Brideshead Revisited (2008)

8/10

Chris Knipp23 July 2008

Warning: Spoilers

Those who have not seen the 1981 Granada television miniseries about the aristocratic English Catholic Marchmain family, their spiritual torments, and their conflicted friend, Charles Ryder, may be at an advantage in watching this new adaptation. That series was superb and took the time to do more than justice to the satirical Evelyn Waugh's uncharacteristically solemn and lengthy 1945 novel. This film version, much briefer than the miniseries but not exactly short at 135 minutes, has one advantage: it shows off the plot in sharp outline.

The miniseries may actually blur that basic element. It was hypnotic, rolling on from week to week for those who first saw it gathering an accumulation of nostalgia and melancholy, beautifully mounted and graced by the likes of John Gielgud, Laurence Olivier, Claire Bloom, and Stéphane Audran. It also put Jeremy Irons on the map in the central role of Charles, and by his own admission made him "fall out of love with jeans" through wearing the elegant clothes of a well-turned-out young man of the 1920's. The miniseries can take the time to develop important minor characters. The book is an elaborate portrait of a generation and an era. Waugh wrote short witty novels mostly. But this time, writing about wealth and grandeur and Catholicism, he waxes poetic and goes into near-Proustian detail.

Sebastian's grand family draws the awestruck middle-class Charles in and eventually spits him out, leaving him shattered, but lastingly impressed by the power of the Marchmains' Catholic faith. As the tale opens (in all versions), he's reminiscing about it all much later as an army officer at the end of World War II ironically posted at Brideshead, the glorious estate where Sebastian grew up--a place Charles came to know intimately even though it was never fully accessible to him.

Maybe Waugh in his novel was more concerned with the nostalgia for a prewar life he imagined as splendid and carefree, for a class to which he aspired, and more self-consciously dwelling on his infatuation with Catholicism, to which he was a convert. But the story, as we see in this new film, turns on a kind of love triangle--one heavy-laden with sexual and spiritual conflict.

Charles Ryder (Matthew Goode) and Sebastian (Ben Whishaw) enter into an intense romantic and alcoholic friendship when Charles comes for his first year at Oxford. The film carries this a bit further than either the novel or the TV version, showing the two handsome young men not only often affectionately and playfully arm in arm but in an intimate bathroom scene and once, anyway, sharing a lingering drunken kiss. This despite the fact that a relative sternly warned Charles to avoid "sodomites" when he first arrived at university. Whishaw (of 'Perfume' and 'I'm Not There') has a touching, wispy, vulnerable quality that distinguishes him from the TV Anthony Andrews, whose Sebastian is more brassy, slick, confident and social. When Charles meets Sebastian's sister Julia (Hayley Atwall in the film; the impossibly elegant Diana Quick in the miniseries), and lights a cigarette for her in a car, he immediately hears, in the words of the novel, echoed in the TV narration, "a thin bat's squeak of sexuality," and the equation changes. He begins to desire Julia. Apart from her unmistakable allure she's a way for Charles to possess the Marchmain world more completely. This, especially in the film, immediately clouds the relationship with Sebastian, who grows cold, and simultaneously sinks deeper into dipsomania.

In the miniseries there is more time for Charles's profound infatuation with his aristocratic young Catholic friend and his magnificent world to sink in and for Sebastian's decline into alcoholism to unwind with slow, horrible inevitability. The latter is memorably described in the book (repeated in the TV narration) as feeling like "a blow, expected, repeated, falling on a bruise, with no smart or shock of surprise, only a dull and sickening pain and the doubt whether another one like it could be borne." It has to be rushed a bit in the film. But the process isn't falsified, only made more clear.

Their mother, Lady Marchmain (film, Emma Thompson; TV, Claire Bloom) at first finds Charles sensible and polite, a good influence for the dissolute and sexually wayward Sebastian. But she can't bend Charles to her will. It emerges that Lord Marchmain (film, Michael Gambon; TV, Laurence Olivier) has long ago fled from his wife's control to Venice and lives with a mistress, Cara (film, Greta Schacchi; TV, Stéphane Audran). A visit to Venice leads to kisses with Julia and also introduces Charles to another equally intoxicating kind of beauty--besides which in Italy, everybody's Catholic, but as Cara points out, of a more relaxed sort than the cloying Lady Marchmain's. Charles can't have Julia as long as Lady Marchmain is around. As circumstances turn out, their idyll is brief, and happens after Charles is married and a successful painter. Sebastian has wound up with a weak German man in Morocco, in terrible health, a saintly drunkard. Julia and Lord Marchmain have last minute returns to their faith and Charles is left out in the cold.

Viewing all three versions, book, TV, screen, one sees the story isn't about Charles or about anybody really. It's about temptation. It's about the world between the wars, through eyes clouded by longing. The adaptation is very creditable. It shows the appeal of the story. Those who are entranced by it ought to read Waugh's book and rent DVD's of the Granada miniseries--which was about the best thing ever done for television. It delivers long passages from the book verbatim. Waugh was best in his short witty early satires but he turns many a good phrase in this, his most popular (and for a while his own favorite) book. Then he rejected it, and one can see why. Its sentimentality is so unlike him at his best. But it adapts well.

142 out of 156 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

6/10

A sketchy remake

Philby-316 December 2008

Is this film a worthy interpretation of "Brideshead Revisited"? Well, up to a point, Lord Copper, as another one of Evelyn Waugh's characters was wont to say.

First, scriptwriter Andrew Davies, a past master of adaptation of great and not-so great literary works, has put the focus on the Charles and Julia love story rather than the Charles and Sebastian 'romantic friendship' as Cara, Lord Marchmain's Italian mistress puts it. The religious aspect is dealt with almost incidentally.

Second, Lady Marchmain, as played by Emma Thompson, is a very grim person with total emotional control over her children and whose particular Christian beliefs means that she is indifferent to their suffering as to her this life is a mere precursor to the glorious afterlife the same attitude as a 9/11 hi-jacker in fact. She has none of the sweetness that Claire Bloom brought to the 1981 TV series.

Third, some of the performances owe a good deal to those in the TV series, especially Matthew Goode as Charles who has an uncanny likeness to Jeremy Irons. And of course Castle Howard reprises its role as Brideshead. Some characters were reduced to ciphers; for example Bridey who played by Simon Jones stole several scenes in 1981 but the part is reduced to a non-entity here. Michael Gambon, a consummate actor, gives us a new take on Lord Marchmain to compare with Lawrence Olivier's earlier version.

Overall, though, I was left with the impression this film has not much to say which is new. Like the recent feature film version of "Pride and Prejudice", it gives a broad outline of the story but misses out much of the rich context provided by the minor characters. Oh, read the book instead.

72 out of 86 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

6/10

An Unbiased Review of Brideshead

mrusso14422 August 2008

I have never read the book or seen the miniseries, so my experience wasn't clouded by already existing expectations and assumptions of the characters. Instead I was awaiting a first, and therefore unbiased look into the world of Brideshead.

As a film, it is okay bordering on good and solid. The performances are strong enough to keep the audience interested, but they do not keep us enthralled. The leads are savvy and sexy in their own rights, but they lack true appeal as performers. They can come off as rather dull in certain scenes, but in others they pull out a subtle presence that is called for in intimate, or more emotion scenes. This inconsistence was bothersome and hindered the overall telling of the story. The one presence that is felt, but is far too short is that of Emma Thompson. As the matriarchal head of the family, she is brutal and works well with the one dimensional writing she was given. If they had focused more on her, we would have been able to understand the tortured minds of Julia and Sebastian better. Instead they have Julia and Sebastian describe her to the audience, which keeps us from getting close enough to realize what deformed her mind to begin with.

Charles is, at times to weak and unsure to be accepted as someone we want to see happy. We end up being unsure of his character's intention, and not in a mysterious, purposeful way, but in a, "the film-making is too unclear" way. Is Charles just a social climber whose dreams are dashed by his wants and Atheist ways? Or is he a moral soul lost in the pull of Brideshead's condemning Catholic trappings? This is the major flaw to the film, Charles is never exposed.

