et in arcadia ego
WELL NOW.
Ok, I know that arcadiaego is prepared to do Very Questionable Things in order to see this film and get it over with as soon as possible, so I knew I needed to post tonight. :) I want to be VERY CAREFUL about what gets posted, as feelings run high with this story for many of us and even emotional reactions can influence opinions.
Therefore,
Here's the thing. It's a BEAUTIFUL film. Just seeing Castle Howard filmed that intimately in glorious, big screen resolution is AWESOME, just as the love songs to Oxford and Venice are.
But I am.... disappointed. I truly feel like they didn't quite grasp a few of the fundamental things that make Brideshead what it is, and why it's been so treasured by so many with all its being somewhat unruly, ungainly, and BRIMMING with Catholicism. I think much about it is good and honestly do think it's an interesting COMPANION to what we have in the novel and the miniseries, but it's trying to tell a different story, and if you go in expecting to see what we know and love, you'll be peeved.
As I feel that anything I say about Michael Goode and Ben Whishaw will be spoilerific, I'll save them. I WILL say that Hayley Atwell is a GORGEOUS Julia and did very well with a VERY tricky part. Emma Thompson doesn't quite erase Claire Bloom as Lady Marchmain for me- she doesn't make quite the same impact, but then, she's given less to do in a film that was taken from 11 hours to 2 and change.
OH.
And the papers have all said that Anthony Blanche is much reduced and well, yes he is, but i was VERY surprised at how much he DOES show up. I was expecting a wave from across a crowded party, but we did see him quite strikingly on several occasions. It's reduced (as is Cordelia), but they are THERE and I think that those who do go on to seek out the book will happily recognise them and simply be pleased to see so much more of them.
Ok, here's the thing. The people behind the film failed to demonstrate that they really Got It, and they failed in two specific instances that I am happy to cite now.
1. 'If it could only be like this always- always summer, always alone, the fruit always ripe and Aloysius always in a good temper.
THAT IS WHAT THEY GAVE US.
When you cut out Aloysius from that line (even if you leave him, quite charmingly, in the film as a whole) you are SHOWING ME flat out that you don't understand Sebastian. Sebastian is meant to be the most intoxicating thing Charles has EVER SEEN. He is beautiful and witty and charming and intelligent and a lover of beautiful things. Without Aloysius in that quote, Sebastian loses that touch of whimsy, that sparkle that draws you in. He is the man you forgive for vomiting in your window because he SHOWERS you in flowers the next day in the most extravagant way possible. Ben Whishaw and the material he was given never quite did it for me. Admittedly, a lot of the fascinating musing that we get from S in the book is just gone, but we just don't spend enough time being dazzled to believe that Charles is enthralled. And we MUST be enthralled! The fall of Sebastian is like the end of the world, and we MUST care because we must be in love with him ourselves. Here, we pity him, and my GOD, how he would hate our pity.
Because, yes. It's true- they do try to paint Sebastian as 'gay' (UGHHHHHHHHHHH I HATE USING ANACHRONISTIC TERMINOLOGY FOR A SOCIETY THAT DOESN'T FIT INTO OUR NICE AND NEAT LABELS but that's another story). In the middle of the scene where Charles and S are drinking all the wine from the cellars and using the most absurd descriptives they can invent, S does lean over and kiss Charles. And yes, Charles is unresponsive and it's awkward afterward. ALTHOUGH, NOTE: this awkwardness lasts for FIVE SECONDS, because the next shot? Is NAKED BATHING IN THE FOUNTAIN. Glorious homoeroticism LIVES ON! Everything is NOT ruined between them!
Although, the problem is, they are interrupted by Lady M coming home, so it's all doomed from them on ANYWAY.
The decisive step in stupidity on behalf of the PTB comes when the alcoholic Sebastian crashes a party at the house and leans in toward Charles, who jumps back and says something along the lines of 'Don't!'. Because OBVIOUSLY, we need to FIRMLY AND UNEQUIVOCATEDLY CONFIRM Charles' heterosexuality ASAP, before the audience gets any ideas. Because they DO make it all about a love triangle from the very, very start. I think they open with a scene at Brideshead during the war, and then flash back to Charles on the ship, seeing Julia and following her down a million corridors until she finally turns to him and greets him by name with a smile. THEN we go to Oxford.
So the big mistake here is just not realising that, YES, most of us DO see Julia as second best. My mind compares her to Amy ending up with Laurie in Little Women, to be honest. We ALL wanted Laurie and Jo, but we don't get it and Amy gets a life where she will ALWAYS have to wonder if Laurie loves her for her family. FAMILIAR MUCH? *sigh* I mean, what they do, framing the narrative this way, sending Julia to Venice- it means that when Julia and Charles DO finally hook up, it's inevitable in a way that I'd never felt from the book. Here, it seems more honest between them, whereas in the book, Julia ALWAYS felt like a Sebastian substitute that would bring Charles back to Brideshead and all it meant. So in a way, that's good- they changed things to make a solid story that they wanted to tell. It's just... not Brideshead.
Let me say, though. For all that I just condemned the film for trying to de-gay Charles and for all that I DO condemn it now for making Sebastian into a pitiable gay sacrifice to the altar of the Great Charles and Julia Romance, I do think that the door is a LITTLE less closed than the filmmakers intended. I mean, NAKED BATHING after the kiss? What are we SUPPOSED to draw from that? The film doesn't show us enough of the pre-Julia Charles and Sebastian, but it doesn't give Charles a Big Gay Freakout moment right off the bat. In fact, Charles sees Anthony come into that very first luncheon in Sebastian's rooms at Oxford and greets S with a kiss. Everyone sees it. Everyone acknowledges it with a tiny moment of stillness. And EVERYONE, Charles included, carries on. In fact, it could even be that this glimpse of Sebastian is what draws Charles to his side as much as the obvious desire he has to take part in the fabulous world of the upper crust. IT ALL REMAINS PLAUSIBLE. I think the PTB failed the story by cutting AWAY from this love too early, by making it too simply into a love triangle that Julia OF COURSE will win, but it's not entirely shat upon, either.
SO.
ONTO POINT TWO.
2 Ok, we all know the ending. Charles, back at Brideshead, having witness the MONUMENTAL dying moments of Lord Marchmain, takes a moment to visit the chapel and basically SHOWS US THAT HE IS NOW CATHOLIC, TOO. So in the film, Charles takes a moment to visit the chapel. He stops at the holy water font and dips his hand in... then continues to walk forward. Hmm, we think. Then, he approaches a statue of the Virgin and Child. HMMM, we think. WHERE IS THE PRAYING? He eyes a candle at the foot of the statue, very nearly burned down the stump. WHERE IS THE PRAYING, RYDER??? Your hands are DRIPPING HOLY WATER, so why have you not crossed yourself???? Charles eyes the candle and LIFTS HIS FINGERS UP TO IT, READY TO SNUFF IT OUT. WTF, RYDER. THIS IS NOT HOW IT GOES. Charles smiles to himself, and lets his hand fall. He turns, and leaves the chapel, leaves the house. FADE TO WHITE.
....
.....
SERIOUSLY. WTF??????
As I was coming out of the theatre, I heard one of the other members of the audience ask, So, what was really up with all of the Catholicism? And honestly, I completely understood her confusion. Brideshead is a DAMN tricky book because of Waugh's complete and unshakable belief that Catholicism honestly was the one and only answer. He isn't afraid to show us how it can fuck you up in a million different ways, but it's completely inescapable. Ryder's entire journey, for Waugh, was towards those final moments in the chapel, saying 'ancient words newly learned.' Lose that, and you lose half the point of the book. I KNOW that it's INCREDIBLY difficult to offer that sort of an ending to a film audience today, but I rather imagine it was when Waugh WROTE THE DAMN THING AS WELL.
Sure, they show in the film that Ryder is not ready to write off the faith of others, that he acknowledges the power that it has in peoples' lives, but that is NOT THE SAME THING. I just... Waugh was trying to tell a certain story that was INCREDIBLY tied to his own conversion to Catholicism, and to rewrite what was, for Waugh, THE BLOODY POINT OF THE NOVEL just smacks of really, REALLY missing the mark.
So all that was disappointing. But I also think that you should judge for yourself, because these are opinions very much tied to my own experience with the book- yours will be different.
