Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
34 of 36 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Brideshead, Revisited With Reservations, January 22, 2009
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.
|
|
|
20 of 24 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
You don't want to revisit this Brideshead, March 14, 2009
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.
|
|
|
9 of 10 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
Brideshead Regurgitated (nod to Tom Stoppard), March 8, 2009
So..."Brideshead Revisited" by Evelyn Waugh is one of the twentieth century's classic novels. It's not especially long. A week or so should do the trick. Don't have the time? Well, there was a superlative miniseries adaptation of the novel produced by Granada in the early 80s starring Jeremy Irons, Anthony Andrews, Claire Bloom, Laurence Olivier, and John Gielgud. It's roughly 10 hours long, but is an enrapturing experience. Too much of an investment? Hmmm...well, there's this recent movie version that crams everything into about two hours and flagrantly violates Evelyn Waugh's original vision....are you sure you don't have time to at least start the book?
This good-looking but curiously bland version of "Brideshead" might prompt those unfamiliar with Waugh to wonder why all the bother. The story seems banal in this slick but slack adaptation. Middle-class aspiring painter Charles Ryder meets wealthy and flamboyant Lord Sebastian Flyte at Oxford and is drawn into the Flyte family melodrama, which is reduced in this version to the struggle between Catholic faith and personal freedom. Lady Marchmain rules over her vast roost, Brideshead, like God on high, trying to keep her rebellious twins, Julia and Sebastian, in line, according to "God's will."
All the actors, including the one-and-only Emma Thompson, feel like disappointing, underprepared understudies compared to their miniseries' counterparts. Charles Ryder is a difficult character to make sympathetic: an agnostic (atheist in this version, another mistake: Ryder's agnosticism in the book and miniseries is part-and-parcel of his general lack of convictions) social climber with a rather bland personality, and Matthew Goode's performance is as dull as ditchwater (he's a very good actor -- see "Match Point" and "The Lookout" for evidence -- so I'm going to blame the script/direction).
Sebastian Flyte, one of literature's most fascinating and mysterious characters, is especially ill-served by the new adaptation. Ben Whishaw, who is also by all accounts a very fine actor (I could absolutely see him as Hamlet, a role he played on stage to great acclaim), seems simpering, self-pitying, and silly compared to the heartrending pathos of Anthony Andrews' performance in the miniseries, and certainly lacks "that epicene quality which in extreme youth sings aloud for love and withers at the first cold wind," as Waugh describes Sebastian. Here he is a caricature of a closeted, Catholic homosexual. Andrews gave Sebastian so much dignity and pathos in the miniseries that it's painful to see the character reduced to only one-dimension here.
Perhaps it's unfair to compare the faithful ten-hour television adaptation to this two-hour travesty, but it's not just the details the new film is lacking; it's Waugh's entire vision. Waugh wrote that he intended the novel to "trace the workings of the divine purpose in a pagan world." The screenplay by Andrew Davies (usually better than this) and Jeremy Brock flattens the novel's shades and textures into a simplistic, two-toned face-off between faith and freedom. Lady Marchmain is made an imperious harridan, imposing her will like a distant god on her poor children. By demonizing Lady Marchmain, the screenwriters lift any burden of responsibility off the shoulders of Sebastian and Julia, both of whom have rich and complex interior lives (and a profound sense of sin and guilt) in the novel and miniseries. The intricate relationship between Sebastian and Charles in the movie is simplified to unreciprocated homoeroticism -- an invented Venetian kiss between Charles and Julia drives Sebastian to a hissy fit and dypsomania that is as unflattering of homosexuality as it is of Catholicism. This "Brideshead" is an equal opportunity offender.
Waugh isn't just rolling in his grave, he's spinning like a top. Even militant atheist Christopher Hitchens came to reactionary Waugh's defense against this version, writing, "I do not consider myself a sympathiser with Roman Catholicism, but this film seems motivated by the cheaper sort of malice against it," and added that it is "barely a travesty." Whether you agree or not with Waugh's ornery conservatism, he was a great writer and certainly not an apologist or proselytizer of religion (plenty of the religious characters in "Brideshead" come off quite badly). But why bother adapting one of his books if you couldn't care less what he had to say?
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
DVD ~ Diana Rigg
DVD ~ Gemma Arterton
DVD ~ Javier Bardem
DVD ~ Kevin Costner
DVD ~ Meryl Streep
