Brideshead Re-Revisited – The 2008 Movie

We’ve had some sharp words for remakes around here at Frock Flicks, especially literary remakes of perfectly lovely historical costume movies and TV shows. We get it, Hollywood and all the other media producers out there are risk-averse and prefer reusing a known story instead of branching out into something new. That’s why we’re neck-deep in Marvel movies and live-action Disney films right now. But the tendency goes way back, as this 2008 version of Brideshead Revisited proves. Like the 11-part TV miniseries from 1981, this is based on Evelyn Waugh’s 1945 novel. But being a two-hour movie, it obviously cuts out a lot of stuff from the novel that the series had space for. If that were the only problem with this film, then cool, let’s enjoy it for another pretty costume drama! Because the 1920s and 1930s frocks designed by Eimer Ni Mhaoldomhnaigh are lovely. However, I couldn’t help but compare the two versions in more ways than one.

Even if I had never seen the miniseries or read the book, I’d still have problems with Brideshead Revisited (2008). The biggest is that it’s a shoddy queer-baiting story. Sebastian falls in love with Charles, who kinda-sorta seems to be a least nodding in the same direction, but no wait, he actually wants to fuck Sebastian’s sister Julia. WTF? It really plays out like Charles is using Sebastian to get to Julia, especially because the film starts in 1935, right on the very verge of Charles and Julia cheating on their mutual spouses with each other, then the story jumps back a decade earlier to explain how they met and were thwarted from hooking up in the first place. So the movie is framed around how Charles and Julia get to have sex in spite of Sebastian, who’ll go off and die a forlorn, pathetic homosexual. UGH.

In the 1981 version and especially in the novel, Charles loves Sebastian first, even through his personal demons. Their motto of “contra mundum” — against the world — sums up their tight bond, and, looking back, Charles says that only sometimes in his painting does he “come alive” as he had with Sebastian. Julia’s life story runs parallel, until Sebastian is essentially gone. Only then does Charles love Julia because she is an idealized reflection of Sebastian without the same problems, that he can see (she does end up having similar conflicts with religion).

Charles is further shown to be an opportunist in this version by his few interactions with his wife Celia. All she does is buy his paintings and try to sell his paintings, acting as his agent. She clearly has money, and she’s interested in promoting him for some reason, all of which Charles takes advantage of, even though he shows no affection for her whatsoever. At least in the miniseries and book, Charles and Celia have two children and make an outward attempt at a marriage, until she has an affair — but after he’s become disinterested in her. It’s always a marriage of convenience, but this movie makes it utterly transactional. For that matter, this film adds a scene where Charles actually buys Julia’s divorce from Rex with two paintings, which I don’t remember from the book. Charles comes off as a greedy bastard again and again, and to what point?

The other complaint I have with this movie is the script and dialog — everything is made Very Clear, Super Obvious, Let Me Tell You My Character’s Motivation OK DO YOU GET IT NOW? The worst are the speeches by Lady Marchmain, played by Emma Thompson, who is such a great actor and were she given more subtle material, she could easily have conveyed these messages without spelling things out in big, bold letters. “We Are Catholic And Very Old Fashioned!” she practically tattoos on Charles’ forehead every time they ‘talk.’ Later on, Charles does the same thing to Julia, explaining that he was just a poor boy, nobody loved him, he was just a poor boy from a poor family, spare him his life from this monstrosity! Easy come, easy go, will this movie let it go? SIGH.

That’s how the story compares to the 1981 miniseries IMO, how about the costumes? In some ways, they’re better! Or at least, some of the costumes are flashier because it’s a movie after all. Designer Eimer Ni Mhaoldomhnaigh told the LA Times about costuming this version:

“I wanted to show the energy and the hope and expectancy that was there after the first World War. I wanted it to be through the eyes of Charles Ryder, to look at this unattainable world. … He’s from this cloistered, dusty house in London, and suddenly he’s hanging out with hedonists and loving every moment of it. From his eyes, it’s all heightened reality. Everything is more beautiful.”

And while she knew about the TV adaption, the film is different. There are fewer costumes overall, naturally because this is shorter, so we don’t see the variety with things like sportswear and as many hats. So each costume in the film is doing more work. According to the production notes, she felt: “I was very important for us to create something individual and new, so I started from scratch, researching the period and fabrics.” In Interview Magazine, the costume designer talked about her appreciation for historical costume:

“I have done a few period dramas in the last several years and absolutely loved it — especially the whole ’20s and ’30s period. I love the ’30s. And the ’40s are just beautiful, too.”

