Classic Gay Love Story - Brideshead Revisited (1982) Discussion

[–] trippycheez 19 years ago

I think Charles and Sebastian were sexually active together. However, Evelyn Waugh didn't need to or want to spell it out--it would have distracted audiences in the 40's and in the 80's and perhaps today. Waugh chose to depict the sweet, pastoral aspects of their love rather than the carnal.

One other note: When Cara and Charles first talk alone (in Italy), Cara says, "I know of these romantic friendships of the English and the Germans. They are not Latin. I think they are very good if they do not go on too long. It is a kind of love that comes to children before they know it's meaning. In England it comes when you are almost men. I think I like that. It is better to have that kind of love for another boy than for a girl." Basically, she's comparing the Charles/Sebastian relationship to that of Lord/Lady Marchmain (and even Julia/Rex). These characters find peace with the second great love of their lives, not the first who they love when they don't even know the "meaning" of love, and who they eventually come to be disgusted with.

Evelyn Waugh himself was married twice--the second time after joining the Catholic Church.

reply

[–] cakeandtea 19 years ago

I think it is intended to be quite ambiguous. They may have had a tumble once in a while and there wouldn't have been a problem with it, as many people have mentioned, (without making gross generalisations) homosexual behaviour was acceptable - to a degree, in both British public schools and Oxbridge.

My own theory is that Charles realised that whatever relationship he had with Sebastian wasn't quite "right" and probably held back a little, maybe not having any sexual encounters with Sebastian at all. His comments when he first meets Julia, noticing her sexuality and sensuality all at once and comparing her to Sebastian, not to mention the fact that they do eventually get together, suggests that while he was probably very attracted to Sebastian, he intrinsically knew it was against his nature. Also, there's mention of Julia cutting her hair and conforming to the fashion standards of the twenties/thirties; attempting to gain and maintain an appearance of androgyny, so I suspect she was Charles' perfect middle-ground and he could fulfill his wishes for Sebastian through her.

So I think it is safe to suggest that Charles could well be repressing a homosexual nature or was confused by his strong feelings for Sebastian.

x

reply

[–] Harold_Robbins 19 years ago

The relationship between Charles and Sebastian seems to have been accepted by the family. There's a later scene between Charles and Julia in which they discuss Sebastian; Julia says "You loved him very much." "Yes," Charles says, "he was the forerunner." And Lord Marchmain himself was heard to say that Charles "seems to have a penchant for my children."

"...don't let's ask for the moon - we have the stars!"

reply

[–] oboeplayr1 19 years ago

I'm a music major, and I was playing the Adagio movement from the Concerto in D minor for Oboe and Strings.. It was a piano reduction, and my piano accompanist was telling me that this was the music they played during a scene between the two boys.. I'm only 20, so I never saw this series, but I wish I had, it sounds absolutely lovely.

This post doesn't really have a point.. but if any of you ever wondered what that BEAUTIFUL music was.. It was the Adagio movement from Albinoni's Concerto in D minor for Oboe and Strings, opus 9 no. 2.

reply

[–] idomeneo 18 years ago

I love that piece by Albinoni, it is one of my favourites. It is NOT however used in Brideshead Revisited.

I know the bit he means though, it sounds kind of similar. All the incidental music in Brideshead is amazing, but it is written by Geoffrey Burgon.

reply

[–] hawk-58 16 years ago

<<I love that piece by Albinoni, it is one of my favourites. It is NOT however used in Brideshead Revisited.>>

Beg to differ. I am almost at the end of a weekend Brideshead Revisited marathon - tapes 1-3 last night, 4-5 tonight. I, too, heard Albinoni's Adagio, one of my very favorite classical pieces, briefly somewhere during tape 2, I believe, last night. Someday maybe I will go back and find it! Rest assured, the Burgon score is lovely, but quite distinguishable from the Adagio.

reply

[–] hexenboden 19 years ago

Homosexuality in early 20th century Britain was very different from how we concieve it today. It is well known that all people have homosexual tendencies: in our society these are either wholy repressed by culture and upbringing, or if very dominant, a person may disclose he or she is gay and will be more or less accepted as such. Bisexuality exists but most of the time as a sympton of extreme promiscuity.

