saw the series, but some elements seemed completely foreign to me, including the blatant homosexuality on display as well as the horrific coldness of Lady Marchmain. Emma Thompson bravely plays against her usual warm persona and braver still, makes herself 20 years older as the chilly matriarch of a screwed-up aristocratic family. The screwed-upness is due entirely to her and to her obsession with the Church, this version says. I think given another decade and a few more plummy parts like this and Ms. Thompson will be known as Dame Emma Thompson, and rightly so. Hayley Atwell (recently seen as Kiera Knightley's romantic rival in "The Duchess" wears bobbed hair and red lips fetchingly, but doesn't really project the emotional heft to make herself worth a man selling his soul for.

The central friendship between Charles Ryder and Sebastian is what drives this story, despite all the pretty set dressing surrounding it. In contrast to Irons' and Andrews' dark/light dynamic, both actors here are brunet and their chemistry together feels discordant. Ben Whishaw is so physically slight and vaguely creepy-looking, it's hard to accept him as the bon vivant of Oxford that Sebastian supposedly is. His physicality is all the more fragile when set beside strapping Matthew Goode. Mr. Goode is the real jewel in this cast . . . in some angles he startlingly resembles Jeremy Irons, and his voice is so like Irons', one wonders if he watched the miniseries and practiced his line readings. Mr. Goode is better-looking than his predecessor and captures Charles' outsider status wonderfully. And if I didn't know better, I'd think he was Irons' son.

The production design and costumes are beautiful, but as rendered here, Waugh's tale becames a superficial and silly proceeding, populated by only self-serving, stupid individuals. Much like the similar period piece "Atonement", one is left wondering quite what all the fuss was about.

Take a beautiful work of art, the original mini-series, based upon a profound story, Waugh's novel, and subtract beauty, memorable music, character complexity, subtlety, and deep meaning. Add modern sexual preoccupations, hostility to religion, gross stereotyping and a cast who have no idea of the characters they are asked to portray. Mix throughly and you have this awful movie. Anyone who has any affection for either the mini-series or the novel is advised to guard their memories by avoiding this perversion of the originals.

I have read the book and seen the monumental miniseries. This film has a not-so-hidden agenda that is anti-Catholic. In both the book and the miniseries Charles becomes a Catholic and understands. It was not that he wanted too much. He was in love with Sebastian. Sebastian drank, not because Charles loved Julia, but because he was lost as many were in his generation which was just coming out of the Victorian era. Emma Thompson plays Lady Marchmain as a gorgon. In both the other versions, Lady Marchmain is a suffering saint.

The rest of the film's cast, except for Michael Gambon and Greta Schachi, are terribly miscast. The Julia looks like a drag-queen. Sebastian is supposed to be a beauty and that cannot be said for the film's actor.

"Brideshead Revisited" is a marvelous novel about redemption in a tumultuous time of upheaval. Give it and the miniseries a chance. You will be inspired.

Brideshead Revisited is one of my favorite books. When the 1980 BBC series came out, I watched all the episodes and re-read the book. This movie is a ghost of the original.

As others have noted, the original was a deeply nuanced story with considerable ambiguity. Characters were three-dimensional. Sebastian above all was at once charismatic, flamboyant and tragic. Lady Marchmain was a sympathetic figure. Julia was complex and confident.

Here Sebastian is shown as a thin, vulnerable rebel. He's pitiful. Ryder comes across first as a hanger-on, then a busybody, Julia as an obnoxious tease.

Some scenes seem to be added. I don't remember the scene between Rex and Charles, discussing Julia, from before. I don't remember Julia's angry confrontation with Charles.

As others have noted, Waugh was a strong Catholic. The movie actually presented the Catholic Church in a positive light, showing the deep emotional bond the family members experienced despite their personal frustrations with the everyday implication of the religion. Here the lines are more sharply drawn.

The climactic scene with Lord Marchmain was important and symbolic when the book was written. Now Lord Marchmain's gesture might be interpreted differently, as we understand more about dying and different types of memory.

The original movie and book included yet another final scene with Charles Ryder, projecting a totally different lens through which to view the movie. Very subtle but ultimately convincing, given the time.

I'd agree with reviewers who vote for the original BBC series and/or the original book. This one's a waste of time.