Saturday, March 06, 2010

Brideshead -- The Movie

The 2008 movie version of Brideshead Re-Visited has much of the charm that Evelyn Waugh's story makes so much of. Oxford in all her golden glory is there in it's seductive ripe-ness. Yorkshire's Castle Howard once more provides an unbelievably opulent setting. Venice ripples and sparkles with Tintoretto-ish delight. Morocco is sleazy and exotic. All is as elegant and decadent and as English and eccentric as you could wish for.

But this is a fairy tale England, and the film maker has given us a fairy tale in its worst sense rather than its best. Underneath the surface of Waugh's novel (and captured faithfully by the famous TV version) there is real depth and complexity and reality to the characters. The film has none of this. Lady Marchmain is the wicked mother figure. Charles, Sebastian and Julia are babes in the wood--befuddled and lost in the wicked dark forest of looming adulthood, morality and serious religion. Bridey is the dull faithful prince, and Cordelia is the court jester.

So top marks for elegant locations, pretty costumes, but the acting is labored and shallow. We don't see any reason for Lady Marchmain's cruelty or Bridey's buffoonery or Charles' atheism. Some would say the problem is that they have tried to cram a very complex novel into a two hour movie, and that is certainly part of the problem. When you adapt a novel as big and important as this minor characters must fade out and subplots must be reduced and characters often become two dimensional.

However in this case, I think the problem is more significant. The writers and director either don't understand Catholicism or (more likely) they have a superficial understanding and are totally unsympathetic. For example, in the novel Charles is presented as an agnostic. In the film he firmly claims the part of atheist and sticks to it. The Catholic characters are shown to be riddled with guilt. Their faith has no other dimension. Lady Marchmain is not the well meaning and simple (but sanctimonious) soul she is portrayed in the book and TV series. Instead she is a kind of cruel Mother Superior bashing her family with a harsh form of Catholic guilt. Not only do the film makers misrepresent the outward forms of Catholicism, but worst of all, they do not understand the really deep parts of Waugh's intention.

The motor for Waugh's whole story is the mysterious working of grace in the lives of the characters. The reason Brideshead Revisited is so fascinating as a novel is that we see God's grace working its merciful way out through the faults and sinfulness of the Flyte clan. This works in the novel as an invisible and very subtle and powerful thread running through the whole tale. It is something, I would argue, which remains invisible to the unbeliever who reads the work. They simply don't get it.

So it would seem in this film version. We never really see the providential resolution of grace in any of the characters' lives. We don't see the redemptive quality of Sebastian's final suffering. We don't see the simple depth and self sacrifice played out in Cordelia's life. We don't see the dignified denouement in Julia's final decision to give up Charles. We don't see the justice of Bridey losing Brideshead and Julia getting it. We don't see Lord Marchmain's final reconciliation as anything other than a superstitious moment and most of all we don't see Charles' final conversion. The film ends with him going into the Brideshead chapel and deciding to allow an almost flickering out candle to continue burning. Was that hope? Was that an indication of his own benevolent tolerance of the faith, or simply a resigned permission to allow faded old Catholicism to flicker out, gutter and die?

It was a good idea to do a film version. It's a shame that the film virtually reverses Waugh's intention.

9 comments:

Little Black Sambo said...

Very perceptive review.
How often there is close attention to detail with regard to costume, furniture and landscape, but amazing solecisms in dialogue and religion.

Peony Moss said...

Just curious -- what do you see as the "justice" of Julia's getting the house instead of Bridey? I have always seen that as Lord Marchmain's final act of spite against his dutiful but dull eldest son. It's bitterly comic that this old man who abandoned his wife, children, and house should take such umbrage at Brideshead's choice of wife. Lord M. couldn't be bothered to live there, and presumably he was okay with Rex's using the house as a political prop, but by golly he wasn't going to let that tacky Beryl be mistress of the house!

Just another mad Catholic said...

Excellent review Father,

Ever since I first saw the TV version last year I've found it funny that my father (an athiest) who loves the book and who can tell you the exact next lines (if you pause the TV version) still doesn't get the message despite having watched at least once a year ever since it came out whereas I got it completely the first time I watched it :)

Laura R. said...

Thanks, Father, for this very interesting review. I missed the movie and had wondered about it. My feeling, which you have corroborated, was that the TV serial was the definitive version and would be difficult to surpass. But it's useful to know as well about the unsympathetic view of Catholicism in the film.

Stephanie A. Mann said...

Thank you for your insights into this version of the movie and the Waugh novel. After reading the novel several times, I think one of the most fascinating scenes is Cordelia's narration of Sebastian's life in the monastery and how Julie had never loved Sebastian as she and Charles do--'"Do." The word reproached me; there was no past tense in Cordelia's verb "to love."'

romishgraffiti said...

Yep, I won't see the flick as I have been adequetly warned to stick with the book, or the 1982 TV version. The TV version is the most faithful adaptation of a book I've ever seen. As if the director showed up on day 1, opened the novel to page 1 and said, "Ok, scene 1". The only minor complaint is that Jeremy Irons can't quite pull off looking like a college freshman. :)

P.S. However, I've been warned not to listen to the commentary on the 25th anniversary DVD edition because the cast and crew sound like a bunch of ignoramuses, so I haven't.

SwissWiss said...

To beat the 1982 version, they should have tried 3D.

Dominic Mary said...

romishgraffiti has it dead right : the 1982 version can't be bettered - now, or ever.

One reason is that when it was made there were still people around who remembered the world of which the book spoke : now, it's all merely fantasyland.

Why can't we recognize that there are - just occasionally - things which can't be improved on, and be humble enough not to try ?

Austringer said...

Romishgraffiti,

I agree with you entirely: the TV version is, without a doubt, the most faithful and successful adaptation of a book to film ever.

I had heard enough about the newer movie version to avoid it. Given its cluelessness regarding Waugh's intent, I wasn't going to subject myself to it.