September 27, 2008
hitchens on brideshead
As I drove away from a California screening of the new film version of Brideshead Revisited, I was amused to overhear the comments of my companions from the back seat. "I thought the one who played Jeremy Irons was a bit thin ..." "I liked the Anthony Andrews character better ... " It is more than a quarter of a century since the late William F Buckley introduced the Granada TV series to the American viewers of the Public Broadcasting System, and the residual effect is one of what Harold Isaacs once called "scratches on the mind": a very durable if sometimes vague cultural impression. (My son was born in 1984 and as I was carrying a teddy bear home, and happening that day to be wearing a white linen suit, I was astonished by the number of passers-by in Washington DC who shouted "Hi Sebastian!" at me as I tooled along.) The directors Charles Sturridge and Michael Lindsay-Hogg achieved their 1981 success by gorgeous photography, of course, and also by generally inspired casting. The locations, plainly, required little or no embellishment. And the music was suitably ... well, evocative. But most of all, they were faithful to Evelyn Waugh's beautiful dialogue and cadence, both in set-piece scenes and in sequences of languorous voice-over in Oxford and Venice and - perhaps decisively - in the opening passage, where the melancholic Captain Charles Ryder hears the almost healing word "Brideshead" spoken again: "a name that was so familiar to me, a conjuror's name of such magic power, that, at its ancient sound, the phantoms of those haunted late years began to take flight".
more from The Guardian here.
Posted by Morgan Meis at 10:30 AM | Permalink























Comments
Improbable champion of Brideshead. In fact this review is quite amazing. But then Kingsley Amis -- who is indeed vigorously outlived by Waugh -- himself wrote of the television version of 1981. (He was also perplexed at the recreation of manners and class: in the case of the 1981 version Amis says that the actors got Oxbridge speech of the 1920s all wrong). The omission of TS Eliot is indeed odd; but the 1981 version and virtually every critical examination of the novel entirely overlooks the fact that the shipboard chapter is named for a once-famous 1920s silent movie. Hitchens surely gets it slightly wrong to suggest that Gallipoli figures in the novel: Passchendaele, of course, to be sure.
Hitchens is often rather silly in his commentary on religion and politics (so was Waugh, of course); he is, however, as I had heard but not previously seen for myself, a formidable literary critic.
Posted by: Mac | Sep 27, 2008 12:41:04 PM
Well, the Trial of Henry Kissinger was a brilliant piece of political writing. Unfortunately for the world, not likely he'll be penning a Trial of Dick Cheney or Bush or Rumsfeld and Company.
Hitchens is a great writer. I keep hoping he'll come to his senses and write a Robert McNamara sort of atheist confessional on what he got wrong on the war, a sequel to A Long Short War.
Posted by: CriticalMassI | Sep 27, 2008 4:31:27 PM
Ugh, Hitch going all weepy over this bloated production of Waugh's most dreadful novel.
Posted by: Ed Olivera | Sep 29, 2008 12:41:19 PM
It's all about the clothes. And the interiors. PBS is the factory where history and literature are processed into tomorrow's Pottery Barn catalog.
Posted by: Vicki Baker | Sep 29, 2008 2:11:42 PM
Post a comment