Small framing problems and out-of-style shots hampered the visual appeal, but with that aside, the visuals are very lush and the score complements some well placed montages to give the viewer a true sense of the desired never-ending summer Charles and Sebastian so desperately dream after.

If you like British tales of class and religion, or period films, this one is not a letdown. It is nothing new, but nothing terrible either. I recommend it if this is your sort of thing, I was not disappointed, but I wasn't blown away.

63 out of 89 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

7/10

Nice try, but some originals can never be equaled, let alone surpassed

martijn-5616 January 2009

Every once in a few decades something like Brideshead comes along. No wonder anyone would want to try to relive that magic! So now there is Brideshead the movie. That means the director had to grasp the original TV show in two hours, so no other choice than a 'The Best Of' compilation remains, it seems.The disadvantage of it is, that what is left out suddenly becomes painfully missing.

All of us who have watched the TV series know it is virtually impossible to surpass it, in film or TV production. Nevertheless, I tried to watch it without prejudice. Overall not a bad movie, but no, not the magical resonance the original had.

All I can do is summarize in details the pluses and minuses of the film versus the TV production so here it goes:

The fathers from original were two of the best actors of the century; John Geilgud (Shakespeare) and the (incomparable) Laurence Olivier. Geilgud plays brilliantly the teasing but not totally indifferent father, who seems stop Charles from the insipid surroundings in the summer but finally lets him go. In the TV series the actor is more serious, and the fun is not there. Laurence had probably one of the best performances of all, and clearly echoes his naughtiness as he portrayed in A Little Romance then a few years earlier. His unpredictability which finally makes him decide for his daughter is well done, especially considered his playground was virtually no more than a static death bed! And then the scene where he is offered a ride in a car down the steps, which he refuses since he doesn't want to admit it might be his last.

Matthew Goode does quite a good job as a substitute of Jeremy Irons. I like especially his ambivalent apparition (homosexual, heterosexual, both, or doesn't it matter?). But he lacks the wonderful narrating voice of Irons, which research has shown to be one of the best around. In the film the romance between Charles and Sebastian's sister is elaborated much more. Partially I agree with this choice. In the original not enough scenes were implanted for credibility, except probably the scene where Charles lights her cigarette. They were virtually strangers meeting again on the cruiser years later and nevertheless they seemed to suddenly hit it off. The sister was not what stood Charles' and Sebastian's friendship in the way. The filmmakers choose for more stress on their impending romance. I think the TV original did this better; it was the family that Charles became part of, and Sebastian's indifference to love that became unsurpassable problems. In original the mother was almost invisible, with the exception of some quotes on her son like 'I don't understand it', which summed it all up. We do not need the dialog in the film where she explains herself, and wonders why her kids hate her. Understatement is much more powerful, also in the scene 'I'll say no more' between Charles and Julia, in which it becomes clear religion has driven them apart. One sentence can be enough.

All this was at the cost of stress Sebastian could have had, and got in the TV original. Most of the magic of Brideshead was simply Anthony Andrews' performance. Worse, the movie clearly alludes to a homosexual relationship, which it did not need to be. Sebastian was a love object, and could be loved by anyone, in any way. But then again, it might be hard finding someone that could deliver the line about Sebastian as Irons narrated: 'his beauty, arresting'. Charm was the problem, the danger. That missed in this film. It was charm that nearly got Charles astray, as told by the queer friend years later in his atelier. The film omitted this important scene, where that friend tried to warn Charles for Sebastian. At the time we all thought it was a nasty remark, but later on he seemed to be right. Or was the charm not an illusion after all? The film simply did not have enough time to build up the charm Sebastian surely had in the TV original. In the TV series Charles was shown first with boring friends, and it then became shortly a coming of age story, where he got introduced in a more fun crowd with Sebastian. This phase delivered some of the best scenes of the story, with his queer friend talking loud over the campus, or Sebastian dressing up as a man with mustache. Sebastian showed Charles other worlds, which real or not, were unforgettable. The film had to rush this too much, and therefore the introduction scene with the spring eggs lost its magic.

One of the few pluses was much less stress on Cordelia, the little girl. But the minus was she acted as an indirect narrator of the importance of religion. Now it had to be compensated for in dialog with the mother and Julia, which was in TV better since there meaning came out of things not said.

Many things I missed, but you can not cram all in two hours. But lines like 'I would like to remember Sebastian, how he were that summer, when we walked through the enchanted place' should have been told again.

The end was nicely done, with Charles finally not pinching candlelight, symbolic for the charm of that family that was still alive in him. I liked there the Irons narrative though 'Was it all vanity? Etc.'

I would say, it was a brave attempt, something like making a remake of 2001, or Casablanca or Breakfast at Tiffany's, and the acting was all well done. Also camera work, and story adaptation. But who can surpass Anthony Andrews, or Jeremy Irons, or Gielgud or Olivier?

21 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

7/10

Muted by the shadow of it's predecessor, but beautiful and touching all the same

ckblink18214 February 2009

As with any film which follows a beloved mini-series it is nearly impossible to escape the shadow. When watching this film you'll find yourself constantly comparing it to the mini-series and more often than not the memory of the mini-series comes out ahead.

That being said, I still very much enjoyed the film. As with other recent English remakes (Pride & Prejudice, BBC's Sense & Sensibility) you really appreciate the beauty of modern film making. The cinematography, the score, and the ever beautiful Castle Howard, Venice, and Oxford alone are worth the watching in my opinion. There are also some great performances. Matthew Goode's Charles rivals that of Jeremy Iron's, Hayley Atwell's Julia (in a more central role than that of the mini-series) was also quite good. I also found myself rather enjoying Charles' wife Celia (Anna Madeley) even in such a small role.

The real failure of the film seems to be the difficulty with compressing 11 hours into 2. Everything is forced to move faster and the more quite, gentle, and simple scenes are lost. What's left then is a distillation of the most dramatic moments. As a result the film loses the subtlety of the mini-series. The religious bits are played up a bit too much and makes the characters slightly unbelievable. Emma Thompson is great as always, but her character of Lady Marchmain as written is too over bearing, too controlling, too inhuman. The character of Sebastian is louder than in the mini-series and becomes jaded before you care much for him. Indeed, I didn't find myself caring particularly much for any of the characters except perhaps Charles.

Still, if you don't have 11 hours on hand to spend watching the mini-series, this is a suitable substitute and is worth watching at least once at any rate. As long as you don't go in expecting an equal to the mini-series you'll enjoy it and may even find a moment or two which improves upon the original.

7 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

7/10

Once More, Into Brideshead

janos4511 August 2008

It's attributed to just about everybody - from Ginger Rogers to Milan Kundera - and it sounds so right: "There are no small parts, only small actors."

If you want proof and a real understanding of the adage, revisit "Brideshead Revisited," and behold the miracle of Emma Thompson's Lady Marchmain, sucking the life out of anything and anybody she touches, and Michael Gambon's delightfully dissolute Lord Marchmain. She has about 10 minutes on the screen, he perhaps four, and yet their characters will follow you out of the theater, and stay with you at length.

Thompson's work is especially dazzling because the mean, sanctimonious character is so clearly alien to the actress (in fact, I suspected miscasting when I first heard of her assignment) and also as the character is so exaggerated, almost a caricature. And yet, Thompson gives the challenge her all, and walks away with it; the performance has Best Supporting Actress written all over it.

It's difficult to believe that the man you see as Marchmain is the same actor who was the "Singing Detective" (of the superb BBC series, not the Robert Downey Jr. mishap). Gambon has a range as wide as all outdoors, and you never ever see effort in the performance. His amiable Marchmain - subtly hinting at a complex character under the surface - has a physical similarity to Gambon's Uncle Vanya on the London stage, but otherwise, it's a unique creation.

What else is there to this new "edition" of "Brideshead"? A great deal, but only if you're among those who missed both Evelyn Waugh's novel and the wonderful Granada TV realization 27 long years ago - Irons! Gielgud! Olivier! - how can you compete with that? So, if it's a first-time visit, see the movie by all means; if you can recite lines from the book or the TV series, you can survive without the new version.

