Classic Gay Love Story - Brideshead Revisited (1982) Discussion

[–] dawh1 20 years ago

I believe Evelyn Waugh was in fact gay, but he did what gay men were expected to do in his time, marry and father children, and carry on with men discreetly on the side. I was surprised when I learned that the novel won some kind of Catholic book award. I suppose it's possible to read it and not know it was about homosexuality, but I thought it fairly screamed from every page. There is no doubt in my mind that Charles and Sebastian were lovers, and Charles's subsequent dalliance with Julia was simply a substitute for Sebastian.

reply

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] el_alyoshina 20 years ago

Well, to begin with: Waugh had few homosexual relationships when being himself a student and probably for some years later. But he definitely misappreciated all this sort of things after his conversion - for this IS a SIN according to the Catholic church (as well as for many other confessions). Still, a disgust for the sin does not limit a love which should be felt towards a sinner, since every man is one of the Lord's beloved creatures. That is to say, Waugh could perhaps portray in Sebastian some of his own treats and preferances: with pity and compassion.
I saw the series about 3 years ago and after re-reading the book just last week I don't remember whether in the film there was a phrase by Cordelia. She was asked after her visit to S. and Kurt if there was anything "inappropriate" in their relationship - the fact she strictly denied. So, younger Flyte probably was bisexual at the university (or why else would his relatives have such a suspicion?), but after the crisis and somewhat conversion he WAS NOT. The same as the author.
As for Charles-Sebastian idea, I don't believe it was intended by the wtiter... AFAICN, a close friendship between two persons of the same sex is not always (and even not often) linked with homosexuality. Moreover, lads quite often fall in love with their friends' sisters or cousins, and in 99% that's a true love and not a kind of substitute.
E.W. spoke plainly about homosexuality when it was needed, so, I think, there's no use in searching some hidden allusions.

reply

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Blite2000 20 years ago

I don't think he was being a religious fanatic. I think he was pointing out (quite credibly) what Waugh was trying to say. And if you missed the point that Waugh WAS a religious fanatic, and that Brideshead is basically a two pronged lament for the glories of catholicism and aristocracy, perhaps YOU ought to go back to your hole!

reply

[–] Startanew 20 years ago

I picked up homosexual undertones when i was watching this aged 14! And i only watched a tiny part of it!

reply

[–] Blite2000 20 years ago

But, as has been pointed out, when Waugh wants to talk about homosexuality he simply talks about it. Why hide it in Brideshead? Marchmain's mistress perfectly captures what Waugh's talking about in Brideshead when she says that Charles loves Sebastian - it's not sexual love. It's the love you get between two young men. It's a completely different concept. If Waugh had wanted to (knowing his complete lack of restraint) he would have given Charles and Sebastian a sex scene. He doesn't. And Charles doesn't like Blanche's "fairy" ways. It's pretty clear. Don't *watch* it. Read the book.

reply

[–] fred-889 14 years ago

Yes, I agree. It was quite deliberate that Waugh summed up Charles and Sebastian's relationship through Cara's eyes. She points to Marchmain's similar youthful love for his wife, which, as we know, was doomed - as his sexual desires led him to Cara.

reply

[–] murdoch1111 13 years ago

@Blite2000 on Sat May 14 2005

I am a member of the Anglican Communion who knows a good deal about Roman Catholicism. I feel compelled to say that Waugh's conversion, which made headlines at the time, does not mean that he was a religious fanatic. He had been, as I recall, a tepid member of the Church of England: He was convinced that he was doing the right thing by enthusiastically converting to the Roman Catholic faith. You remember that he said at the time [I am paraphrasing] that life was unintelligible and unendurable without belief in a Supreme Being.

reply

[–] siobhan-rouse 18 years ago

Your reply suggests that you haven't read the book carefully or watched the TV series all the way through.

