Brideshead Revisited Revisited

Recently there has been a lot of discussion about a movie version of Brideshead Revisited coming out this Fall. So, I decided to get the DVDs & watch the 1981 TV series done by Granada Television. I'll admit that part of me was already wondering "Perche?" & after rewatching the series I am now wondering "PERCHE?????????"

I can only think of 1 reason why, to make money. Otherwise, it makes no sense at all to do a 100 minute remake of a book that took 11 episodes & 659 minutes the 1st time.

& it is clear from what the producer had to say to justify the major rewrite of the storyline that he clearldy doesn't get the novel at all. According to 1 report: "Producer Robert Bernstein has defended the decision, insisting most of the changes were necessary to cut the production down to a two-hour movie." OK, sometimes minor changes are needed when you cut the story down. But wait until you hear what he sees as the heart of the story: "It is important for us to get to the heart of what was, essentially, a (love) triangle."

Funny, but that isn't Evelyn Waugh's take. & if the author doesn't know what is at the heart of his own novel, who does?

& what was Waugh's take? There is an answer & it is in his own words. In 1947 there were Hollywood negotiations to make Brideshead into a movie. At the time Waugh wrote a memo to help "the Californian savages" (as he called them) know what was the right way to make a film version of the novel.

His memo starts out stating the theme plain & simple: "The theme is theological." He goes on to say: "The novel deals with what is theologically termed, "the operation of Grace", that is to say, the unmerited and unilateral act of love by which God continually calls souls to Himself." He adds: "God has a separate plan for each individual by which he or she may find salvation. The story of Brideshead Revisited seeks to show the working of several such plans in the lives of a single family." (emphasis mine) Notice, it is not about a love triangle.

I don't think he would be surprized with Hollywood's missing the point. Remember he called the savages. & in explaining why he wrote the memo about the theme & how to approach it for the script he said something that is just as true today as it was then, even more so. "(T)hey are antithetical to much of the current philosophy of Hollywood. It is for this reason that I venture to restate them briefly here. " (emphasis mine)

As I said earlier, sometimes you have to make a few small changes because you have to cut out huge parts of a novel. But what Bernstein has done is called a major rewrite. & he claims it has the approval of the family. Either the family has forgotten what Waugh wanted. Or, as I suspect knowing the track record of Hollywood, they were duped. Hollywood has a repuation for totally jettisoning the plot of a novel. A prime example is the Louis L'Amour Western The Broken Gun. It ended up a comedy, Cancel My Reservation, starring Bob Hope that had almost nothing to do with the novel.

This isn't the 1st time that an unneeded remake has been done. & I admit it won't be the last. I am still trying to figure out the recent remake of The Forsyte Saga. the 1967 version was an excellently done, perfectly cast version. OK it was in black & white, so what? But Granada Television went ahead & did a new version. It stopped after the 1st 3 books, Thank God.

Don't get me wrong. There were some things done very well, such as the costumes. It was the casting that left more than a little to be desired. The worst offense, the casting of Gina McKee as Irene Forsyte nee Heron. Irene was blond & could best be described as a classic beauty like that of Helen of Troy. Unlike Nyree Dawn Porter, Ms. McKee was neither. It wasn't believable that so many men would feel about her the way they were supposed to about Irene. I couldn't make it through the 1st series let alone even try to watch the 2nd series.

I don't know if the new version of Brideshead Revisited will be a success. It looks like Berstein is ignoring the heart of the novel. Given that fact, it deserves to fail. I am fairly certain Berstein has not read Waugh's memo. I fear Emma Thompson has made a huge mistake in starring in this 1. Given Hollywood's strong anti-Christian, & even stronger anti-Catholic, slant, I suspect it will even turn this into an attack on Christianity. At best it will leave vestiges of it in, but present it in a very poor light. At worst, make Catholicism the real villian ruining everyone's happiness in 1 way or another.

My suggestion, skip the movie when it comes out. Rent, or buy, the 1981 DVDs of the series instead. It cannot be topped. & Hollywood should never have tried.

The script remained faithful to the novel. It made a few minor changes that do no violence to the story. They are mainly cutting out unneeded scenes or making minor adjustments to fit in the demands of film v the written word.

The casting, as I said, was perfect. & at the top was Sir John Gielgud as Edward Ryder. He captured perfectly the complete lack of love & detatched view that Edward had for Charles. Jeremy Irons was excellent as Charles. He took Charles from a young outsider to a man who lost everything but found his very soul. Anthony Edwards is Sebastian Flyte. I could go on & on.

The casting was perfectly complimented by the locations, esp the use of Castle Howard as Brideshead. It was ideal fitting in very well with how Waugh saw the estate.

& I add the same for The Forsyte Saga. The 1967 series is near perfect. Like Brideshead, the script stuck close to the novels. Yes it took a few liberties, but nothing fatal. Casting was perfect, the settings flawless. Both series are well worth watching again & again.