In 135 minutes, the film is handling well what the TV series did so completely in - yes - 13 HOURS. Obviously, except for the basic story line (script by Jeremy Brock, of "The Last King of Scotland"), this is a different kind of animal, still "leisurely" enough, but unable to luxuriate in the smallest details as the series did. The director is Julian Jarrold, and he is doing far better than in his recent "Becoming Jane," keeps the story moving in a smooth fashion.

As to the leading roles in the film, they are all well acted, but without great impact. Matthew Goode is Charles Ryder, the focal character; Ben Whishaw is the slightly over-flamboyant Sebastian Flyte (who needs understating more than exaggerating - Anthony Andrews' performance in the TV series was exactly right); Hayley Atwell is Sebastian's sister (and rival for Charles' affection).

One amazing thing about "Brideshead" is how this story from a different time, about characters from a different world, remains interesting and meaningful. It's almost as if Waugh's work was bulletproof - not that these filmmakers were less than respectful to the author. A better test would be a Eurotrash opera version, heaven forfend.

49 out of 77 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

6/10

Differing Religious Convictions Driving People Apart

jzappa4 October 2008

No love story can be altogether gratifying in which the central choices are decided by the mother of the woman in love, even less, when she is the mother of both lovers, and has faith that she is protecting their everlasting spirits. That is what seems to be the predicament in Evelyn Waugh's novel, now adapted into a stagnant film in which one is not invited to feel or react due to its own lack of feeling or solidly portrayed consequence.

This film version focuses on forbidden love and the death of purity, set before WWII. Matthew Goode, who was excellent as the villain in The Lookout, becomes spellbound with a noble family, first because of his friendship with a charming, provocative, apparently homosexual contemporary, and then his sister. The fluctuation of Goode's obsessions suggest the decay of a self-indulgent upper crust in England flanked by the two World Wars, related in the course of his recurring stays at the Brideshead estate. What's more fundamental to Waugh's story is the harsh Catholicism of the family, as imposed by their matriarch, played by Emma Thompson, the high point of the film by far. Their religious beliefs are confronted by the son's homosexuality, the daughter's adulterous liaison with Goode, and Goode's atheism.

There are two curious fathers in the film. Michael Gambon is one, still legitimately married sure enough, but is ostracized, living in a Venetian palazzo with his mistress, Greta Scacchi in an unexpected comeback. Goode's father is a definite oddball who lives enclosed in a London house and seemingly favors playing chess with himself to talking to his son.

The main character is a penniless, virtually parentless youth drifting through an alien social system. Goode plays him featurelessly really, a nondescript motor for the other characters. Ben Whishaw steals all of his scenes as the gay son. The daughter could definitely have been portrayed more warily. The actress, Hayley Atwell makes the most of her I suppose, but why would she marry the revolting and unbearable suitor instead of Goode?

I am sure that the reason this film is not very effective at all is because so much background and source material is condensed and maybe sacrificed into such a shorter running time. But why are so many other adaptations effective in spite of this factor?

15 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

10/10

The Romance of Youth, The Hardness of Older Age

bdsto25 July 2008

Warning: Spoilers

I've just come from the Canadian premiere of Brideshead Revisited, a story that is a great mark along the journey of my life.

I was 21 when I saw the TV series on CBC in January/February, 1981. I was nine months away from beginning my own great adventure in the world, traveling through the British Isles and Europe for the first time. Young -- only two years older than Charles and Sebastian when we first meet them -- thirsting for experience, longing for love and romance -- the kinds of love and romance reserved for the hearts and minds of youth -- the story made an indelible impression on me. I identified with those two young men. My heart overflowed when theirs did and ached when theirs did.

And what an impression that series made in Britain and North America. It set fashions for the decade on both sides of the Atlantic. Both in clothing and hairstyles. Hair salons posted ads in newspapers and signs in their windows: "Get the Brideshead look". For men, 3-plaited trousers -- linen in summer and flannels in winter -- became de rigeur (sp?) for both men and women, it taught us to take the loosely-woven cotton sweaters that fashion suddenly offered us to tie them about our necks. It ushered in the want for society style and demonstrable excess that demarcated the 1980s. Very few stories, resurrected, make such an enormous mark on an era.

Tonight, I saw a well-crafted, truncated and changed -- but most acceptably changed -- film of the story, through 48-year-old eyes.Older and wiser, I still ached for Charles and Sebastian, but now from an understanding uncle's point-of-view, if you will. Like a hardened Charles, as he reflects back during the Second World War, I, too, am more world-weary and hardened. Older, I better understand the lessons of the story. But also, after seeing the film, I am left, like Charles in the War on discovering he's once again at Brideshead, reflecting wistfully on my youth. On what could have been and might have been had I made different choices and decisions. Not regretfully, but wistfully. It brought into my life a remembrance of and longing for those exquisite feelings of romance and love reserved for youth and without which my middle age has proceeded.

In 1981, I was the Charles of Oxford. Today, I am the Charles of the War. Even older.

Will this movie change the fashions, style and manner of today? No. The times are not right for it. Nevertheless, I highly recommend it. Then find the TV series on DVD and read the book, if you care to. Each is a 20th Century masterpiece.

59 out of 81 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

7/10

Last Year at Brideshead

Quinoa198416 September 2008

Among many of the most prestigious literature selections, not to mention mini-series, Brideshead Revisited not only wasn't on my radar, I didn't even know if it would be the kind of well-regarded literature or mini-series I intended to watch. But as this newly revised picture, now a mere 136 minutes vs 10 hours, it looked interesting if only as a kind of "handsomely made" picture (you know the kind, along the lines of Atonement for recent comparison). I was also intrigued by the allure of a huge, sprawling mansion here called Brideshead, as it reminded me of Alain Resnais's film Last Year at Marienbad and how memories and recollections and lost love and hope is explored in the spaces of this dark, cold region of exquisite luxury. Some of that is explored in this film, and some of it... isn't.

It's for the most part a fairly tragic story of a young man, Charles (Matthew Goode, charming and suave but also subtle and down-beat, a really fine turn), who enrolls at Oxford and meets a meek/'fey' guy named Sebastian, and through him he's introduced (reluctantly in point of fact) to Sebastian's family, including his sister Julia, and his very cold and strident mother (Emma Thompson). Sebastian really wants Charles all for himself - it's a friendship that goes just a nose-hair's length into admitting homosexuality but never really goes that far despite all appearances to the contrary - but he becomes apart of the fold, and as well falling deeply in love with Julia against 'other' wishes (mostly the matriarch's over Charles's religion).

There's a lot of the fragility of the bourgeois on display here, the arrogance and detachment that's shown very closely by the director for maximum effect. Unlike a Resnais he's not about to get too experimental with the camera; he's a careful craftsman more often than not, allowing for just enough wonderment of the whole Brideshead atmosphere to really sink into how it could be a double-edged sword of perception. And as is bound to happen with material this sprawling (at one point time jumps back 10 years, then ahead 4 years, until we kind of know where we are), a lot seems to be cut out. While it altogether makes a coherent and entertaining enough picture, I wonder how much more of a benefit this would make as an epic, where we are absorbed more fully with the Oxford school or Charles and Sebastian or even the parents (who, thankfully, are played wonderfully here by cold-as-ice Thompson and fascinatingly guilt-ridden and subtle Michael Gambon), or how the wealth structure even works here.

Indeed, I found myself not so much involved with the Charles/Sebastian stuff, even as it's fairly well-acted and well-shot enough, as I was with the themes of religion raised in the picture. This caught me off guard and hinted at something deeper being expounded upon. Yet, again, we get just tastes of what's offered more than likely in the original text, tastes that are powerful like a 'last-rites' argument, and the tortured state of being raised from the cradle with an intense, overbearing Catholic conscience.