While history is the starting point, this is still storytelling, and in the same interview Eimer Ni Mhaoldomhnaigh said:

“For costumes, it’s important not to say, ‘I’m going to reproduce something.’ It’s more like, ‘I’m going to evoke a creation.’ … There’s a scene where Charles is at home in London, and the house is very dark. Then he goes to Oxford, and it’s all students. Then he goes to Venice, and it’s very romantic, very passionate. So you’re trying to evoke different atmospheres. You’re all the time thinking about the character and the place, the person and the place.”

I think this film does a good job delineating the character’s outlook and mood through costume, while hewing relatively closely to period aesthetics. The story opens at the start of World War II, then flashes back to the 1930s, and the bulk of the story takes place 10 years before that, in the early to mid 1920s. Each time period is represented well. So let’s take a look at the costumes, in order they’re shown in the movie…

 

 

1930s – Ship to London

Celia Ryder (Anna Madeley) is throwing a party for her husband, Charles (Matthew Goode), and his paintings on board a ship headed home from New York to London. Everyone’s very posh in ’30s evening clothes.

Charles bails from the party (and his wife) when he sees Lady Julia Flyte Mottram (Hayley Atwell), who pops in briefly then runs away. They’ll hook up after we get the entire movie’s backstory!

That crossed-front bodice was found in ’30s evening gowns, along with the ties in the back. Though it should be more bias-cut than Julia’s gown is, IMO. Compare with:

 

 

1920s – Oxford

Before Charles and Julia can say a word to each other, we get a title card saying “10 years earlier,” and the film doesn’t screw that up, thankfully. We’re introduced to younger Charles, heading off from his father’s dreary home to Oxford. Charles’ sanctimonious older cousin warns him away from effete flamboyant types like Lord Sebastian Flyte (Ben Whishaw), who they see punting, along with Anthony Blanche (Joseph Beattie). While the rest of the Oxford men are in grey, brown, and black, these fellows stand out with their cream-colored trousers and bright jackets, and always flowers in their lapels.

Costume designer Eimer Ni Mhaoldomhnaigh described her idea behind these costumes to the New York Times:

“This scene is at Oxford. And it’s one of the first times that Charles sees Sebastian. So I wanted to portray a contrast to Charles’s dark and dreary life at home with a complete release for him to do whatever he likes. Sebastian represents that freedom for him.”

Charles joins Sebastian at luncheon and meets the “flamboyant” crowd he was warned about. They all wear flowers in their lapels and expound on the meaning of Art, Beauty, and Love, as young pretentious college lads do.

In the production notes, costume designer Eimer Ni Mhaoldomhnaigh talked about working with Ben Wishaw:

“Ben is very relaxed, which worked well for Sebastian because you want him to have a total ease with what he’s wearing. You want him to look gorgeous and individual and fascinating, so that everyone turns to look at him.”

He commented on his costumes:

“I’m always amazed how a piece of clothing changes the way you feel. It does an awful lot for you and your work as an actor. My suits were great because all of that really isn’t me at all.”

Charles and Sebastian spend more time together. Again in the New York Times, the costume designer said:

“Charles and Sebastian become friends and Sebastian has this beautiful sense of style. Here, you can see already that Charles is looking at Sebastian and, in a quite crude way, trying to copy what he’s wearing. It doesn’t look nearly as flamboyant or bohemian as Sebastian, but still, it’s his attempt to become part of that whole set.”

Sebastian takes Charles to Brideshead to visit his old nanny. Charles is overawed by the castle — which is again Castle Howard, the same place used in the miniseries. Strikes me as an odd choice if the movie wants to be different than what came before it.

 

 

1920s – Summer at Brideshead

During the summer school break, Sebastian calls for Charles to come to Brideshead, and Julia picks up Charles at the train station. Her first ’20s outfit is incredibly posh and matchy-matchy featuring a white cape with blue embroidery, a cloche hat trimmed in blue, and blue jewelry, over a pale blue and white dress. Not only does the color combo make her look young and fresh (contrasting with the glittering gold look we first see in the ’30s, where she’s worldly and seductive), blue and white are traditional colors of the Virgin Mary in Catholic culture. Let’s lay this on thick, OK?

Later on, she relaxes with Sebastian and Charles, and we can see the dress she’s wearing underneath that cape.

Then there’s a nice montage of the lads hanging out together at Brideshead. Sometimes Sebastian is in PJs (because he injured his foot and is “recuperating”), and they’re both rather casually dressed as they loiter about the house and gardens.

Hair and makeup artist Roseann Samuel talked in the production notes about creating historically accurate hairstyles for the men:

“Charles’s hair starts off a bit neater and then he becomes ‘Sebastianified.’ His hair becomes looser and freer as he starts emulating Sebastian — they both have floppy fronts and the short back and sides which was the basic look of for the period. When we get to the ’30s, Charles’s hair is taken back and he’s much more debonair and stylish. He seems much more man than boy, which is what we were trying to create.”

