More Brideshead

Alex Massie wonders if by referring to Brideshead Revisited as one of Waugh's "more serious novels," I meant to imply that "Scoop isn't a serious commentary on journalism?" Of course the answer is no: Had I been more careful in my choice of words, I would have described Brideshead as one of Waugh's less hilarious novels, which I think is a more apt way of distinguishing between elegies and his (extremely serious) comedies.

I would take issue, though, with Massie's willingness to forgive the new adaptation's screenwriters their apparent intention to turn Brideshead into a story about how Catholicism can ruin your life - because, he writes, "there's little necessity for an adaptation to be faithful to the original author's intent." Well ... up to a point, Lord Copper. Of course it's possible to take considerable liberties with an adaptation and produce something that's as good or better than the original - or at least something that's more trashy and fun. But especially where classic (and somewhat politically-incorrect) novels are concerned, the more violence an adaptation does to the central themes of the source material, the more likely you are to end up with something like this.

(Though admittedly, I'm someone who absolutely loathes Julie Andrews' cheery take on Mary Poppins because it's a betrayal of everything that makes the novels great, so maybe I tend toward a certain extremism on this point.)

Comments

Maybe this version of Mary Poppins is more your speed?

Posted by JB | May 8, 2008 3:46 PM

where classic (and somewhat politically-correct) novels are concerned...

Don't you mean "politically-incorrect novels," Ross? At least, if you're using the term the way it seems to me most conservatives came to use it in the 1990s, then the feminist adaptation of The Scarlet Letter and the anti-Catholic adaptation of Brideshead Revisted would be "politically correct" versions.

Posted by Russell Arben Fox | May 8, 2008 3:48 PM

As a Catholic, it makes me a little mad that they would turn an inherently religious story into anti-Catholic diatribe; as a filmgoer it makes me even more mad that they would bother to make such an obviously frightful adaptation of a book for the big screen.

Posted by Seth | May 8, 2008 5:38 PM

Oh, and I'm sorely disappointed that Stephen Sondheim's musical version of Mary Poppins has never seen the light of day. I'm sure it shows up the Disney version by leaps and bounds...

Posted by Seth | May 8, 2008 5:41 PM

Chiefly, from the trailer (below) it seems that this remake has all the drama & artistic merit of Cruel Intentions VS Dangerous Liaisons.

Its exactly how one would expect it to be – with (no doubt) a complete blaspheme of the way the original novel (and BBC adaptation) portrayed Catholic Theology as giving the characters sacrifices nobility rather than driving neuroses.

The only (inadequate ) excuse is that a two plus hour movie simply cant do justice the way a multi-hour miniseries did.

Posted by Fitz | May 8, 2008 5:49 PM

But especially where classic (and somewhat politically-incorrect) novels are concerned, the more violence an adaptation does to the central themes of the source material, the more likely you are to end up with something like this.

Let's not forget this gem either ... Unless you deliberately scrubbed the memory of it out of your brain with battery acid, in which case I apologize for bringing it back to your attention.

Posted by Will | May 8, 2008 5:50 PM

I really don't have a problem with people making movies based on books going in entirely different directions. Whether I agree with it or like it or not. The point is the book is the book and the movie is a story the writer and/or director was inspired to tell by the book. If you don't like or agree with the movie it hasn't changed the book in any way.

I remember once seeing James Ellroy make the point (can't remember if it was his thought or he was quoting another writer) Someone asked "how do you feel about how that director destroyed your book" his response was "they didn't destroy it, it is right there on the shelf, there are tons of copies in print all over the world, the book is the book and the movie is the movie" or something to that affect.

Posted by Eric k | May 8, 2008 6:29 PM

I know it's a cliche that Julie Andrews's "Mary Poppins" is sweet as a spoonful of sugar, but when I last watched it a decade ago, it didn't seem like that at all. It seemed more like a rather fierce battle between the male chauvinist father and the feminist (probably lesbian) governess who in the end turns his own children against him and crushes him completely.

Posted by Steve Sailer | May 8, 2008 6:55 PM

It's been a long time since I saw Mary Poppins in full (or read the books, and I have to admit that as a kid I was oblivious to the differences in tone between them), but just because Mary Poppins seems uninterested in a romantic relationship with Bert, does that necessarily make her lesbian? Isn't it more likely that like many characters in children's or genre literature (e.g., Sir Galahad; Sherlock Holmes; Rat, Mole, Toad, and Badger; Jeeves and Wooster; Hercule Poirot and Miss Marple; Bilbo and Frodo Baggins; Doctor Who) she is basically asexual, or if that is too strong a term, simply someone for whom romance is not a priority?

That type of confirmed bachelor/confirmed spinster (which was not always a euphemism for gay as is sometimes falsely asserted) was once fairly common in real life as well. Perhaps you mean that Poppins actually displays a romantic or sexual interest in one of the other female characters, but I am highly skeptical of any such claim.

P.S. If I recall correctly, the movie is down on both male chauvinism and feminism. The mother's devotion to the suffragist cause is portrayed as being at least as silly as the father's opposition to it. "Sister Suffragette" and "The Live I Lead" are both meant as pompous songs, as I interpret them.

Posted by James Kabala | May 8, 2008 10:44 PM

"Of course the answer is no?" Don't you mean the the answer is "up to a point?"

Posted by Joe Marier | May 9, 2008 12:18 PM

Isn't blaming Julie Andrews for her "cheery take" on Mary Poppins sort of like blaming Sterling Holloway for ruining Winnie the Pooh? I mean, Andrews isn't the one who rewrote and "Disneyfied" the story.

Posted by mdl | May 10, 2008 6:53 AM

"That type of confirmed bachelor/confirmed spinster (which was not always a euphemism for gay as is sometimes falsely asserted) was once fairly common in real life as well."

In drama maybe, but there is really no such thing as asexual...

Bachelor priests, anyone?

Posted by Jozef | May 10, 2008 7:45 AM

"That type of confirmed bachelor/confirmed spinster (which was not always a euphemism for gay as is sometimes falsely asserted) was once fairly common in real life as well."

In drama maybe, but there is really no such thing as asexual...

Bachelor priests, anyone?

Posted by Jozef | May 10, 2008 7:46 AM

How did the last efforts at Anna Karenina turn out? I couldn't bring myself to watch either the movie or the TV series...

The gritty romanticism of the Victorian nanny - is that what you are after, Ross?

"Mostly single, the royal governesses and nannies traded their own hopes of marriage and children for a chance to see the world."

-From Cradle to Crown: British Nannies and Governesses at the World's Royal Courts (Sutton Publishing, 2006)

And (for fun):

Anthropology and Nannies
J. M. Weatherford
Man, New Series, Vol. 10, No. 2 (Jun., 1975), pp. 308-310 (article consists of 3 pages)
Published by: Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland

Posted by Amicus | May 12, 2008 10:57 AM