21 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

5/10

It's not Brideshead Revisited

morrowmmm27 July 2008

The greatness of the original Brideshead Revisited was in the luxury of being able to transpose a very complicated emotional and intellectual book into words. It succeeded in this, but only just, due to superb direction, photography and script which, even in its sparseness, only just allowed the successful transition to film. The problem with anything shorter is that, if it took Mortimer so many episodes to get it right, then there are very few writers who could even get near in under 4 hours, if that. So lets stop beating about the bush. This is a sound reproduction of the calender plot but after that it is not Brideshead Revisited. Call it by another name and I will laud it. It brings in a strong homosexual element and a early sexual attraction between Charles Ryder and Miss Flyte. With that everything becomes unbalanced. Motivations change. The beauty of the original is that it hinted at ????something (a je ne sais quoi) and it was that and the ever strengthening Catholic awareness of family that made this film so fascinating. The original's masterpiece was the script supported by the cine photography. That has been lost. But taken as is, a pretty and interesting film which seems to be loosely based on an early fifties work by Waugh.

99 out of 140 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

10/10

"Be a good boy. For God. And for Mummy..."

hughman554 May 2010

Warning: Spoilers

That infantalizing line, spoken by the staunchly Catholic Lady Marchmain (Emma Thompson), to her grown son Sebastian (Ben Wishaw), pretty much sums up what is at the heart of this film. Lady Marchmain hovers like a dark cloud of oppression over Brideshead Manor. It is still the 15th Century and she is leading the Crusades. Everyone in her wake will suffer. She is a woman without a soul and she has filled that emptiness with equal amounts of religion and oblivion. Too late she will realize that her children have grown to hate her. Too late for her and too late for them. Emma Thompson plays Lady Marchmane with a placid beauty underneath which are rivulets of ice cold water. She never says or does anything outwardly horrible. She doesn't have to. She can kill with kindness; the most insidious weapon of all.

Her son, Sebastian, bears the scars of her mothering from the first time we see him. He is a vomitous drunk at Cambridge and probably not even yet 20. It is there, away from her and the prison that was his family home, that he meets a fellow student, Charles Ryder, played by Matthew Goode. When Charles tells Sebastian that he is an aspiring artist Sebastian's response, without hesitation is, "Would you like to paint me?" It is a slightly self-centered but disarmingly innocent reaction. Charles's answer, "Why yes", is equally charming and oddly compliant. With this simple exchange we know fully who these two individuals are and of the limitations that will strain their relationship to its breaking point.

I don't think you could distill this expansive story down to two-plus hours any better than what is done here. The screenplay is well crafted and does justice to its original source material. Director Julian Jarrold floats the story wistfully through a haze of remembrance. It is sentimental with all of the best possible implications that word entails. The performances by Wishaw, Goode, and Thompson are without equal. The cinematography is grand, scintillating, and necessarily oppressive at times. The score is sweeping when we caper upon Oxford for the first time, endearing when Sebastian looks longingly at Charles, and gets out of the way completely when silence is the louder, and more necessarily personal, underlying voice. But the honest adaptation of Waugh's famous novel is perhaps the most compelling. We are guided through the experiences of the incompletely formed Charles Ryder as he is drawn into the world of Brideshead Manor, the Flyte family, and a love triangle that will engulf him. It is a love triangle where no one in the triangle is in love with anyone in the triangle and will render him emotionally destitute for life. As a person, he is so blank that he can be anything, or nothing, to anyone. And in the end that makes him nobody; the least desired outcome of all for him.

Charles's first love, unrequited by him, is Sebastian Flyte. Sebastian is the youngest of three and a self-imposed outcast. Wishaw gives us a Sebastian who is purposeful but frail. He creates a character more vivid than the one written in Waugh's novel with more childishness and petulance. For all of his flaws though, his willfulness, his alcoholism, his self absorption, he is above all, sympathetic. The damage done to him by his mothers faith is apparent from his first appearance on screen. She has religiously and spiritually eviscerated him from the moment that, as a child, she first suspected he might turn out to be gay. And it is between he and Charles that occurs what I would call the most painful screen kiss of all time. You almost need to look away. This is the crystalline moment that reveals the yawning abyss inside of one man and the awkward superficiality of the other. They will know one another, uncomfortably, forever.

Ben Wishaw as Sebastian, Matthew Goode as Charles Ryder, and Emma Thompson as Lady Marchmain, create a triangulation of love, control, and antagonism who's tension is felt throughout this film. And it is Lady Marchmain who cleaves a swath of unexamined Catholisism through the lives of all those around her. Consequences be damned. I had never heard of Ben Wishaw when I saw this film in 2008. He is a once in a lifetime actor. What he has done since then, and his "Sebastian" here, speak for themselves. Matthew Goode is equally brilliant in a role with a more confined range. He is the innocent bystander by the wreck that is Brideshead Manor and the Marchmain family. It is a more difficult character to develop who's only function is to bear witness to those around you with barely one foot in the story line. But he does it to great effect with accommodation and restraint. These are amazing performances but not the kind that get Oscar attention. They're too good.

This big screen version of Waugh's novel is truly breathtaking. This cast of Wishaw, Goode, and Thompson, I could watch over and over again. The comic relationship between Charles and his emotionally sterile father is just enough of a breather to be able to get through the turbulence at Brideshead Manor. Centuries of emotional decay lead to sad and unfulfilling lives. Saddest among them is Sebastian's. His salvation comes with his decent into alcoholism where no one can reach him. They no longer try to help and he therefore can no longer fail them. Between he, Lady Marchmain, his sister, and Charles, he may actually have made out better. It is not a happy story but rather one of reluctant acceptance; like all acceptance is.

I don't believe that comparisons between this feature length film and the 13 hour mini series from the early 80's are useful. The only question is whether or not it is true to Waugh's novel. It is.

29 out of 40 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

My First Taste of Brideshead Revisited - and Definitely Not Something I'd Go Back To

marlyly4 October 2008

Warning: Spoilers

I have never seen any other adaptation for 'Brideshed Revisted', let alone read the book, but if this film is a sign of what to expect from the other versions then I most certainly will not be revisiting Brideshead.

The only reason I did give it 4 stars actually was because for the first third or so I was actually really enjoying myself. The tale of Charles Ryder, caught between the brother and sister of the incredibly powerful, rich and catholic Flyte family ticked all the boxes I had for an enjoyable period drama - yet all of a sudden, something happen to the film, and it turned into one of the most painful experiences of my life (THE most painful will always go to 'Bablyon AD' however). The moment Charles and Julia finally get together, almost 10 years after first meeting, the film lost all it's magic. The main character all of a sudden became a personality-less, uncaring, unpleasant man who cared so little for his wife he was willing to drop her at the drop of a hat to carry out his desires for Julia from years back, not even a second thought to the woman he married. Then, when he finally does have Julia all to himself, he doesn't want her either, because she is still tied too strongly to her Catholic faith. Talk about having your cake and eating it. In fact, the only character I actually cared about AT ALL in this snooze-fest was Sebastian Flyte, who transformed himself from a character that seemed ludicrously ridiculous to begin with (Quail eggs?) to someone who the viewer really cared about. I wanted to see Sebastain happy, I wanted him to sort out his life, and make himself into someone, to break free from all the chains his 'mummy' enforced on him many, many years ago. But no, instead, you never even find out what happens to the poor guy, and for the last 3rd of the film he doesn't even feature at all - instead you're forced to sit and watch the completely insufferable Charles and Julia, and their incredibly awkward relationship (were they meant to be that awkward, or did the actors honestly have no chemistry at all!?).

I guess I've got to give this film some credit though. Visually it was stunning, the house of Brideshead was beautiful, the scenes at oxford wonderfully shot, and the atmosphere of Venice captured perfectly. Even some of the acting was rather good - I am a HUGE fan of Ben Wishaw and thought his transformation into Sebastain Flyte incredible - Wishaw has the skill to really draw the viewer onto his side, make us understand what his character is going through, invoking in us all the emotions Sebastian must be feeling. Similarly, I was very impressed by Michael Gambon's portrayal of Lord Marchmain, and of course, Emma Thompson is always spectacular in her roles, yet this definitely isn't the best I've seen her in. The one bad performance I'd like to pick out is that of Matthew Good as Charles Ryder. The guy cannot convey any emotion at all - I don't know whether Ryder is supposed to be portrayed as some emotion-less, completely unsympathetic, unpleasant man but that's all I was getting from Mr Good, which was only ever saved by the brilliant script that once in a while forced some form of emotion into his completely wooden acting. Very very bast casting, which is a shame, because it might have just ruined the film completely.

