Obviously, it's not a movie version of some crappy 1970s television show (Starsky and Hutch anyone?). But If you must see a filmed adaptation, there is no excuse for not watching the Thame's version done in the early 1980s. It is one of the few such works that is an almost word-for-word and scene-for-scene reproduction of the book, and nearly perfect for it.

When I heard they were remaking this, I couldn't imagine why. About a year ago, I watched all of the episodes from the eighties, and I agree with LB that they were very slow, and not rewarding, except as a showcase for the performances of Anthony A., especially, and john Gielgud as Ryder's father. Olivier was good, too. Great actors on a beautiful stage, making their way through a very elaborate reading of a pretty good book (that was not one of Waugh's favorites--he thought it was too sentimental). One great thing about the original production was that Irons and Andrews did not look alike, so you could tell them apart perfectly. Not so this time. This production is a real mistake. Every generation does not need a new version of every novel.

"Waugh was always mistaking the elite for the elect"....a phrase pretentious! Mr Bayard, some of your readers may not have spent a few years consuming the volumes of the Waugh. I am not sure you have, either. The book, at least, makes it somewhat obvious that Ryder is both taken with and astounded by the culture of the Marchmains.

Ryder's father was hilarious. When I saw the preview, all I could think was that i couldn't wait to spend 8 bucks to watch a 10 minute bit of Mr Ryder Sr. go passive aggressive to get his own som out of the house. The rest of the book was dulllldrums.

Do YOU think it's funny that a man come a cropper?

Unless they've changed it for the film, the brother is "Bridey" (Brideshead), not "Bridley".

What a strange thing for a novelist to say! It's so very anti-intellectual. Must I believe in the ordeal of consciousness (cf. Dorothea Krook) to get with The Golden Bowl? Or "blood knowledge" to get with Women in Love? What pretentious nonsense.

I'm a novelist, Jewish and big fan of Waugh, whose Brideshead Revisited I've read four times. The mini-series isn't "glacially slow"--it's dreamy and hypnotic because it's all about seduction. I adore the novel, despite Waugh's mid-1950s disclaimers. It's in part a poetic, sad story of decline on many levels; it's the tale of thwarted passions; the portrait of the education of an artist. And it is very beautifully written: a paragon of nostalgia. I don't have to believe in Catholicism remotely to be thrilled by what Charles Ryder seems to feel at the end of the novel. It's an epiphany and I believe it utterly--for him. Waugh's world in the novel, his values, aren't necessarily mine nor should they be. I don't read for confirmation of what I feel and believe--but to travel into other realities. How disappointing for a reviewer to privilege limited horizons as Bayard does.

After reading the review (and as a fan of book and TV series) I realized I will probably enjoy this. Yeah, I wondered also - why a remake when I can just rent the series - but well why not.

It was ITV.

Waugh was a loathsome person and, in "Brideshead", created his most loathsome characters in his image. That's part of the fun.

Your Women in Love comparison is aptly chosen, but that's also (arguably) Lawrence's most accomplished work. Surely he wrote novels and stories one is unlikely to appreciate unless one happens to share his idiosyncratic philosophy? I'd say Lady Chatterley's Lover comes close to being an example, particularly the last third.

I've not read Brideshead, so I can't comment. However, I've never been able to finish any of Waugh's satirical novels precisely because I don't share his misanthropic outlook, and as a result the books always end up feeling like a waste of time. Though my issues weren't Catholicism or class ideology, I could understand where Bayard was coming from.

The bottom button on a vest has always been left undone after Edward VII by chance left his so and everyone followed suit.

Dear Mr. Bayard,

About all I can "get" (to use your word) from your review is that you don't like the original book, didn't like the television series, and don't like this movie.

At several (to say the least) points in your review, it becomes quite clear that you have...how to phrase the matter?.....A Major Chip On Your Shoulder in regard to the wealthy and Roman Catholicism.

That would be in addition to some surprisingly generalizing attitudes about "the English mind" (sic) and your review's ubiquitous "us" (Say what, Kemosabe?).

I finished your review and wondered why you wrote it. I learend rather a few more things about you and your attitudes than I previously knew, and very little about the movie (except that you think the central premise dooms the entire project to absurdity, and that you wish the actors had been in some different movie, playing different characters).

For obvious reasons, I thought "this is what we'd get if Lous Henry Gates decided to review a re-make of 'Gone With the Wind'."

Bemusedly yours,

David Terry

www.davidterryart.com

P.s., Hello Lev.....

Saw this flick last night.

I thought it's horror at Cathoicism and the psycho guilt, neuroses and behaviors it enables were made clear throughout.

The father's deathbed genuflection seemed to me a capitulation to the fear of dying and the remorseless terror of his supposedly faithful family who were surrounding him as he croaked.

I've never gotten why supposedly Christian people, who have faith in an afterlife, are so terror-stricken at the prospect of death.

And I found NOTHING in the film that was complimentary to Catholicism; part of why I enjoyed it.

As for Charles' supposed end-of-film conversion? WTF are you talking about? After all the insanity and cruelty and destruction to which he had been exposed throughout the previous two hours, he is going to turn around and embrace the source of this madness? Hmmm...maybe not.