Some Seem Too Ready To Dub This "Brideshead Revisited Revisited" Don't They?
Added 5/11/2009
When a novel as popular as this has been these fifty years and more is committed to film not once but twice in the space of a generation, it is often the case that comparisons to the first filmed version will weigh the second project down to the point it loses any shred of singular identity and drowns in the first project's wake. I hear so many people making comparisons between this "edition" of Brideshead Revisited and the early-eighties Masterpiece Theater/Jeremy Irons/Anthony Andrews/John Mortimer outing that I pity the cast and makers of this earnest twenty-first century take on Evelyn Waugh's circumspect morality play. Having never read the source novel or viewed any visit to Brideshead but this one, I am at best a neutral observer, at worst an unenlightened naïf who witnesses the dawn and thinks she has seen the day itself, but that being as it may, I found this tale both too understated and too restrained to merit the label "classic." The performances were extraordinarily good here, no exceptions, and the settings were lovely as befit the high emotions the story attempts to convey, but whether the fault lay in too ambitious a condensation of source material or simply a failure to translate to the sensibilities of this century, Julian Jarrold's film fails to captivate. It's lovely, it's unique, it aims very high indeed, but in the end the 2008 Brideshead Revisited seems tame and polite when in my feeling it should have moved a viewer with its tragic sense of what lay behind all that British restraint.
0 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
If you have some vague but pleasant memories of reading Brideshead Revisited (or seeing the TV series), the impression you were left with was that of a lovely, charming, but somewhat clueless period piece, and you would like a rerun, this is your movie. The screenplay lost several essential parts of the novel and what we are offered is yet again charming, lovely etc but noticeably clueless. It is not an excuse for going against the spirit of the novel even though it is fairly obvious that a novel of such complexity (in case you missed it - yes, it is a novel of great complexity!) cannot be faithfully presented during two hours. Somehow the limited time did not stop the authors from introducing all the characters of the novel even if most them do not get a chance to utter two full sentences in the movie.
BR is a story of spiritual maturation of an artist set against the decline of the English aristocracy. Charles Ryder of the movie is an artist basically because we are told so quite repeatedly. Yes, he draws once, hangs a painting on the wall, and makes an appearance at an art show. Most of us have done as much in life and we don't think of ourselves as artists.
Part of the maturation is fascination with the beautiful Lord Sebastian Flyte (I find Ben Whishaw somewhat lacking in masculine beauty and a bathing scene stolen from Talented Mr Ripley did not help a bit) which Waugh sees as juvenile and aesthetic (and vaguely homoerotic although not necessarily sexual) and which develops after some years into a heterosexual relation with Sebastian's sister Julia.
This vision of emotional development is beyond the grasp of modern screenplay writers (the times are different, it is true, now unless you are gay you are supposed to start having crushes on girls at twelve at the latest insetad of waiting into your twenties) so the two siblings fight for the attention of Mr Ryder instead in the lovely setting of Venice. When Julia wins the contest, Sebastian succumbs to alcoholism. This in turn elegantly spares the authors from any attempts of explaining his lot in any other way - he drinks himself to death because he was rejected by his lover. Neat, simple, and completely against the spirit of the novel.
Probably, the spirit of the novel was too closely related to the Holy Spirit that the authors needed to exorcise at least some of it. They failed to note, however, that it was precisely the backbone that kept this (I agree) somewhat clueless though doubtlessly charming novel together. The results makes a nice viewing but if it leaves you asking endless questions "Why? Why? Why?" you have to resort to the original book or the twenty-five years old TV series.
1 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
Discontinued?
Added 2/5/2009
I,too, would like to get the Blue Ray version of Brideshead Revisited. When was this version discontinued and why can't I purchase this version, new or used? Can anyone help solve this mystery?
0 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
Amazon: how do you discontinue something that was never released? When was a Blu-Ray version of this film available?
0 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
Et in Arcadia ergo....
Added 10/6/2009
...but only if you watch the TV version. This is a pathetic remake. The acting is lousy, the script a 'Reader's Digest' version of the epic novel, and the cinematography abominable. The sets are nice...except they, too are borrowed from the Granada version. It's the same house, same everything. Waugh's book deserves a long, detailed version, and 1981 masterpiece was as nearly perfect as one can possibly expect. So the question is begged, as other reviewers have posed: Why? What was the point of remaking a classic? I don't get it. Somethings are best just left alone. We are not amused.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Stay clear! An absolutely deplorable adaptation
Added 9/11/2009
Whatever you do, don't watch this terrible film! If I could rate this movie a negative fifty I would not hesitate to do so. If you have not read Brideshead Revisited, this film version will poison your mind and ruin your chance to enjoy an incredibly well-written work of literature. Thank god I read the book first!
Wanting to share the story with a friend, I was horrified by the extreme license taken by the director. There are so many changes to the plot that the story was almost unrecognizable. Particularly egregious is the overlapping of the two love affairs, making it appear that Sebastian's drinking and decline are a direct result of being spurned by Charles in favor of his sister. This is only one of many awful changes--note to lit students--you are sure to get an "F" if you watch this in lieu of reading the text!
Even to call this film an adaptation would be stretching the truth. The key theme of longing for past luxuries in a world changed by war is completely missing. The tone of the film is also off--In the book all of the characters have redeeming qualities--even Boy Mulcaster is an amusing cad. In contrast, I had little sympathy for any of the characters portrayed in the film.
Many reviewers have mentioned how much better the 11 hour mini-series with Jeremy Irons is. I would sure hope so! This film was such torture that it will be a while before I am ready to give the mini-series a look.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Brideshead Absentis
Added 8/22/2009
Having read Waugh's classic on the "tugs" of faith and watched the original mini-series more times then I remember over almost thirty years now, I seriously doubted this story could be condensed into two hours. A last, I was not disappointed! It wasn't the same story. The movie twists and turns in directions never written by Waugh. (Sadly as Andrew Davies, one of the films writers, has done excellent work over the years.) This, however, is not another version of Brideshead Revisted but a new creation; a creation built more on pretty scenery and anti-climatic moments lost to all depth of the characters.
The underlying issues of faith and religious up-bringing are totally lost, spun into a broad statement about Catholicism rather then its personal meaning to individual lives. The central message of the book has been stripped to a minor secondary theme. The faith journey is lost.
Charles' relationship with Sebastian is dumbed down to mere sexual experimentation rather then human bond. This Charles would never carry his feelings for Sebastian throughout his life. Without the former, you cannot truly grasp the latter relationship with Julia. The relationships are separate not concurrent, they are paths on his journey to faith. Sadly the desire and depth of Charles and Julia's relationship, so strongly captured in the mini-series "Orphans of the Storm" episode, is totally lost here. In this, their reunion seems more like a 3AM quickie.
Take the $20 you planned on spending for this, add another $20 and buy the mini-series instead. The larger investment returns so much more....so much more!
1 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
Not the Brideshead I Expected !!
Added 7/23/2009
I have to agree with Martin from the Netherlands, this is not a Brideshead I want to re-visit. I would never have finished watching it if not for the locations/scenes, costumes. I decided on the two stars for those things alone. I greatly admire Emma Thompson, but she was not given great writing here. In fact, I think it was the writing for all the characters that simply wasn't there....They all come off as boring and uninteresting. Spend your money on something else. If the jacket photo appeals to you, try buying Gosford Park.
2 out of 2 people found this helpful.
|