Brideshead Revisited isn't one of those films that I would want to see again, but I was glad I saw it once, purely because of the character of Sebesatian. That is one person in this mess at least that was written and acted very well, and I hope at least Wishaw gets the recognition he deserves from this performance, and doesn't instead get sunk with this ship.

9 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

7/10

Brideshead revisited

rajdoctor22 September 2008

I read that the movie is based on a 1945 novel and 11 hours 1981 UK television serial.

Charles Ryder (Matthew Goode) goes to Oxford to study painting, and befriends a rich lad Sebastian Flyte (Ben Whishaw), who takes Charles to his palatial mansion Brideshead. There Charles meets orthodox religious family of Sebastian his sister Julia (Hayley Atwell) and his mother Lady Marchmain (Emma Thompson). Events unfold where Charles and Julia start loving each other but face the passionate jealousy of Sebastian. Julia marries another man, Charles marries Celia (Anna Madeley) and Sebastian runs away to Morocco in depression. Lady Marchmain requests Charles to bring back Sebastian, but without success. Ten years pass and Charles and Julia meet again just to be together. Do they succeed in being together? Go and see the movie for yourself.

I have not read the book, nor have I seen the television serial, so I was not exposed to any comparison of sorts. From what I saw on screen except a few drastic editing cuts and jumping of events, I could not find anything out of place.

The production values of the movie are outstanding; the cinematography amazing; the eye to details perfect; the acting from the star cast top notch (especially the display of eye movements of each characters, that say much more than words).

Director Julian Jarrold (his third directorial venture) has done a commendable job in bringing to life an epic saga of sorts in nearly 120 minutes 2 hours of length. A magnamus task to achieve. I am sure he himself would be dis-satisfied with many of those important events to be left out while editing. Julian has develop this nack of handling British family sagas with wealthy opulence around.

The palatial location of Brideshead is depicted with so much panache, that it is nearly like a dream land. The location a real Chatsworth House in Derbyshire.

Regarding the cast Emma Thompson stands tall above all with her short but pivotal role. Next comes Ben Whishaw with near the edge feminine guesture. He sets the screen ablaze with his intensity. The main protagonist Matthew Goode, plays an under-written and subdued character of sorts that is an atheist, and an observer. He is the common string across the movie and floats easily with all events and character ranges with equal grace.

For those who have not read the novel or seen the TV series, this shorter version is a good curtain raiser. So go and see and enjoy the magna opus. I liked it.

(Stars 7.25 out of 10)

7 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

5/10

Does not stand up to the miniseries

CTS-16 August 2008

Warning: Spoilers

Naturally, comparisons to the classic 1981 miniseries are unavoidable. Because of the choice to use the same location (Castle Howard) for Brideshead in the film as the mini, they become even more obvious.

With just over two hours, a lot of the story gets chopped out, along with a lot of the minor characters. In fact, the film is basically about a fifteen year long love triangle: Sebastian, Charles, and Julia. All of the aspects of the Flytes as a dying class (replaced by the Rex Mottrams of the world) and the Catholic themes are practically written out.

Perhaps the single most pernicious edit was the fact that Charles' conversion to Catholicism was edited from the film. Without that conversion, the whole Catholic element becomes just an impediment to the Charles-Julia relationship. Possibly the worst effect coming from this choice is that the film kind of drifts to a close without any closure, when it returns Charles to Brideshead in 1944.

On the plus side, Emma Thompson is appropriately manipulative and domineering as Lady Marchmain. Also, the cinematography is top-notch. Curiously enough, however, there is far less star power in the film than in the miniseries. Granada TV was supposedly using the mini-series to flagship their "quality" programming right before a license renewal, and they got some names: John Gielgud, Lawrence Olivier, Jeremy Irons. The new film has Emma Thompson.

Another problem with the short time involved is that the characters are not allowed to develop the same way they were in the 1981 mini. The character who suffers most from this is Sebastian. Anthony Andrews' Sebastian was a brat who got away with being a brat because he could turn on the charm and make anybody love him, at least in the beginning. Ben Whitshaw's Sebastian is still a brat, but he is not shown as the great charmer. The funny thing is, sometimes when they say the same lines, Andrews came off as witty, Whitshaw comes off as whiny.

Along those lines, Bridey is essentially a non-character. Simon "Arthur Dent" Jones' magnificently understated performance as an upper-class twit is sorely missed.

Also, in the miniseries, it is obvious that Charles falls first for Sebastian, and then for the entire Flyte family (except Bridey). In the film, one could get the impression that Charles is more in love with the building, than either Julia or Sebastian.

This isn't to say that Brideshead Revisited was a bad film; it was a good (but not great) film. However, not unlike film versions of Pride and Prejudice, there is too much Waugh for 135 minutes. In the case of this film, dropping both the class and Catholicism aspects in large part makes a good film, but not necessarily one fully in touch with Waugh's themes.

40 out of 54 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Strangely cold

rogerdarlington5 October 2008

I haven't read Evelyn Waugh's famous 1945 novel or seen Granada's acclaimed 1981 television adaptation. so I approached the story fresh, as indeed will most viewers of this quintessentially England tale of the repressive nature of religion and class. I understand that the adaptation by Andrew Davies and Jeremy Brock has taken some liberties with the original, more subtle narrative, but this is inevitable in a work of just 133 minutes compared to the 11 episodes of the television series.

Directed by the English Julian Jarrold who made "Becoming Jane", the film has many strengths. There are wonderful locations in Oxford, Venice, Morocco and above all Castle Howard in North Yorkshire standing in - as in the television version - as the eponymous country house that is almost a character in itself. The script contains some fine lines - often very cutting and very cruel. Above all, there is some accomplished acting, both from veterans Michael Gambon and Emma Thompson as Lord and Lady Marchmain and newcomers Ben Whishaw and Hayley Attwell as their son Sebastian and daughter Julia and Matthew Goode as Charles Ryder, a young artist who falls in love in different ways with both Sebastian and Julia as well as their home and style.

Sadly, however, ultimately the whole film seems somewhat pedestrian and leaves one feeling strangely cold and disconnected.

10 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

6/10

A great manor house doesn't always translate into a great film

Red-12524 August 2008

"Brideshead Revisited" (2008) is a British film directed by Julian Jarrold, based on the novel by Evelyn Waugh. The movie is told in flashback. During WW II, an English officer--Charles Ryder, played by Mathew Goode--is stationed at Brideshead, the same immense country home at which he was a guest many years earlier.

Charles is a successful artist, who had met the wealthy Sebastian Flyte (played by Ben Whishaw), who lived at Brideshead, when they were both undergraduates.

In the flashback, Ryder is fascinated by Flyte, one of the "Bright Young Things" who represented the height of elegance and sophistication in the years between the two world wars. (Victorian ideals of gallantry and noble patriotism had pretty much been destroyed by the gas and filth of WW I. The next upper-class generation valued wit and alcohol more.)

Emma Thompson plays Lady Marchmain, who presides over Brideshead in an imperious, overbearing way. (Wit and alcohol don't appeal to her--the only thing more important to her than the proper dress for dinner is her profound Catholic faith.) Also at Brideshead is Sebastian's sister, Julia Flyte (Hayley Atwell) with whom Ryder falls in love.

The plot of the film involves the attraction of Charles to both Julia and Sebastian, the importance of art in a world of commerce, and--in this movie--the stultifying effects of intense faith.

The problem with "Brideshead Revisited" is that we don't really care about any of the characters. Charles has a genuine desire to be an artist, but that's the only positive attribute that we see. Sebastian is drunk most of the time, and cynical whether drunk of sober. Julia is immensely attractive, especially in the early scenes when her hair is styled in a the severe, Louise Brooks fashion, but she has little else to recommend her.

