« Why Hillary Can't Win | Main | Critiquing Zakaria » Brideshead Revisited07 May 2008 02:06 pm Hmmm - this doesn't seem quite like the book I remember: That said, as far as Waugh's more serious novels go, my loyalties lie with the Sword of Honour trilogy, so the prospect of seeing a tarted-up Brideshead doesn't really faze me. Indeed, a somewhat trashy adaptation might be exactly the right approach to a book that Waugh himself allowed to be overripe, overnostalgic and overwritten. Comments (12)
Ok, that's different. They seem to have collapsed the timeline of the book, and made all of the subtext into, well, text. Besides, with no Jeremy Irons, it's a waste of time anway. 
It's odd that all of the actors appear to be imitating their counterparts in the BBC adaptation rather than the book's characters. Like how everyone does Dana Carvey doing George Bush or Darrell Hammond doing Bubba. Also, while certain passages are "overripe, overnostalgic and overwritten," they also perfectly capture how undergraduates imagine themselves.
The best Waugh adaptation is Stephen Fry's "Bright Young Things" version of "Vile Bodies."
I love Brideshead, so there Ross. I think over nostalgic was the point, and that fact that it was overwritten made it better. Plus, the BBC miniseries staring Jeremy Irons was pretty darn good.
This trailer makes one think the entire piece is about "libido dominandi" when Brideshead Revisited is much richer and more complex than that by far. The trailer also takes several immediately obvious and wholly unjustified liberties with Waugh's text. I don't see why anyone thought they could improve on the 1981 British version, which is magnificent.
from the trailer, it looks like the storyline from "The Graduate".
The 11 hour 1981 version is very sloooow. But why not just edit it down to 2.5 hours and release that? Are they going to find somebody better than John Gielgud to play Charles' passive-aggressive eccentric dad?
Oh, how horrid. They also appear tritely to have "re-used" Castle Howard. The overwritten parts are what make the novel so very attractive. Otherwise, it might be no more than ... a soap opera about the fallen Catholic?
Edit the BBC version to 2.5 hours?!?! Words fail me. Judging by the trailer this new film will be simply contemptible. There is a very lively discussion of both the book and the BBC film going on at my blog, occasioned by my watching the film (series, whatever) for the first time since it came out.
uasqpvmfh gzcpkmse rgqkfitjd emal uhwfpdjyk hfqt ymlazfjtb
A couple of points: First, this isn't a British period movie, it's a Hollywood attempt at a British period movie. So, as in 95% of movies, what you see on the screen is what the money-men have decided will maximize the return on their investment. In this case, trashy melodrama, apparently. I do hope they have got it wrong and lose their pants.
|
Today's Headlines From The Atlantic |
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Wow, it looks worse than I could have imagined... and these extravagant British period films already tend to be pretty stupid in my estimation. Why do filmmakers have to turn good literature into trashy melodramas? Why not just go for the gold and adapt a Harlequin romance novel for the screen?
Posted by Seth | May 7, 2008 4:24 PM