Saturday 27 September 2008
Brideshead Revisited
A preview of the new version shown at the GFT.
I absolutely LOVE the book, and so this was rather a disappointment. It seemed too convoluted, insofar as it jammed the story into too short a timespan. This book can't be done justice in 2 hours. Whilst the casting was OK (Matthew Goode was good, Emma Thompson not so - in fact in the post-screening Q&A the film's producer Douglas Rae let slip that he had much preferred Kristin Scott-Thomas to play the part, and I have to agree it would've been much better with her), it appeared a compromised film. It wasn't truly cinematic, and seemed stuck between cinema's more grandiose visuals and those solid, stately mises-en-scene you find in 'good, quality' BBC costume adaptations. It was no surprise to see BBC Films in the credits.
If possible, the film was far less subtle than the book but came across as far more vague and unsure of itself. The film-makers had made some strange choices too. Gone was the book's wonderful ambiguous relationship between the Charles and Sebastian, replaced with a fairly obvious unrequited love angle. Douglas Rae said afterwards that they had made the decision very early on to really go with the Sebastian Is Gay idea. I remember the book as having this wonderful vagueness, so wonderfully captured by Evelyn Waugh's perfect prose. He is so economical with his language that he gives you room to breathe, to take in the story almost by osmosis, to really understand it. This film trundled you on from "event" to "event" without pausing for reflection.
By wonderful coincidence, I switched on the telly today and on ITV3 was the original TV series, which I'd never seen before. One hour of it was enough to know - like everyone else - that this is the superior adaptation.
I absolutely LOVE the book, and so this was rather a disappointment. It seemed too convoluted, insofar as it jammed the story into too short a timespan. This book can't be done justice in 2 hours. Whilst the casting was OK (Matthew Goode was good, Emma Thompson not so - in fact in the post-screening Q&A the film's producer Douglas Rae let slip that he had much preferred Kristin Scott-Thomas to play the part, and I have to agree it would've been much better with her), it appeared a compromised film. It wasn't truly cinematic, and seemed stuck between cinema's more grandiose visuals and those solid, stately mises-en-scene you find in 'good, quality' BBC costume adaptations. It was no surprise to see BBC Films in the credits.
If possible, the film was far less subtle than the book but came across as far more vague and unsure of itself. The film-makers had made some strange choices too. Gone was the book's wonderful ambiguous relationship between the Charles and Sebastian, replaced with a fairly obvious unrequited love angle. Douglas Rae said afterwards that they had made the decision very early on to really go with the Sebastian Is Gay idea. I remember the book as having this wonderful vagueness, so wonderfully captured by Evelyn Waugh's perfect prose. He is so economical with his language that he gives you room to breathe, to take in the story almost by osmosis, to really understand it. This film trundled you on from "event" to "event" without pausing for reflection.
By wonderful coincidence, I switched on the telly today and on ITV3 was the original TV series, which I'd never seen before. One hour of it was enough to know - like everyone else - that this is the superior adaptation.
The Fly
This was the original 1958 version, complete with a fainting lady and Vincent Price. We watched at Al's on his projector, and I'd lost out in a vote between this and Man Bites Dog, which I'd had a sudden urge to watch again. Nevertheless, this film had its moments, most of them unintentionally funny.
It created a strange, nearly claustrophobic atmosphere by shooting the majority of the film in the same house, the atmosphere made stranger by the house's outward appearance of calm, family life: the big garden with hammock, the neat kitchen, the young son running round shouting to his mommy to come and look at something. All of this whilst underneath the genius professor in his den/laboratory fiddles away at a machine that will transport people. It reminded me of that bit in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory when Mike TV is transported into the TV.
This clip is probably the most memorable. It reminded me of Tod Browning's Devil Doll.
This atmosphere aside, I came away with a strange empty feeling. Yes it was fun, yes we laughed at outmoded 50s notions and Vincent Price's ridiculous acting, but beyond that these films have a limited appeal. They're almost museum pieces. I'm aware of their interest in terms of a subconscious working through of the notorious "Red Threat" but some are just plain trash. And there's a limit to trash.
It created a strange, nearly claustrophobic atmosphere by shooting the majority of the film in the same house, the atmosphere made stranger by the house's outward appearance of calm, family life: the big garden with hammock, the neat kitchen, the young son running round shouting to his mommy to come and look at something. All of this whilst underneath the genius professor in his den/laboratory fiddles away at a machine that will transport people. It reminded me of that bit in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory when Mike TV is transported into the TV.
This clip is probably the most memorable. It reminded me of Tod Browning's Devil Doll.
This atmosphere aside, I came away with a strange empty feeling. Yes it was fun, yes we laughed at outmoded 50s notions and Vincent Price's ridiculous acting, but beyond that these films have a limited appeal. They're almost museum pieces. I'm aware of their interest in terms of a subconscious working through of the notorious "Red Threat" but some are just plain trash. And there's a limit to trash.
Saturday 13 September 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