If you scroll back up, you can see Charles’ slicked-back hair in the 1930s with his wife and compare to these youthful summer images.

This movie makes the homoeroticism of the book and miniseries explicit with this kiss, but the larger storyline betrays this supposed closeness. The very next scene shows Charles and Sebastian swimming naked in the fountain, as if they’re intimate, fully free and open with each other (it’s a version of the nude sunbathing scene in the book and miniseries, which is clearly meant to show their closeness). And yet, Charles’s eyes wander to Julia at the first opportunity, and in Venice, he’s besotted with her.

The only time we see Lady Marchmain (Emma Thompson) in this elegant velvet cape (which has been reused in at least one other flick) is from a distance when she arrives home during the summer.

Costume designer Eimer Ni Mhaoldomhnaigh told the New York Times how she created this character’s first look:

“I think that with Lady Marchmain, Emma Thompson’s character, her religion was really important. But also, she was very fashionable. At that time, a lot of women went to Paris twice a year to pick out their wardrobe. So I wanted her clothes to be influenced by French fashions of the time.”

This dinner at Brideshead is when Charles meets the whole family — the eldest “Bridey” (Ed Stoppard), short for Earl of Brideshead, and he’s never named in the book, and the youngest, Cordelia (Felicity Jones).

Julia’s green and gold dress is like many extant examples that have embroidery and/or beading, like this one:

After dinner, Lady Marchmain invites Charles to the family’s onsite Catholic chapel and then for a walk, where she tries to not so subtly convert him or at least indoctrinate him to the wisdom of her cause. It’s rather tedious, except for her really fabulous gown.

In the production notes, hair and makeup artist Roseann Samuel talked about working with the costume department specifically due to Lady Marchmain’s hair color:

“Eimer made some fantastic costumes and we worked very closely together, particularly before the production started so that everything worked. For Emma Thompson in particular, Eimer had to bear in mind her hair color before she designed her costumes. We looked at going with a more natural color for Emma’s hair, but eventually decided on silver, which is very striking, for this woman who has gone very grey, very young. It’s not meant to age her — just to have a head-turning effect.”

The silver color does age Emma Thompson just enough and helps give her the imperious air that fits this character.

Her dress is like a purple version of this one with the same embroidery:

 

 

1920s – Venice

I’ve complained about what some might call different readings of the source material, but one thing that’s totally different in the movie is that Julia joins Charles and Sebastian in Venice. In the book and especially in miniseries, the Venice trip is practically an extended love scene between the two men. This is where their summer climaxes in a heady, magical sense of communion. But now, it’s a love triangle. And that’s on purpose, as co-screenwriter Jeremy Brock told the New  York Times:

“This puts Julia center stage. When you read the novel, there is a sense that she is slightly the one who comes after Sebastian, that she is No. 2, and I think it’s not quite fair. The true love story for Charles is the one with Julia.”

Whatever. You just created the story you want, not what was there already. This change was apparently OK’ed by the Waugh estate, but I’m not a fan. I am a fan, however, of this dress Julia wears … in another New York Times article, costume designer Eimer Ni Mhaoldomhnaigh said:

“I just love this dress. And it was kind of a Eureka moment. Julia’s costumes were made in Paris because her clothing also was influenced by French fashion. So I went to Paris to meet with the people were going to make the costumes. And I went to a flea market, where I found the Japanese embroidery that we put on this dress.”

It really works because Asian motifs were popular in the 1920s, plus Venice was an early trading post between Asia and Europe. Setting the embroidery on a pale silk fits in with the summer linens worn by the men.

And I have to point out this parasol because it’s what a vintage lace parasol can look like without being the cliched cheap old battenburg lace style that we pick on!

Compare with some period images of Chinoiserie type fashions:

The whole family coordinates, all casual, beautiful wealth oozing out of them as they greet their father, Lord Marchmain (Michael Gambon).

And they meet his Italian mistress Cara (Greta Scacchi), who’s there as a buffer between the crotchety old man and the young folks.

Cara gives Charles a speech about youthful male romantic friendships (which is in the book and in the miniseries). These words fall differently here though — instead of being a warning to Charles not to tempt Sebastian and get too involved (which happens in the book/miniseries), this speech is an excuse for why Sebastian will become a sad, sick drunk soon after. He’ll be broken by Charles’ rejection, that’s what Cara is warning of in this movie.