Annnnnd now I want to reread the book AND roll around in eleven hours of Brideshead GLORY. :)
Ok, I know that arcadiaego is prepared to do Very Questionable Things in order to see this film and get it over with as soon as possible, so I knew I needed to post tonight. :) I want to be VERY CAREFUL about what gets posted, as feelings run high with this story for many of us and even emotional reactions can influence opinions.
Therefore,
Here's the thing. It's a BEAUTIFUL film. Just seeing Castle Howard filmed that intimately in glorious, big screen resolution is AWESOME, just as the love songs to Oxford and Venice are.
But I am.... disappointed. I truly feel like they didn't quite grasp a few of the fundamental things that make Brideshead what it is, and why it's been so treasured by so many with all its being somewhat unruly, ungainly, and BRIMMING with Catholicism. I think much about it is good and honestly do think it's an interesting COMPANION to what we have in the novel and the miniseries, but it's trying to tell a different story, and if you go in expecting to see what we know and love, you'll be peeved.
As I feel that anything I say about Michael Goode and Ben Whishaw will be spoilerific, I'll save them. I WILL say that Hayley Atwell is a GORGEOUS Julia and did very well with a VERY tricky part. Emma Thompson doesn't quite erase Claire Bloom as Lady Marchmain for me- she doesn't make quite the same impact, but then, she's given less to do in a film that was taken from 11 hours to 2 and change.
OH.
And the papers have all said that Anthony Blanche is much reduced and well, yes he is, but i was VERY surprised at how much he DOES show up. I was expecting a wave from across a crowded party, but we did see him quite strikingly on several occasions. It's reduced (as is Cordelia), but they are THERE and I think that those who do go on to seek out the book will happily recognise them and simply be pleased to see so much more of them.
Ok, here's the thing. The people behind the film failed to demonstrate that they really Got It, and they failed in two specific instances that I am happy to cite now.
1. 'If it could only be like this always- always summer, always alone, the fruit always ripe and Aloysius always in a good temper.
THAT IS WHAT THEY GAVE US.
When you cut out Aloysius from that line (even if you leave him, quite charmingly, in the film as a whole) you are SHOWING ME flat out that you don't understand Sebastian. Sebastian is meant to be the most intoxicating thing Charles has EVER SEEN. He is beautiful and witty and charming and intelligent and a lover of beautiful things. Without Aloysius in that quote, Sebastian loses that touch of whimsy, that sparkle that draws you in. He is the man you forgive for vomiting in your window because he SHOWERS you in flowers the next day in the most extravagant way possible. Ben Whishaw and the material he was given never quite did it for me. Admittedly, a lot of the fascinating musing that we get from S in the book is just gone, but we just don't spend enough time being dazzled to believe that Charles is enthralled. And we MUST be enthralled! The fall of Sebastian is like the end of the world, and we MUST care because we must be in love with him ourselves. Here, we pity him, and my GOD, how he would hate our pity.
Because, yes. It's true- they do try to paint Sebastian as 'gay' (UGHHHHHHHHHHH I HATE USING ANACHRONISTIC TERMINOLOGY FOR A SOCIETY THAT DOESN'T FIT INTO OUR NICE AND NEAT LABELS but that's another story). In the middle of the scene where Charles and S are drinking all the wine from the cellars and using the most absurd descriptives they can invent, S does lean over and kiss Charles. And yes, Charles is unresponsive and it's awkward afterward. ALTHOUGH, NOTE: this awkwardness lasts for FIVE SECONDS, because the next shot? Is NAKED BATHING IN THE FOUNTAIN. Glorious homoeroticism LIVES ON! Everything is NOT ruined between them!
Although, the problem is, they are interrupted by Lady M coming home, so it's all doomed from them on ANYWAY.
The decisive step in stupidity on behalf of the PTB comes when the alcoholic Sebastian crashes a party at the house and leans in toward Charles, who jumps back and says something along the lines of 'Don't!'. Because OBVIOUSLY, we need to FIRMLY AND UNEQUIVOCATEDLY CONFIRM Charles' heterosexuality ASAP, before the audience gets any ideas. Because they DO make it all about a love triangle from the very, very start. I think they open with a scene at Brideshead during the war, and then flash back to Charles on the ship, seeing Julia and following her down a million corridors until she finally turns to him and greets him by name with a smile. THEN we go to Oxford.