But in England those days, upper class boys in particular were not as repressed by the system in terms of these normal early ambiguous tendencies. It was considered a natural path of growing up. Naturally this was also in line with a more ambiguous pattern of homosexuality in grown men. People like Waugh and Olivier are probably good examples of "moderate" bisexuality.

So it is irrelevant to seek to declare Sebastian or Charles "gay'.

Anthony Blanche was clearly gay in the modern sense of the world. Charles was definitely not, although it is possible that he experienced with homosexuality with Sebastian at some point. Sebastian had a very ambiguous sexuality, and I think that is in line with the character that Waugh is drawing for us. He certainly seemed to be uninterested in women, but perhaps he was overall a rather asexual person. I don't think Cordelia was lying at all: she was a very truthful person about serious matters. Sebastian and Curt were not lovers, although Curt was probably bisexual as well.

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] sunni9676 19 years ago

I know a lot of people need clarity into the possible sexual relationship between Charles and Sebastian. Perhaps the author didn't self-censor about them having a sexual relationship, but rather wanted to focus on the deeper intimacies of a relationship that transcends sexuality. It was quite obvious that Anthony was gay, so the author would have stated the same about Sebastian and Charles if it was important. It doesn't actually matter if they did or not because that isn't what their relationship was really about. Besides in different eras men had closer relationships. And the aristocracy is well-known for eccentricity. It wouldn't be suprising that they did have some sort of physical expression, especially at their age and Charles need for friendship and love. Also, at that age a great amount of soul searching and experimentation happens. But it seems to me Charles idolizes Sebastian because he can express himself in a manner that Charles is not yet comfortable. I view their relationship as a kind of pure love, like children often have for one another without prejudice and shame. Overall it seems rather superficial to dwell on the point, but more important to focus on the aspects of the characters personality and motivations.

reply

[–] MelodyNelson 19 years ago

I do not think Charles was gay, but I do think he loved Sebastian and he loved him more than he loved anyone else in his life, but that doesn't make him at all gay, and i do think he fell for Julia because she was in some way a link to the idea that he wants to keep of Sebastian, because he cleary can't identify itself with the Sebastian of the present.

On the other hand i think Sebastian is in fact a gay, but i don't think in any way it expresses itself in the relation that he had with Charles,and I don't really think it's important for the story, I agree with sunni9676, it's pure love like children, and without prejudice. so what they did or not did is left to our imagination , and for me that's what makes a great book.

reply

[–] Rock4Ever 19 years ago

charles wasn't gay, he loved sebastain as much as a true friend does, but his true love was for the Sebastian's family and the beauty, yet tragedy, of it... he longed to be a part of such a romantic, upper-class family.... realte this to the way his father treated him, and the fact he wasn't as upper-class as most Oxford students... the gay - he was attracted to the world that Sebastian inhabited

This may help:
Waugh himself said that “Charles's romantic affection for Sebastian is part due to the glitter of the new world Sebastian represents, part to the protective feeling of a strong towards a weak character, and part a foreshadowing of the love for Julia which is to be the consuming passion of his mature years.”

that is what the author said, so it's not really disputable, though i suppose you could argue there were subconscious 'Freudian' (if you will) aspects of homosexulity.... though personally i don't believe that

also look at the way charles' reacts to characters lik Blanche who are clearly, openly gay... he's quite unsettled etc...