It's certainly true that Sebastian is a gay character, but this is NOT just a story about gay people, it's about Evelyn Waugh's own life. It seems that he had some gay relationships as a student, but it was "just a phase he was going through". The whole point of the novel is to advocate the sort of austere Catholic faith that Waugh converted to in his mid-thirties. If you watch the very end of the TV series you will see that Charles Ryder has also become a Catholic. And a completely hetero man, though one who still keeps up his friendships with gay men.

reply

[–] Red7Eric 20 years ago

"She was asked after her visit to S. and Kurt if there was anything 'inappropriate' in their relationship - the fact she strictly denied. So, younger Flyte probably was bisexual at the university (or why else would his relatives have such a suspicion?), but after the crisis and somewhat conversion he WAS NOT. The same as the author."

~~~~~

First of all, Sebastian never converted.

Secondly, Cordelia could have been lying to protect a brother she loved dearly.

Thirdly, Cordelia could have been telling the truth as she saw it because she didn't see anything wrong with Sebastian's life.

Finally, religious conversion doesn't magically turn someone into a heterosexual. If you're gay, you're gay.

Cheers, all.
EP in DC

"I don't want life to imitate art; I want life to BE art." -- Postcards from the Edge

reply

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] marjoriem 18 years ago

My guess is that Charles was bisexual.
Why do we have to assume that people are one or the other?
I think we know now that sexuality is often more ambiguous -- not always an either/or thing. Sebastian, I believe, was homosexual. We are not shown even a glimmer that Sebastian had any interest in women; but as for Charles, it seemed to me there was enough sexual tension between him and Julia from the very beginning (from that first meeting when she picks him up at the station and drives him to Brideshead) to assume that Charles could be physically and emotionally attracted to both men and women.
(Also, when he's asked later by Julia why he married Celia, he mentions physical attraction as one of the factors. Of course, some may assume he's lying to both Julia and to himself about that.)'
--------
As for the relationship between Sebastian and Charles; I think it's clear they were in love.
But were they also lovers in a physical sense? I don't think Waugh meant us to be sure whether Charles and Sebastian ever consummated their relationship.
Lady Marchmain didn't think so. If she had thought they were lovers, I don't think she would ever have been so approving of Charles. Until the episode where Charles gives Sebastian money to get drunk on hunt day, she thought that the relationship was good for Sebastian. As an extremely devout Catholic, she would not have approved if she also thought they were lovers.
Perhaps you can discount Lady M's view of the relationship as naive and unwordly. But Cara, who is neither naive nor unworldly, also seems to see the Charles-Sebastian relationship as basically "innocent" -- essentially a schoolboy crush continued into young adulthood. Cara has a long speech in the Venice episode in which she discusses the relationship in those terms. She concludes that, on the whole, it's better that one's first love be another boy than a girl. (She says that Lord Marchmain's first love was a girl, and that that was his tragedy.)

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] murdoch1111 13 years ago

@marjoriem on Fri Jun 29 2007

Charles and Sebastian were briefly "lovers in a physical sense" during their time at Oxford. That is what Charles means when he remarks near the end of Episode One that their "naughtiness [was] high in the catalogue of grave sins."

Charles goes on to say that their relationship had "a nursery freshness" about it, which indicates that it was essentially innocent, in your terminology, despite its being a sin in the Church's view.

reply

[–] dcasewell 19 years ago

Evelyn Waugh was not gay at all-the story is basically about rediscovering God and religion-which is basically what Waugh did himself-he married twice though, so I'm not sure most gay men would marry twice (ie, Oscar Wilde).

reply

[–] murdoch1111 13 years ago

Years after writing Brideshead, Waugh said the book is about "Catholicism and homosexuality." Other people who post about the topic note the fact that Waugh had homosexual affairs at Oxford. They also note, correctly, that such affairs are not uncommon in the English school system.

reply

[–] murdoch1111 13 years ago

@dcasewell on Tue Oct 11 2005

Waugh had several homosexual relationships while he was at Oxford. [Given the constraints of the English educational system, the fact in itself was not unusual.] Waugh later married, divorced, converted, married again, and had his first marriage annulled.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] cathy_johansen 20 years ago

Laurence Oliver was not gay.

cathyjo

reply

[–] musketeer-3 20 years ago

Funny- One of my favourite books and such a beautiful series that I've been watching and rewatching for the last 12 years.

But on a viewing this week with my girlfriend she was continually pointing out the homosexuality angle - I mean yes of course they're naked on the roof and of course they walk arm in arm and of course they speak of their love etc. - but it literally had never occurred to me before.

And lest you think I'm not alive to the issues: I'm a straight professional living in NYC west village and working in Chelsea. And what's more I'm a product of a British boy's school AND Oxford! And we had impossible lunches in our rooms and dressed for dinner and wore flowers in our buttonholes and ducked people in Mercury (as so b-b-b-b-beautifully articulated by Blanche) etc. I also rowed and played rugby (note that this involves putting your head between other men's thighs and pushing). My girlfriend is fascinated with the homoeroticism implicit in all this. I'd never thought of it.

I think there's something about the book and the series that plays oddly in modern America. I suppose England has always been a little different - boys and girls sequestered at school and culturally; Clara comments on this "English difference" when alone with Charles in Venice. English men as they're growing up, and especially so two or three generation previous, were more comfortable in each other's company than in mixed, and although most everyone (I think) thought that they'd be off and married to a woman at some point, that time of youth amongst other men was intimate but somehow not sexual. Oh sure - it could be (Stephen Fry's autobiography deliciously describes his fascination with another particular boy at school) but didn't have to be. For many or most of us, anyway, it just wasn't an issue.

And it really shouldn't be an issue anyway, should it?

I've always taken the series as being a bittersweet, sepia-tinted recollection of innocence lost, the decline of the aristocracy (who posted that it's not in decline? It is - Noel Coward's "The Stately Homes of England" or even a lot of episodes of "Jeeves and Wooster" should help you here) and some guilty criticism of the RC church (and Christianity in general) but with a "bat's squeak" not only of sexuality, but of faith. Someone could write (or has already written) a thesis on the eroticisation of faith. Perhaps this series is it.

Interesting choice of Bettany to play Charles in the remake. Who ever for Sebastian? I can more easily see Bettany as Seb and maybe, mmmm, Orlando Bloom as Charles? Kiera Knightly as Julia (or she's perhaps *too* pretty)? Ian McKellan as Charles' father? It's getting expensive...

Hope the remake works out. It has big shoes to fill.

Edit to add this interesting link - a letter to MGM in 1947 from Waugh anticipating a film. All about religion:

http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/classics/story/0,6000,1221962,00.html#down

reply

[–] gaelicguy 20 years ago

Cara talks about the 'romantic friendships' that occur in the Northern European countries. She's favors them, thinks they are very useful and wise and bemoans that a similar phenomenon does not exist in in Italy. EW never states that there's anything sexual between them, but I don't think there is any doubt.

I can recall watching the series when it made its American debut in January 1981. (I have seen it several times since that time.) I remember an article in the New York Times about how British audiences reacted to the Charles and Sebastian 'relationship.' Several of the British viewers dismissed them " as a couple of poofs." Of course, they are entitled to their opinion, but I think they're missing the point.

Sebastian's angst, IMO, is rooted, in equal parts to his family, his alcoholism, his ambiguity toward the Catholic faith and his place in the world.

In the end, though painful to watch, Sebastian finds his niche. And, as Cordelia says of her beloved brother, he is very close to God.

It is very interesting to read the thoughts of an individual who hails from a similar background and knows the world of Charles and Sebastian.

I only look like a fan of Al Pacino.

reply

[–] deeveed 13 years ago

In the end, though painful to watch, Sebastian finds his niche. And, as Cordelia says of her beloved brother, he is very close to God.

Right on there. Real perceptive. Even if he looks like he's cast out, his suffering argues that he has a special place in his geography to God.

reply

[–] Tuesday5189 18 years ago

Well put. European men are especially good at being intimate friends with each other, without being homosexual. Too many commentars are viewing the film through modern, American eyes. Waugh's book makes it clear that Sebastian and Charles friendship was intimate and loving but not physical or homosexual.

reply

[–] murdoch1111 13 years ago

In the first part of the TV series, "Et in Arcadia Ego," Charles remarks that his and Sebastian's naughtiness was "high in the catalogue of grave sins." His observation strongly implies that they were lovers, however briefly.

AGAINSTALLWARS, PAST, PRESENT, & FUTURE.

reply

[–] Red7Eric 20 years ago

"Laurence Oliver was not gay."

Danny Kaye would disagree with you.

EP in DC

"I don't want life to imitate art; I want life to BE art." -- Postcards from the Edge

reply

[–] Colkitto 20 years ago

Olivier appears to have been bi, although that's not certain. What is certain is that he wasn't gay in any exclusive sense.

reply

[–] Red7Eric 20 years ago

"Olivier appears to have been bi, although that's not certain. What is certain is that he wasn't gay in any exclusive sense."

~~~~~

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who wasn't "straight in any exclusive sense" is part of the big happy family.

Cheers, all.
EP in DC

"I don't want life to imitate art; I want life to BE art." -- Postcards from the Edge

reply

[–] Colkitto 19 years ago

It seems a bit much to call a man who may or may not have had one gay affair in his life (probably not with Danny Kaye, that story's full of holes) but certainly had many long-term straight relationships "gay" on that basis. Or are you one of the "bisexuality doesn't exist" crowd?

The fact is that human sexuality is much more diverse (and fluid) than seems to be accepted by those who would cram it into three, let alone two, separate boxes.

reply

[–] Red7Eric 19 years ago

I absolutely believe that bisexuality exists, and agree with you wholeheartedly that sexuality can come in more varieties than most of us could dream up.

My point is that anyone who doesn't conform to the standard of most societies: strict, rigid, and unwavering heterosexuality -- is outside the norm. When I say "gay" I don't mean strict, rigid, and unwavering homosexuality -- I simply mean anyone who isn't strictly and unwaveringly straight.

What usually comes next in a debate like this one is the lament of why-do-we-need-labels-to-begin-with-why-can't-we-just-be-people-etc-etc-etc, which sounds nice up to a point ... but I believe that language is important; it is, after all, how we communicate thoughts and ideas -- oftentimes, a conversation around "mere semantics" is the most important conversation to have.

Cheers, all.
EP in DC

"I don't want life to imitate art; I want life to BE art." -- Postcards from the Edge

reply

[–] bibbles_n_kits 17 years ago

"but I believe that language is important;"

Then what's with your mislabeling of a bisexual man as gay? Seems pretty uncommunicative to me.

reply

[–] Cuneo 19 years ago

" 'Laurence Oliver was not gay.'

Danny Kaye would disagree with you. "
__________________________________________________________
Bob Hope may be the final word (or picture) on the whole Kaye/Olivier legend:

http://lileks.com/institute/publicity/hope1.html

reply

[–] angelofvic 12 years ago

What do you mean? (That link is not functional.)
.

reply

[–] lh_lh82 16 years ago

Yep, yep he was.

Bisexual, at least. This is common "theatre" knowledge.

reply

[–] n-munz 20 years ago

I believe that the relationship between Charles and Sebastian was not exactly homosexual, but it was a need for passion and a friendship that was so close that it turned into love and adoration. It wasn't necessarily a physical thing, it was more a nervous need for two insecure males, who feel left out to find their way in a harsh all-male environment.

reply

[–] mmalcolm_98 20 years ago

I have read all the opinions and here is mine. In plain laymen terms: a bunch of upperclass, bisexual drunks! Charles and Sebastion yes were inlove and "Active". Charles later moves on to Julia and they too are inlove and "Active"! A classic; God only knows what this two hour movie version is going to be like. We shall see...

reply

[–] bjvanslyke 20 years ago

A two-hour movie version! This beautiful story cannot be told in a two-hour movie. Another example of a lack of talent in "Hollywood" -- it's simply greed.

reply

[–] mmalcolm_98 20 years ago

Dear Red7Eric,

Yes we can I can agree that Sebastion was gay and Charles Bisexual. I also agree with all your commets on the masterpiece, Brideshead Revisited.

reply

[–] Red7Eric 20 years ago

"Comparably, Anthony Blanche's character being so obviously gay confirms to me that Charles and Sebastian are not. Sebastian, I feel, plays up to Anthony, a little curious maybe, revelling in the attention he gets from the besotted fop."

~~~~~

Do you know many gay people?

I ask because most of them bear no resemblance to Anthony Blanche ... and Sebastian's relationship with Kurt pretty much confirms that he *is* gay -- meaning that he was *always* gay, and hints that he was in love with Charles at one time. The real question is where Charles is -- clearly a confirmed heterosexual by the second half of the story, but what about the first?

On the one hand, if Charles wasn't in love with Sebastian, I can't see how he would have put up with much of Sebastian's treatment of him. On the other hand, a lot of teenagers in single-sex educational environments dabble in homosexual acts and relationships while at school and leave that aspect of themselves in the past upon graduation -- that's where I believe Charles is.

As to why Waugh would hint at a sexual/love relationship rather than spell it out -- I believe that then (as now), if you want a largely heterosexual audience to focus on the emotional connection between two people of the same gender, it's usually best to not focus on sex at all -- otherwise, it becomes a story about two sexual deviants, not two people in love. Sad but true.

EP in DC

"I don't want life to imitate art; I want life to BE art." -- Postcards from the Edge

reply

[–] bjvanslyke 20 years ago

Andersintheden,

I feel the same way about it. I watch it every Christmas season. It is the only video I ever purchased -- I had always felt that nothing else was worth the expense just to own.

reply

[–] pillfeast 19 years ago

Of course they're lovers. Some of the elaborate denials above are damned funny when Charles says, "I had never known, a happy childhood, and though its toys were silk shirts and liqueurs and cigars and its naughtiness high in the catalogue of grave sins, there was something of nursery freshness about us that fell little short of the joy of innocence," do you think the grave sins are getting drunk and joy-riding in a wheelchair?

It really wouldn't have been that much more obvious if Waugh had slipped in a sex scene, he ingeniously held back just enough to keep people talking. Why else would Sebastian be so tortured that he pisses away the life of an English lord to be an alcoholic bum in North Africa?

As for whether they're "in love" I guess it depends on how you define it? At first they're both getting what they want from the other, but then Charles wants more, and what he wants is exactly what Sebastian doesn't want. The real tragedy in the story is Charles knowingly betraying Sebastian in exactly the way that would hurt him the most, and then virtually usurping his place in the family.

Ultimately Charles is really in love with the Flyte/Marchmain/Brideshead family (whatever the hell their name is) and what they represent in his own mind.

With his last mooched nickel Burroughs sneaked off to the pay-phone and called the law.

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] murdoch1111 13 years ago

@pillfeast on Mon Sep 19 2005

Thank you for your sensible points. Many viewers of the series do not want to think that Charles and Sebastian had a physical relationship at Oxford. But, as you point out, it is obvious that they did.

One difficulty with this topic as well as with other topics on the message boards is that people refer to the book instead of the film. The book is more subtle than the film about the nature of Charles's and Sebastian's relationship at Oxford.

Another difficulty is that several people refer to the 2008 two-hour film instead of the eleven-hour 1981 series.

reply

[–] aabrams 19 years ago

I watched this series repeated on satellite very recently. Though I am British I have never read the book and I didn't know anything about the subject matter. Needless to say I was astonished at just how good it was. But it never, for one second, crossed my mind that Charles and Sebastian were not gay. Considering this was made as a main stream British drama back in 1981 it is not suprising that it is not as direct as "As Queer As Folk" in its portrayal of homosexuality?

I have no idea what Waugh intended but the series writer and director quite clearly had their own vision of these characters. Even if Waugh had written Charles and Sebastian as heterosexuals enjoying a platonic relationship that was not how they were portrayed on the television. I know the British public school system is "different" but lets be honest that whole education system has always been associated with homosexuality by the rest of the country (and don't get me started on the aristocracy).

It was a great television series (probably the best) and I really don't think it has been devalued by any subtle changes (if any) to the book that the series creators have made.

reply

[–] st-dunstan 19 years ago

I do not have my copy with me in order to quote directly but the book is full of subtle and oblique references to homosexuality; this is of course the way in which gay men had to communicate in England during the period in which the book is set. Even at the time when Waugh was writing Brideshead, homosexual acts for men were against the law.

One subtle line early in the book is often over looked. It occurs at the end of Charles’ first luncheon with Sebastian. The other guests have left and Sebastian pours Charles another drink. Sebastian suggest that they go to the Botanical Gardens,
“What for?” asks Charles,
“To see the Ivy” replies Sebastian, “there are so many different types of Ivy to be seen! – Oh Charles, you have such a lot to learn”

As the Botanical Gardens were a known meeting place for homosexual activities in the bushes, it is open to conjecture as to just what the different types of Ivy could be. A suggestion was made, after a long dinner party recently, that the Ivy could represent different types of pubic hair arrangements.

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 4megh 19 years ago

Brideshead is this month's selection for my book club. I came here to find out more about it, because it's a little confusing. I'm not familiar with older British settings and references or even much about WWII. (While a successful literature major, I suck at history.) I'm only about 35 pages into it and all last night while reading it I was thinking "are these guys gay?"

I've never seen the film. But I've heard nothing but great things about the book and the mini-series.

Of course there's the saying "they're not gay, they're just British!"

They seem obviously gay to me, but I don't really care one way or the other. I read a lot of books, but I was just surprised at how this jumped out at me in the middle of war stuff (so macho) and also the age of the novel. Being an unlikely subtext for that time.

But if they do have a physical relationship that is important, because that level of intimacy does play a major role in anyone's life. Who doesn't think of their lovers differently than their friends? And all the associations that go with those memories.

So defining each character as homo-sexual or bi-sexual or hetero-sexual is not as important as the actual relationship they have with each other, right?

reply