Pass the Wine
Film Review of Julian Jarrold's Brideshead Revisited
Perhaps because my expectations had been
brought so low by popular opinion, I was fully propped up and ready to loathe
Julian Jarrold’s Brideshead Revisited. But for the first half hour, I almost
liked it. Sumptuous and green, the Oxford and Brideshead of Charles and
Sebastian’s summer lets the light hit them in such a way as to turn the stones magical and nearly transportal.* As Charles whips by his pompous cousin
Jasper, he happily ignores his relation’s “wise” words and enjoys the company
of Sebastian, who offers him a life of idyllic proportions. Little details were
carefully included in the first scenes that as a reader of the original novel were
deeply appreciated. The skull in Charles’s room at his father’s home sits in
the window, a reminder of Charles’s attempts at being a thoughtful college boy.
The immense size of Sebastian’s apology note to Charles serves to emphasize his
childlikeness. Even Julia’s severe haircut comes straight from the pages, and the
immense collection of wine and champagne that Sebastian and Charles happily
guzzle fit quite contentedly in what I imagined.
But
there is a distinct moment when the director and screenwriters seem to have
lost their grip on the story of Brideshead. When the collection of characters
moves beyond Sebastian and Charles to adding the rest of the family, the story
begins to lose its power. Don’t get me wrong. I think that in physical
attributes the actors look very much how I imagined the characters. Emma
Thompson as Lady Marchmain captures the essence of elegance with her silvered
curls and direct gaze. Bridey, I would still happily punch in the face. With
Cordelia, however, I would like to unleash some holy vengeance upon whoever
thought to destroy her character. In a story desperately in need of levity, someone saw
fit to destroy perfectly good satire and dialogue. Cordelia may be a strange little
creature, but there was no reason at all to make her a dislikeable, mousy
presence. This trio piles out of their shiny car between the fountain and
Brideshead, and something is immediately off because Sebastian very clearly
expresses his dislike and discomfort. The audience is automatically set up to
dislike them all, and they are given no opportunity to understand the other characters or care
for them—an emotional connection burned.
Now
there is the matter of Julia. I didn’t mention this earlier because I was so
enamored by the prettiness of the first half hour, but the screenwriters made
what I considered at first a forgivable mistake. Then I realized an hour or so
in that the mistake was about to push Evelyn Waugh’s carefully crafted love
story into gushy territory. The novel is a flashback bookended delicately by
the present day narrator Charles. The movie does commit to the flashback, but
instead of going straight to the college days, it skips to the middle of the
novel when Charles sees Julia again. Whatever, I thought, seeing Julia on the
ship is not terribly inaccurate. But it took watching the movie in its entirety
to see how that additional flashback is practically a red herring in terms of
the original story. By showing Julia before Sebastian, I paid less attention to
the relationship between Charles and Sebastian and was constantly trying to
pick apart the moments between Charles and Julia. It was too easy to write off
everything that happened between Charles and Sebastian as a phase. And it’s not
like Charles’s and Julia’s relationship was exempt from distortion either. When
I mentioned Hollywood's gushiness earlier, I wasn’t kidding. Some jerk actually gave
Charles and Julia the oh-so-tearful conversation of, “But when we kissed—.”
“Charles, please.” “Why? It was
wonderful.” “I know….but I have no choice.” Seriously. The book's relationships were
so much deeper than the movie could portray, and by cutting up Waugh’s dialogue
for the sake of brevity and not clarity, the conversion of Charles’s can hardly
be believable. He may dip his hands in the water, stare at the flame of the
chapel candle, and barely smile, but it makes almost no sense without those
Catholic conversations, struggles, and grace-filled love.
*I just made up
this word. If there is any question as to what it means, please ask.
Just wanted to say that this was an enjoyable read and confirmed that I will never watch this movie. Thanks for clearing that up for me!
ReplyDeleteAlso... hilarious:
"Bridey, I would still happily punch in the face. With Cordelia, however, I would like to unleash some holy vengeance upon whoever thought to destroy her character."
I definitely got a chuckle (out loud) out of those two sentences.
Based on this comment as I read it first I would want to see the movie because those two sentences are pretty funny. Then I read the post and yeah I wont be watching this movie either.
DeleteI agree very well done. Of course Hollywood turned this into a love story. But didn't they sort of have to? Would anyone have watched it if it was just as the story was in the book? I doubt it. It was appealing to our class because we are taught to read these sorts of books and look for the deeper meaning of what is going on.
ReplyDeleteas you mentioned, it was missing those Catholic conversations, struggles, and grace-filled love. To me, and to our class, yes this would have been great. We are allowed to create the story in our heads exactly as we picture it. But to be honest, there isn't a TON of action in this book. Definitely not enough action for the average person to want to go out and see a movie about it. It appealed to our class because we were interested in modern catholic writers. However for Hollywood, not sexy enough.
The honesty in there is perfect. That's obviously at the essence of critical viewing/thinking. It seems that there is a limit to the size of a book before it just can't be made into a movie, this one definitely fits the category of "nope". Gotta love English Literature!
ReplyDelete(The comment above Maestro 101 is Patrick, forgot to sign off)
ReplyDelete