The men’s suits are rather like these:

Her suit is something like this:

The final scenes in Venice take place during a Carnevale-like celebration at night with masked revelers filling the streets. The whole family go out into this fray and almost immediately get split up. Charles chases after Julia, and they end up kissing, which Sebastian sees. Thus, the invented love triangle is complete, and for the unimaginative, the plot of the film is set in motion. SIGH

Their costumes are interesting though. Julia’s loose red dress almost looks like a Fortuny, reminding me of what Helena Bonham Carter wears in Wings of the Dove (1997). In that movie, the promo shots of this dress are in Venice, but the actual scene is in London. I’m not saying this is the same dress (and the coat is different, for sure), but it’s similar and feels “inspired by.”

However, the menwear in this scene is some of the most modern in the film. Charles is still in his summer whites because he’s the less well-off lad. But Sebastian and Lord Marchmain are wearing these exotic outfits that look like something from the Versace runway circa early 2000s.

I can’t be the only one who sees it, right?

 

 

1920s – Back Home

The glorious summer is over, and the fellas head back to Oxford, where things go downhill. Lady Marchmain asks for Charles’ help stopping Sebastian’s drinking wearing a suit that’s typical of her character’s style. She’s the epitome of elegance, as Eimer Ni Mhaoldomhnaigh described in the New York Times:

“I wanted to use certain colors with her. Of course, not primary colors, but teal blues and purples. I felt like she could never look disheveled. She always had to look like 10 maids had dressed her in the morning.”

In a behind-the-scenes video, Emma Thompson noted that she felt completely “in character” once she had Lady Marchmain’s manicure done because those were hands that never did a day’s work!

A lot of stuff in the book (and miniseries) is compressed here, which, of course, a two-hour movie must do, but it really simplifies Sebastian’s problems down to jealousy over losing Charles to Julia. Thus, he makes a scene at the big fancy party held for Julia’s 25th birthday party. Not that Charles is getting what he wants either because this party is also where Julia’s engagement to Rex Mottram is announced. Though she tells Charles she can’t stop thinking about their kiss in Venice. Whatever.

Costume-wise, this dress is like a wedding gown — it marks Julia’s transition to married woman, also something of a sacrificial lamb, if we stick with the Catholic imagery laced throughout the flick. The gold swallows embroidered on the bodice are gilded birds, caged, wanting freedom, but weighed down. She’s wealth and privilege personified, the perfect image of her class and era, doing her duty.

Sticking with French fashions for Julia, here’s some designs from the House of Paquin that show floaty white gowns with embroidery across the front, for evening and weddings, reminiscent of the movie design.

The family is embarrassed by Sebastian’s outburst, but they’re beautifully dressed as always. Bridey is in stiff white tie, Lady Marchmain is in black with silver, and Cordelia is wearing a more adult dress, echoing her sister.

 

 

Late 1920s – Here and There

After Charles is kicked out of Brideshead, he goes off and does art and meets Celia. She just shows up to buy his paintings. And she’s dressed very posh, so you know she can pay him big money.

Lady Marchmain, who’s dying, pops up to convince Charles to find Sebastian, who’s dying. The plot is super compressed here, and I don’t know if it makes much sense if you haven’t read the book or seen the miniseries. Charles goes to Morocco wearing a nice pinstripe suit, so it looks like he’s moving up in the world, just as Sebastian has sunk to his lowest.

 

 

1930s – London

With a few quick scenes, Lady Marchmain does die, and Sebastian is all but dead, so the story flashes forward back to the 1930s. Things pick up right with Charles and Julia on the ship, who immediately have sex in her stateroom, and then commence an affair back in London. Even though his wife is running another art show for him, full of important people who can buy his paintings.

Amongst the glitterati arrives an old college chum of Charles’, Anthony Blanche pops in for a bit of exposition. He tells Charles that everyone who’s anyone knows about his and Julia’s affair, and he has some pointed things to say about who Charles thinks he really is. That bit is true to the book — Anthony may be a caricature of a lisping queer, but he always sees through people’s facades and speaks truth to power.

 

 

1930s – Brideshead

The movie rushes through Charles getting a divorce, and Julia trying to separate from her husband, Rex. For some unexplained reason, Charles is going to “handle it” for her by talking to Rex. This leads to Charles trading two of his paintings for Julia’s annulment. EW.

Charles and Julia plan to leave Brideshead, getting in the car, driving down the lane…

But they turn around because Lord Marchmain drives up. He’s come home to die.

So the film ends with a lot of deathbed stuff, and Julia’s final outfit is her most sombre.

The final scene flashes all the way forward back to Charles in World War II to wrap stuff up. The whole film is like the briefest sketch of Evelyn Waugh’s novel, with some things oddly interpreted, and a lot of choppy cuts. It does look good, so if you like ’20s and ’30s costumes, you could do worse!

 

How would you compare Brideshead Revisited (1981) and Brideshead Revisited (2008)? 

 

 

 

 

Find this frock flick at: