Visiting a Revisited Brideshead Revisited

Brideshead Revisited, the new version, is a beautiful movie. It's very evocative of the time period in England "between the wars." The costumes are remarkable, some of the most glorious clothing on screen these days; I expect we might have another revival of that style of dress thanks to this film. The settings are also gorgeous. The filmmakers make the most of the scenery at Castle Howard, which stands in for the Brideshead of the title, and of the grounds at Oxford, where our lead character, Charles Ryder, meets the first of several members of the Flyte family. This seems to be one of those films destined to win the Oscars for design, or at least be nominated for them.

The story is familiar to anyone who's read the Evelyn Waugh novel (I have, a couple of times) and/or who's seen the 1981 miniseries starring a very young Jeremy Irons and Anthony Andrews (I did, back in Mississippi originally, and I now own the DVD). Ryder becomes enamored of Sebastian Flyte and eventually meets other members of his repressive and repressed family, a very Catholic bunch altogether, filled with all of the guilt that their faith prescribes for such things as homosexuality and adultery. It's quite clear to any reader of the book or any viewer of the miniseries that Charles and Sebastian are in love, particularly on the part of Sebastian, and this new version makes it even clearer in case you are unable to discern for yourself why Sebastian is always hanging out with what one character calls "sodomites" in his rooms at Oxford.

The romance involving Charles and Sebastian is handled rather delicately here, as is the relationship between Charles and Sebastian's sister Julia. Of course, Charles and Sebastian get one onscreen kiss, while Charles and Julia are depicted having sex onscreen. (Yes, I realize that Waugh's book is only suggestive about all of this, but if you're going to go beyond mere suggestion, you should do so equally.) I think most viewers still would want Charles to end up with Sebastian rather than Julia, only because it seems that the deeper emotional resonance is with the relationship between the two men. Some viewers might, however, think that the great love of Charles' life is the home itself, so often does he mention its beauty in this new version.

Emma Thompson and Michael Gambon, as Lady and Lord Marchmain, respectively, have what really amounts to cameo roles here. Thompson appears three times, if I recall correctly, and each time is so fleeting. Gambon is only on screen while the three lovers are in Venice, a sequence in the film that lasts only minutes. Both do what they can with the brief time they have, but I feel their enormous talents are somewhat wasted here in such small parts. It's a testament to their skills as actors that I wanted to see them more.

The lead performers are all talented as well. Matthew Goode is a handsome Charles Ryder, but he does look so much like Jeremy Irons did in the TV version that it's a bit eerie. Hayley Atwell is a beautiful Julia. And the standout, for me, is Ben Whishaw as Sebastian; you can sense just how conflicted his character is, what with his obvious feelings for Charles and his mother's stern Catholic fervor competing for his soul. He's perhaps a bit too petulant for most people's tastes, but I think that is in keeping with the character description that Waugh provided.

After watching this film, I have to admit that I was entertained, certainly. I just don't quite see the point in making another film version of this novel. What was wrong with the miniseries? It was almost the perfect adaptation of what Waugh tried to accomplish. And you can't go wrong with any of the performances from the 1981 edition either. You have Laurence Olivier as Lord Marchmain, after all. Did the filmmakers think that we just needed a shorter, an abridged version of the same story, just the outline of events rather than the fully realized details? Did they think that the earlier version was just too long and spectacular looking? They even used the same home to represent Brideshead as the earlier version did. I suppose I couldn't fault them if we'd never seen anyone else tackle this book or if someone else had attempted it and failed miserably. But who was looking around and felt that we didn't already have the definitive take on this classic novel? It isn't as if we can't just rewatch the miniseries on DVD and make the inevitable comparisons. Why subject yourself to that? Find something new or make something original instead. There are other stories to tell.