:)

"3...2...1...[BANG].....You're only supposed to blow the bloody doors off."

reply

[–] amandaholdenkiss 19 years ago

I agree, that is how I always interpreted the book/film

Charles was certainly infatuated with Sebastian and saw him as beautiful, but as Carla would say, that sort of love between boys is not consumated physically. He also loved everything to do with Sebastian's background, the very things that Sebastian hated, but Charles had never enjoyed. Charles's upbringing may have been privalaged, but loveless and dull (this is why we are shown the hilarious but weird scenes with his father).

Sebastian was camp, or an aesthete, at Oxford (eg: carrying a teddy bear), but only to be outrageous to rebel against his family and to be seen at Oxford as the total opposite to his very straight brother and glam and socially acceptable sister.

As the story moves on, he becomes less camp. He is not camp at Brideshead, just a lost boy. He rebels there by just being a drunk - by the time he embarrases the family by leaving the hunt and getting plastered, he is not camp at all , just a wreck.

At no stage in the book or film does he show any interest in sex of any sort. He may have fancied pretty african boys the same way he loved all beautiful things, but never touched them because sex was dirty to him. The whole catholic guilt thing probably made him impotent. He may even have died a virgin.

He only loved Charles because he was an outsider, neither catholic or aristrocat. Charles was educated/cultured enough to appreciate the same artistic things, but he came from a different background and provided protection against the suffocating family.

The problem is that Charles went on to fell in love with the whole Brideshead family, even the house, the daughter, and eventually, many years later, their religion. Sebastian saw this as betrayal - Charles was supposed to be a buffer against his family. He knew well in advance that Charles would get sucked in.

Sebastian relationship with Curt prob wasn't sexual. For a start they were both physically wrecked and impotent for health reasons. After being betrayed by Charles, Sebastian saw a rough character like Curt as someone as far removed from his background as you can get. He did tell Charles that he tolerates Curt because Curt needs him. Nobody had ever needed him before. Sebastian is no longer a little lost boy while such a pitiful creature needs him. A sort of penance before dying.

The love between Julia and Charles was probably genuine in the sense that most
people would recognise. Most hetro-monogomous couples in love would associate with the term "Orphans in a Storm" (the title of the chapter where Charles and Julia fall in love).

She sees herself as an orphan - another lost soul rebelling against her religion and her sham marriage. Charles, at the time, also sees himself as an orphan in the emotional sense. He is so emotionally bankrupt he has no interest in seeing his children. Suddenly he has a chance to go back to Brideshead and be a guardian for a Flyte sibling against the catholic faith- something he failed at all those years earlier. He saw a lot of emotional things in her that he loved about Sebastian, but as a hetrosexual he could expess his love physically with her. Sebastian in a woman's body.

When Julia says she is going back to the church (the fountain scene), she is no longer an 'orphan' - the church is her family. So from that moment they are no longer in love.

He goes back to being a loveless and selfish man.

A more cynical person might sum all this up by saying that almost every character in the book was a selfish git, capable of only loving themselves (except some minor characters) and everything that they and their class represents is deservedly facing extinction the same way the Brideshead family did.

reply

[–] tvpoison-1 18 years ago

I seriously doubt there was anything sexual between them. Their love was something more deep and intimate, and as mentioned, Waugh didn't have a problem with creating anthony's character so if there actually was physical contact between sebastian and charles it would show in a more obvious way. i think that there is a reason as to why it didn't. waugh wanted to show what their relationship was about, not about sex, about SO MUCH MORE. an innocent and childish love, which was what sebastian was searching for all along. sebastian i think WAS probably gay though, i think charles was straight but curious and insecure. charles had a thing for julia all from the beginning but she was out of reach, so sebastian in some way substitutes julia.
not every deep and meaningful relationship is about sex.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] kimphilby7 18 years ago

his name was Sabastian.....all characters called Sebastian are gay, it's a fact.

reply

[–] Mithol 18 years ago

I thought Evelyn Waugh was a girl. Were Lawrence Olivier and John Gielgud gay? Hahaha. Of course, I don't think that Charles was gay. Sebastian might have been.

reply

[–] murdoch1111 13 years ago

@Mithoi on Sun Oct 8 2006

About Evelyn Waugh: I imagine many people assume he is female. Interestingly, his first wife was named Evelyn: Friends referred to them as "He-Evelyn" and "She-Evelyn."