So the big mistake here is just not realising that, YES, most of us DO see Julia as second best. My mind compares her to Amy ending up with Laurie in Little Women, to be honest. We ALL wanted Laurie and Jo, but we don't get it and Amy gets a life where she will ALWAYS have to wonder if Laurie loves her for her family. FAMILIAR MUCH? *sigh* I mean, what they do, framing the narrative this way, sending Julia to Venice- it means that when Julia and Charles DO finally hook up, it's inevitable in a way that I'd never felt from the book. Here, it seems more honest between them, whereas in the book, Julia ALWAYS felt like a Sebastian substitute that would bring Charles back to Brideshead and all it meant. So in a way, that's good- they changed things to make a solid story that they wanted to tell. It's just... not Brideshead.
Let me say, though. For all that I just condemned the film for trying to de-gay Charles and for all that I DO condemn it now for making Sebastian into a pitiable gay sacrifice to the altar of the Great Charles and Julia Romance, I do think that the door is a LITTLE less closed than the filmmakers intended. I mean, NAKED BATHING after the kiss? What are we SUPPOSED to draw from that? The film doesn't show us enough of the pre-Julia Charles and Sebastian, but it doesn't give Charles a Big Gay Freakout moment right off the bat. In fact, Charles sees Anthony come into that very first luncheon in Sebastian's rooms at Oxford and greets S with a kiss. Everyone sees it. Everyone acknowledges it with a tiny moment of stillness. And EVERYONE, Charles included, carries on. In fact, it could even be that this glimpse of Sebastian is what draws Charles to his side as much as the obvious desire he has to take part in the fabulous world of the upper crust. IT ALL REMAINS PLAUSIBLE. I think the PTB failed the story by cutting AWAY from this love too early, by making it too simply into a love triangle that Julia OF COURSE will win, but it's not entirely shat upon, either.
SO.
ONTO POINT TWO.
2 Ok, we all know the ending. Charles, back at Brideshead, having witness the MONUMENTAL dying moments of Lord Marchmain, takes a moment to visit the chapel and basically SHOWS US THAT HE IS NOW CATHOLIC, TOO. So in the film, Charles takes a moment to visit the chapel. He stops at the holy water font and dips his hand in... then continues to walk forward. Hmm, we think. Then, he approaches a statue of the Virgin and Child. HMMM, we think. WHERE IS THE PRAYING? He eyes a candle at the foot of the statue, very nearly burned down the stump. WHERE IS THE PRAYING, RYDER??? Your hands are DRIPPING HOLY WATER, so why have you not crossed yourself???? Charles eyes the candle and LIFTS HIS FINGERS UP TO IT, READY TO SNUFF IT OUT. WTF, RYDER. THIS IS NOT HOW IT GOES. Charles smiles to himself, and lets his hand fall. He turns, and leaves the chapel, leaves the house. FADE TO WHITE.
....
.....
SERIOUSLY. WTF??????
As I was coming out of the theatre, I heard one of the other members of the audience ask, So, what was really up with all of the Catholicism? And honestly, I completely understood her confusion. Brideshead is a DAMN tricky book because of Waugh's complete and unshakable belief that Catholicism honestly was the one and only answer. He isn't afraid to show us how it can fuck you up in a million different ways, but it's completely inescapable. Ryder's entire journey, for Waugh, was towards those final moments in the chapel, saying 'ancient words newly learned.' Lose that, and you lose half the point of the book. I KNOW that it's INCREDIBLY difficult to offer that sort of an ending to a film audience today, but I rather imagine it was when Waugh WROTE THE DAMN THING AS WELL.
Sure, they show in the film that Ryder is not ready to write off the faith of others, that he acknowledges the power that it has in peoples' lives, but that is NOT THE SAME THING. I just... Waugh was trying to tell a certain story that was INCREDIBLY tied to his own conversion to Catholicism, and to rewrite what was, for Waugh, THE BLOODY POINT OF THE NOVEL just smacks of really, REALLY missing the mark.
So all that was disappointing. But I also think that you should judge for yourself, because these are opinions very much tied to my own experience with the book- yours will be different.
Annnnnd now I want to reread the book AND roll around in eleven hours of Brideshead GLORY. :)