Emma Thompson is, as always, fascinating to watch and to hear. In my opinion, she is one of the greatest English-language actors in the world, and I can only marvel at her skill. However, the character she plays is rigid, haughty, and fanatical, so there is no way you can like or admire her.

Castle Howard is used as the setting for Brideshead. It's not really a castle--its a huge manor house set on an enormous estate. (If the film were entitled, "Great Houses of England," Castle Howard would get star billing.) You can't help but be impressed by this glorious residence, with its expensive furnishings and dozens of staff. However, a beautiful house, a star performance, and a great hair style don't add up to a wonderful movie. There was probably a wonderful movie in here somewhere, but this wasn't it.

The film is worth seeing for what it has to offer, but don't pass up a better film to see this one.

15 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

6/10

A smart , plodding and over-faithful adaptation of a prestigious novel

ma-cortes27 August 2021

Two young men meet at Oxford , impressionable Charles Ryder (Matthew Goode) , though of no family , exception for his father , neither money, becomes friends with aristo Sebastian Flyte (Ben Whishaw) when the latter throws up in his college room through an open window. . He then invites Charles to lunch after his teddy bear Aloysius "refuses to talk to him" unless he is forgiven. Charles becomes involved with Sebastian's family , Catholic peers of the realm in Protestant England. Charles is intrigued by family's curious relation to God and each other. The story is told in flashback as Charles, now an officer in the British Army, is moved with his company to an English country house that he discovers to be Brideshead , Sebastian's family home where Charles has a series of memories of his youth , his yearns and thunderous relations .Love is not ours to control Privilege. Ambition. Desire. At Brideshead Everything Comes at a Price. Every temptation has its price.

A sensitive and touching family saga, concerning enjoyable relationships , good feeling , emotion and moving scenes , including awesome interpretations with outcast roles were pretty well developed . The story is about spiritual values and how they survive in even the most unlikely of circumstance and how God works through people in the most unexpected surprising ways . This polished picture captures adequately a golden moment of youth and then the gradual disillusionment brought by the passage of time . Like all great works , Bridesehead revisited --both book written by Evelyn Waugh (1945) and movie --touches on a great many themes such as : changing characters , alcoholism , ambition , betrayal , adultery , loss of innocence , and most specifically an innocent type of homoeroticism . As the touching script becomes extremely affecting , containing an agreeable message , remembering the true meaning of our existence and the things that actually matter in the troublesome life . Dealing with main starring remembering with full of sensibility and attractiveness his young manhood , his loves , existence and a journey of faith and anguish. The film is good , but being much better the classic TV rendition Brideshead revisited (1981) by Charles Sturridge with Jeremy Irons , Anthony Andrews and Diana Quick .Here stands out the charming relationship between Matthew Goode and Ben Whishaw , in fact the movie seems more comfortable with the peculiar relationship between Charles and Sebastian than the relation between Charles and Julia . The interpretations here are truly nice beyond description , such as Matthew Goode , though really outstanding results to be Ben Whishaw and the attractive Hayley Atwell . Being accompanied by a very good suppport cast , such as : Emma Thompson , Michael Gambon, Felicity Jones, Greta Scacchi , Jonathan cake , Ed Stoppard , Patrick Malahide , Thomas Morrison, Nial Buggy , among others .

Sets are costumes are just so, and a brilliant cinematography by Jess Hall , as well as an evocative and moving musical score by Adrian Johnston. The motion picture was professionally directed by Julian Jarrold though it has some flaws . Jarrold is a good director and actor, descended from the founders of Jarrold Department Store and especially known for Kinky Boots (2005), Young Jane Austen (2007) and Brideshead Revisited (2008).

2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

7/10

A gallant, flawed effort to condense Evelyn Waugh's layered acerbic commentary into 133 minutes

Terrell-419 August 2008

Warning: Spoilers

I suspect that doing justice to the movie Brideshead Revisited without having read Evelyn Waugh's book is just about as impossible as enjoying that first taste of grouse that has been hanging to ripen longer than we'd like to know. I haven't read the book and, while I have the television series on DVD, I've never gotten around to watching it. Still, I enjoy watching movies and reading critical opinions of great literature...it's so much less demanding than reading the originals.

For my money, the movie of Brideshead Revisited is a gallant and conscientious...not failure, exactly, but at least a strangely uninvolving, beautifully mounted melodrama set amongst the tiresomely wealthy and privileged English very upper class. The failure in the movie, in my opinion, was the failure to establish just how obsessed Charles Ryder (Matthew Goode) became with the building that was Brideshead and then the life of beauty and casual, privileged style that it represented. Without that obsession, how else to explain a continuing, friendly, sexual relationship with Sebastian Flyte (Ben Whishaw), a scrawny, drunken, self- pitying twig from the Marchmain family tree, and a continuing, friendly, sexual relationship with the twig's cool sister, Julia Flyte (Hayley Atwell), a woman whom many would consider, without the prospects of a fortune attached to her, not worth the effort. Whishaw and Atwell did fine work, but physically, for me, lacked the attractiveness and charisma that might have made them interesting even if they had been a banker's assistant and a tea room waitress.

That leaves us with Lady Marchmain, with Emma Thompson, and with Lady Marchmain's fearful brand of righteous piety. Thompson gives a performance that justifies the movie. Lady Marchmain is a woman totally secure in her position and in her Catholic faith. That she is ruining the lives of her children is not something she is aware of; she is saving their souls by saving their faith for them. Her certitude and gimlet faith would give respectability to an Inquisition judge or a sweating television evangelist. Yet in this movie the contest between Lady Marchmain's rigid faith and Charles Ryder's atheism is not much more than mildly interesting. There's just not enough time, in my opinion, to dwell on this essential fact of life in Brideshead Revisited. What time there is, however, helps make sense of the movie because of Emma Thompson's wonderful performance.

I left Brideshead Revisited still clutching my love of Britain exemplified by its history, by Masterpiece Theatre, by Inspector Morse and by those wonderfully made umbrellas that cost a small fortune to buy in London. My encounter with Charles Ryder who, in my view, is essentially an opportunist, left mixed feelings. My encounter with the Marchmain clan left me impatient and a little contemptuous. Waugh is supposed to have said that he doubted if six Americans could understand Brideshead Revisited. He just may be right.

I think the movie is worth seeing because it's such a serious effort. Trying to cram Waugh's point of view into little more than two hours was probably too ambitious. However, I left the theater determined to read the book.

9 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

6/10

Women characters the only interesting ones

sissoed23 August 2008

Warning: Spoilers

The same sort of simplifying/shallowing treatment of characters (and their moral character) that marred several of the 2007/2008 Jane Austen adaptations also mars this version of Brideshead Revisited. Sebastian Flyte in the book, and the 1980s miniseries, is charming, witty, and possessed of a certain spirit and response to life, as well as needy, but here he is just needy -- without any special qualities that would motivate someone to try to fulfill his needs. This isn't due to the shorter amount of screen-time available in a movie vs. a miniseries, because we get longer-than-needed scenes of Sebastian and Charles Ryder drinking and cavorting, time that could have been spent showing Sebastian being charming and imaginative.

Charles Ryder, in the book and the miniseries, is a man who isn't just a lower-middle-class fellow suddenly introduced to the upper-class; he is a man without a real emotional soul, who knows it and seeks to replace it by soaking-it-up from Sebastian. This tension between Sebastian and Charles makes the interaction between the two young men in the book and miniseries interesting and intriguing.

Here, Sebastian is attracted to Charles Ryder because Charles has a goal in life -- to paint -- and Sebastian has no idea of what to do with his own life. Sebastian's unhappiness is said to be due to his oppressive mother, yet we never see her oppress him, except for trying to get him to stop drinking, so basically we have a gay man frustrated by convention and family trying to seduce a heterosexual man. Sebastian gets Charles to pay attention to him by bringing Charles to Brideshead, sensing that Charles' real attraction is to the building, the art, the grounds. But Charles is really smitten with the beautiful and intriguing sister, Julia Flyte. The predictable happens, Sebastian is devastated: end of a friendship that never really was a friendship at all. None of this is as interesting, insightful, or thought-provoking about human nature as are the conflicts in the book and the miniseries.

A key change in the portrayal of Charles is the kind of art he does. In the book and miniseries, his success comes in paintings of great houses and buildings -- stonework, hard structures, man-made things -- not emotional subjects. In this film he gains fame painting jungle scenes, has spent two years in the South American jungles -- the lack of civilization being the essence of passion. The script could have developed the idea that Charles chose the jungle precisely because he was seeking to infuse emotion into the gap that is his own emotionless soul, but since here he has a reasonably emotional soul, this idea can't be developed.

Julia and her mother are the most interesting characters. First, the mother's very strong and strict version of Catholicism is presented as the problem that drove away her husband (father of Sebastian and Julia) and ruined her children's' lives, yet in this portrayal it is clear that she has not hypocritically chosen this form of religion as a means of imposing power on others, but that she genuinely believes the doctrines and principles are true and vital to life. Thus she is no villain. In fact, she deeply loves her son, and is really the only character in the film who strongly loves another person; everyone else is pretty much using the people they think they love, in order to fill certain emotional needs within themselves.

Second, as becomes clear at the end, Julia has imbibed the core doctrines of her mother's faith (but not the unforgiving strictness) and, as she experiences her father's death, has found them deeply comforting and essential to the core of her being. (Might the mother's death some years earlier, which is not shown in the film, had a similar effect on Julia?)

Julia is by far the most complex and interesting character -- and is wonderfully performed here -- because she genuinely feels the tension between these old religious feelings, and the modern world. As a great beauty who is also rich, and not very closely supervised, she has every freedom to forget religion and family and indulge herself; yet it is clear that she is hardly tempted to do so. It is only when Charles Ryder sees this in her, at the very end of the film, that he gets an inkling that the human character can have a lot more depth and complexity than he has previously imagined it could have.

One scene that particularly bothered me (spoiler coming) for being implausible is aboard an ocean liner, where Charles (with his wife) has taken a salon to display his paintings (a wine- and-cheese art reception, basically), and a large group of wealthy art patrons are there, many interested in buying. Charles sees his old love, Julia, apparently fleeing the salon upon discovering that the artist is Charles, and he leaves the reception, follows Julia who leads him to her stateroom, where they make love and stay into the very late hours. I could accept that he might abandon his own reception, had only his dealer and not his wife been there -- but the wife was there. We have not been given any reason to think that the wife deserves to be abandoned, or that she might welcome being abandoned. Surely she would come looking for him, and would be very hurt by his disappearance. For Charles to abandon her, and for Julia to go along with his abandoning her, not only was very bad behavior reflecting on both of them, it was also totally implausible. The screenwriter could easily have managed it that Charles' wife was not at the reception (sick in her cabin perhaps, or not on the ship at all), or that Charles would quickly arrange a second rendezvous with Julia, then go back to the reception, and then carry-out the second clandestine meeting.

5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

8/10

Despite some emptiness is quite good

Rodrigo_Amaro20 August 2010

I went to watch "Brideshead Revisited" without read Evelyn Waugh's novel and not knowing much about what it was so my opinions will be reserved exclusively about my thoughts about the movie, no kinds of comparisons whatsoever.

The movie tells the story of Charles Ryder (Matthew Goode) an artist remembering his involvement with the owners of the Brideshead estate, the aristocratic and Catholic Flyte family. He meets the drunk and rebel Sebastian (Ben Whishaw) and his enigmatic sister Julia (Hayley Atwell). Charles got romantically involved with both brother and sister (a challenge for viewers like me who haven't read the book and didn't understand the characters motivation especially those from Charles). And in the middle of all this there's the religious mother of the Flyte family (played by Emma Thompson) and their absent father living in Venice (played by Michael Gambon).

Looking to the film as a whole I think (and everyone's entitled to have their own opinion) that it is almost empty with nothing much to say, nothing much to show and it's very difficult to understand what the director wanted, what the writers wanted. Is it a story about a period or the story of a confused man? We know a man and his life then he meets this rich and complicated family, gets involved romantically with brother and sister, he doesn't really knows what love is and keeps going with his life. So what's the point?

The ambitions and motivations of the characters are uneasy, barely visible on the text written and I assume that only those who read the book might understand some of the things presented. About the relationship between Charles and Sebastian it was a weak presentation, something that sounded important to the story but in the end drove the viewer confused. They were sexually involved or it was just fooling around? I was expecting something like "Maurice" a powerful and difficult love story between two men set in a period similar to the "Brideshead".

Speaking of "Maurice" it reminds me that "Brideshead Revisited" needed a director like James Ivory to conduct this film more brilliantly and with a better screenplay. This material on the hands of Merchant Ivory would be fantastic, perhaps even winning a Oscar. The costumes and the art direction were excellent but a little bit eclipsed by a dark cinematography.

Besides the good technical aspects of the film it is watchable because of the good cast. Matthew Goode proves here that he can be a great lead man on a film; Emma Thompson was excellent and got the best part in the film; my only complaint comes from Ben Whishaw, who was good but the delicacy delivered by his character was excessive in some moments in which I couldn't care for his character, perhaps a bad touch coming from the screenplay.

It's another good case of a good movie that could be greater than it is. Needed a better director, a better writer and definitely a better screenplay. For a film with almost three hours it's very empty in substance. More cowbell here! 8/10

P.S.: Rewatched in 2017, and I'll keep most of my thoughts on it just as the first time of seeing it. It grows a little on the viewer due to its important themes about social/cultural/economical clashes and the influence rich people have on less fortuned people of whom they somewhat depend on in difficult times. Gotta admit those themes were greatly presented.

5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

7/10

A very pretty film, Mr Davies, but you must not call it Waugh

JamesHitchcock30 October 2008

Warning: Spoilers

Until this film was made, "Brideshead Revisited" was sometimes considered the greatest English novel never to have been filmed, even though it is in many ways a prime candidate for the British "heritage cinema" treatment. The main reason, of course, is that film-makers did not want to compete with THAT television series, the one that is always talked about in hushed tones as a "landmark in the history of television" or "the greatest TV programme ever made", or something equally hyperbolic.

Well, let me confess my guilty secret. Although I love Waugh's novel, I hated the TV version (which appeared while I was at university). It may have been beautifully photographed, and may have starred any number of distinguished thespians, but I found it dull, lifeless and glacially slow-moving. Its makers obviously wanted to film not only every word Waugh wrote, including "and" and "the", but every comma and semi-colon as well. The result was that a medium-length novel (under 400 pages in my edition) was stretched into a 13-hour adaptation, at least twice the time television normally devotes to the much longer, more complex novels of writers like Dickens and George Eliot. So, unlike some of those who have reviewed it, I do not start from the assumption that this film can never compete with Granada's magnum opus.

The story is set in the twenties and thirties and concerns Charles Ryder, a young upper-middle-class Englishman who, while at Oxford, befriends the aristocratic Lord Sebastian Flyte. Charles becomes fascinated by Sebastian's family and Brideshead, their stately home, and eventually falls in love with Julia, Sebastian's sister. The two, however, are unable to marry largely because Julia's mother Lady Marchmain, a strict Catholic, objects to the atheist Charles as a son-in-law. Julia eventually marries Rex Mottram, a pushy, social-climbing Canadian businessman, but the marriage is not a happy one, and when she meets Charles again the two begin an affair.

The plot of the film differs from that of Waugh's novel in a number of ways (as one might expect from scriptwriter Andrew Davies, a man notorious for his penchant for sexing up the classics). One of the more controversial has been the issue of homosexuality. Although some have seen an implied gay subtext in the novel, Waugh never explicitly mentions homosexuality, and the more common interpretation has been that the friendship between Charles and Sebastian is purely platonic. In the television version Anthony Andrews was rather camp as Sebastian, but there was nothing effeminate about Jeremy Irons' Charles. Here, however, it is Matthew Goode's Charles who is slightly camp and Ben Wishaw's Sebastian more than slightly so. There are no explicit sex scenes between the two, but a scene where they are seen kissing one another on the lips is enough to indicate the nature of their relationship.

The idea of a bisexual love triangle between Charles, Julia and Sebastian, although not found in the novel, does in fact work quite well in the film. It explains Sebastian's breakdown and decline into alcoholism in terms of a conflict between his homosexual nature and the demands of his Catholic faith and his traditionalist family, the final straw coming when his close friend and lover abandons him for his own sister.

I was less happy with the film's attitude to religion. Waugh was a devout Catholic, and conceived the novel in theological terms. It shows the operation of God's grace on a group of characters- Charles, Sebastian, Julia and Lord Marchmain, Julia's father, who has abandoned his faith and his family and gone to live in Venice with his mistress. All of them have rebelled against God, and yet are finally brought back to Him, even against their will. This central theme, however, is not really brought out in the film, which omits Charles's own religious conversion at the end. Indeed, some (although not all) commentators have seen the film as critical of the Catholic religion, largely because of the characterisation of Lady Marchmain as cold, joyless, fanatical and destructive of her children's happiness. It is a strange state of affairs when a film based on a novel by a distinguished Catholic writer can actually be perceived as anti-Catholic.

The film is attractively photographed, but then it could hardly be otherwise, being filmed against backdrops as photogenic as Oxford, Venice and Castle Howard, the imposing Yorkshire stately home which is used here, as it was in the television version, as Brideshead. (Waugh actually based the house on Madresfield Court in Worcestershire, a less grandiose red-brick building and the home of his friends the Lygon family). The acting is mostly good, the best performances coming from Emma Thompson as the coldly aristocratic Lady Marchmain and Michael Gambon as her old reprobate of a husband. Nevertheless, I was reminded of the critic Richard Bentley's comment on Alexander Pope's translation of the "Iliad": "A very pretty poem, Mr Pope, but you must not call it Homer". "Brideshead Revisited" is a very pretty film, Mr Davies, but you must not call it Waugh. 7/10

3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

3/10

a failed attempt at capturing this book

Xeridian13 July 2009

Having seen the 1981 mini-series of the same name I have to admit that I am spoiled on what the way this movie SHOULD have turned out. The 1981 mini-series captured everything from the book, including the true purpose of the movie - as a glimpse into the complicated lives of a group of English high society citizens, their Catholic religion, and the very subtle way they communicate strong points to each other. This last point, the subtlety, is of highest importance because the character development that comes along with it makes the original mini-series. The movie version has none of this. The characters are just crude summations and dim reflections of the complex beings presented in the mini-series. The entire point of the book is completely lost by this rushed compilation of scenes. None of the characters are developed thoroughly, even the main ones. The audience never connects with the lives of these people and certainly isn't enveloped in their world. I don't really have one good thing to say about this movie... it is an insult to the book and mini-series. I highly recommend that you see the mini-series, despite it being 11+ hours long, because only with that investment of time do you really see the original intention of this story.

37 out of 52 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

10/10

Sumptuous and provocative, Brideshead is vastly superior film making indeed

inkblot112 September 2008

Charles Ryder (Matthew Goode) embarks on a college career at England's Oxford University in the 1920's. Ensconsed firmly in the middle class, Charles is befriended soon after his arrival by a fellow student, Lord Sebastian Flyte (Ben Whishaw), who is gay and very, very rich. They begin a tentative relationship and, not long after this, Sebastian takes Charles to his family's breathtaking estate in the countryside. The young lord wants his new companion to meet his loving nanny, who still resides on the premises. But, the return of Sebastian's mother, Lady Marchmain (Emma Thompson) and young, beautiful sister Julia (Hayley Atwell) cuts the visit short as the aristocrat hustles Charles away from the scene. He declares that he does not want Charles to meet his poisonous family. But, they do all meet again when, on summer break, Sebastian summons Charles to his home, Brideshead, to comfort him over a broken foot. It is there that Charles moons over the opulent mansion and also learns of Lady Marchmain's staunch Catholic views and considerable influence over her offspring's life decisions. Also, Charles finds himself romantically drawn to Julia as well as her brother. The young trio set off very soon for Venice, to visit the family's patriarch (Michael Gambon) and his Italian mistress, Kara (Greta Scacchi). Events in the city of canals, however, set in motion a catastrophic change in Charles' life and, ultimately, a different direction for all of the others, too. How will the winds blow for Charles and for the wealthy Flytes? This is a sumptuous film, replete with stellar performances, a heart-wrenching story, faultless direction and a stunning artistic interpretation. First, the cast is superlative, with Goode and Whishaw most excellent as the young students and Atwell very lovely as the beautiful sister. Thompson's performances is a wonder in self-control, as one sees the tight grip she holds on herself to prevent any actions that might ruin her Catholic reputation. Gambon, Scacchi and the other lesser players are quite nice, too. The themes of the film (based on Waugh's novel) are complicated but very thought-provoking and could fill many hours of conversation. The direction is absolutely faultless while the artistic amenities of the film, the costumes, sets, and camera work, are out of this world. You will not find a more beautiful work of cinema for the rest of the year. Therefore, if you have not visited a theater in ages, do make time for Brideshead Revisited. It is the sort of film that makes cinema lovers go ga-ga.

9 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

7/10

Reasonably good period drama

seawalker8 October 2008

It is a sad admission, but regarding the movie adaptation of "Brideshead Revisited", I am at a disadvantage. Every serious critic has either

a) Read Evelyn Waugh's 1945 novel, or b) Seen the 1981 television adaptation

and literally all of them have painted the movie adaptation as inferior to one or both.

I cannot comment. I have neither read the book nor seen the television adaptation. I hope to do both, one day. All I will say is that, although the movie adaptation was no masterpiece, I rather enjoyed "Brideshead Revisited" as the reasonably good period drama that it was.

Matthew Goode was especially... er... good as Charles Ryder. He was an outsider, an innocent and a social climber. A man fascinated and mesmerised by the damaged aristocratic Flyte family and the circles in which they moved. It was a good performance, thank God, because it had to be. He was centre stage for the entire movie.

As good as Matthew Goode was, he was possibly exceeded by Emma Thompson in her extended cameo as the Marchioness of Marchmain, the head of the Flyte family. A cold, inflexible and disappointed woman. Dedicated to her Catholicism and slowly ruining her family because of it. I thought that Emma Thompson was so good she might even have a shot at Best Supporting Actress at next years Oscars.

Maybe when I finally get around to reading the book/seeing the television series I might be disappointed at how shallow the whole thing was, but until that unhappy day dawns, I thought "Brideshead Revisited" was not bad at all.

3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

3/10

Watch the mini-series instead

TheLittleSongbird3 April 2011

The book by Evelyn Waugh is a masterpiece with great characters and memorable situations. The mini-series beforehand was sublime, brilliantly acted and exquisite in the details not to mention faithful. Now I am not a purist or anything, but this film could and should have been so much better considering how good the book is.

Granted the settings and cinematography are exquisite as are the costumes. And the music score was quite nice as well. However, that's the only praise I can give unfortunately.

The main problem was the way the story was told. This story didn't feel like the wonderful, poignant story of Brideshead Revisited, instead it felt like a story full of paper thin characters, sketchy relationships and dialogue that sometimes took you out of the period. Yes the themes of forbidden love and loss of innocence are there but they are handled in a superficial manner. The acting is lacking too, Greta Scacchi is a good actress but she isn't beautiful or compelling enough, while Ben Whishaw is very uncharismatic with Sebastian being too effete and his development is rather rushed, and Matthew Goode is okay if stiff but his character could have been much better written and developed. Then there are great actors such as Michael Gambon and Emma Thompson who are wasted with underwritten characters, and Hayley Atwell is positively radiant but just so-so in her acting. In fact Patrick Malahide is the only one who acquits himself well.

Overall, a big disappointment but not absolutely unwatchable. 3/10 Bethany Cox

15 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

User Reviews

See also

Opinion

Details

Storyline

Did You Know?

Photo & Video

Related Items

User Lists

Recently Viewed