About other people you mention: The splendid actor John Gielgud was gay. Sebastian in the series is gay. As for Olivier, the debate continues about his gender orientation.

reply

[–] MelodyNelson 18 years ago

Amandaholdenkiss:

I agree with most thing you said, I do agree that Sebastian seems to be indiferent to sex and he's not gay in the sense Anthony is, but I do think he slept with men, when he runned away from Samgrass in Constantinople there's a clear indication that he splet with men to have a place to stay,When he says he "lay up" with as ailor, unless we want to see thing in a very naive way there's clear homoerotic idea about it, it was something that he did with the indiference that he did everything. Of course there can be many interpretations, but you can't say that there's nothing in the book that says he never touched a man.

Sebastian relationship with Kurt probably was not sexual at the stage Charles sees it,they are both very sick, but there's no indication at all that it wasn't before, it's much more logical that they were lovers, and came to be together because of it , than the contrary, unless Waugh wanted to make this also very unrealistic by making their relation platonic.

reply

[–] farfisamaniac 18 years ago

I really don't understand the notion people have about Charles Ryder not "being as upper-class as most students in Oxford"- while not being from an aristocratic (read titled) family he most definitely upper middle class, a product of a well regarded public school (just not Eton)- his father is ready to give him an allowance of £600- does anyone on here realize how much money this was in the 20s?
What he lacks is the sparkle and glitter of sebastian's world, coming from a home overshadowed by tragedy and austerity...

reply

[–] Tuesday5189 18 years ago

Men are often friends who love each other without being homosexuals.

Waugh had "romances" with men at Oxford, but "whether they had a physical dimension is unclear." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelyn_Waugh.

Regarding BR, Waugh wrote, "Charles's romantic affection for Sebastian is part due to the glitter of the new world Sebastian represents, part to the protective feeling of a strong towards a weak character, and part a foreshadowing of the love for Julia which is to be the consuming passion of his mature years." In other words, Charles was infatuated with Sebastion and his world, without homosexual activity. In contrast, Charles was passionately in ove with Julia herself, with heterosexual consumation of that love. Similarly, Charles married Celia out of physical attraction and certainly consumated that marriage.

reply

[–] Red7Eric 18 years ago

Waugh had "romances" with men at Oxford, but "whether they had a physical dimension is unclear."

~~~~~

Fair enough. But I maintain that there's a difference between a "friendship" and a "romance," and that even if Evelyn Waugh, or Charles for that matter, ever consummated these male "romances" sexually or not -- it's still pretty damn GAY.

(And I like it that way.)

Cheers, all.
EP in DC

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

reply

[–] marcelproust 18 years ago

The only allusion to Charles and Sebastian's intimacy on a sexual level is when Charles is staying at Brideshead and their naughtinesses are "high in the catalogue of grave sins". Otherwise Waugh allows that a sensitive and discerning audience will understand the nature of their love and the grave failure of Charles as Sebastian's lover and friend. I know which sin I consider more heinous

reply

[–] Harold_Robbins 18 years ago

Sebastians's family seems completely undisturbed by his relationship with Charles, possibly because he is the second son and not much is expected of him (which is part of his problem): later in the story, after Charles and Julia have become lovers, Lord Marchmain comments that Charles "seems to have a penchant for my children" - and there's an exchange between Julia and Charles that goes something like:
JULIA: You loved him.
CHARLES: Oh yes, he was the forerunner...

"I don't use a pen: I write with a goose quill dipped in venom!"---W. Lydecker

reply

[–] mikeoak840 18 years ago

While I believe sexuality is a sliding scale - 100% gay at one side, 100% straight at the other and everything in the middle a gray area open to debate as to where you draw the lines between gay, bi & straight - I would agree that Sebastian's gay. His relationships are all with men.

But as for Charles...is he straight, bi or gay? Debatable. I think you also have to consider the era this was taking place. We're talking only 20-25 years after the Oscar Wilde scandal, trial and imprisonment. Being labeled as a gay man meant putting everything on the line, being completely disgraced. It was an imprisonable offense. Your career was on the line. You'd be shunned by family & friends. Sebastian had a title, and he had money. He didn't have to support himself or worry about losing his job.

Perhaps part of the story is Charles is the weaker character - Sebastian was his true love but Julia a more expediant, socially-acceptable alternative to Sebastian. Maybe he chose the easier road rather than being true to his own nature.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ecfbennett-1 18 years ago

Blanche does say to Charles at one point that Sebastian "came to live with me in Marseille last year when you threw him over.."

By the 1940s Waugh certainly did feel that homosexuality was a phase one passed through, and something definately to grow out of. His attitude and behaviour during the twenties & thirties is less certain. The character of Charles appears based on Waugh if only partially, not only for the Catholic convert stuff but also for the ambiguous sexuality. I understood that Waugh initially planned the book to focus more on Charles & Sebastians relationship but went back and wrote in Julia's character to make it more mainstream; this could explain why Sebastian & Julia are so similar [ a point constantly remarked upon ] and why Sebastian's character needed to be written out [we never actually know what happens to him]

It is interesting that Anthony Blanche is one of the most unconfused and focused characters in the book. Under the surface of a stereotypically pretentious, flighty and silly queen, he is actually one of the only ones with his act together. He has very few illusions about the world around him and none about himself. His reappearance in the art gallery is almost refreshing and reassuring. Considering he is such a curious creature Waugh actually regrds him with some fondness.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bostonlatin 17 years ago

Agree with you Wplains. I just saw it on DVD for the first time. Clearly, all the behaviour indicates a homosexual relationship. Especially at age 19 in college it is NOT platonic. Again the inference that homosexuality is a phase that Charles simply out grew is implied but clearly ridiculous. Waugh having trouble dealing with his own homosexuality creates 2 male lovers who can not consumate the relationship.

I find I am fascinated by the whole story but it can be incredibly dull at parts. Also, I have no empathy for the British ruling class in this story.

reply

[–] bostonlatin 17 years ago

And yes Waugh had 7 children.

reply

[–] tahoebaby97 17 years ago

Agreed. As far as the movie is concerned, I don't see how anyone could NOT assume that Charles and Seb are romantically involved. The arms draped over each other, the sidelong glances, falling asleep in each others' arms, the manner of speech they use with each other. It seems fairly obvious to me. Cara's speech to Charles in Venice practically spells it out, discussing their "romantic love" and how it wouldn't be healthy for it to go on much longer, etc.

reply

[–] murdoch1111 13 years ago

On the issue of Charles and Sebastian's relationship at Oxford and in Venice, I can do no better than to quote the following remarks by wplains on Sun Sep 2 2007:

"I haven't read this book so I can't comment on it but I am re-watching the whole series on DVD after seeing it at the time it came out on tv. I must say I definitely agree with another poster who said he didn't know what Waugh's intent was re Sebastian and Charle's friendship but the filmmakers certainly leave you in no dout that they were meant to be sexually involved. The long looks, the warm smiles, and especially the Venice episode where there are various shots of them sprawled all over one another in the gongolas are all conveying one message. It is hard to believe that two 19-year old boys would have a platonic love affair anyway. I also think Cara's knowing looks and her conversation with Charles is intended to convey that very message."

reply

[–] suze-4 17 years ago

I read through this long thread and no one has mentioned some of the key indicators that this was a homosexual relationship. There's no doubt at all, at least about what the director intended. Those who believe it was platonic, you are free to believe that. Though how you can, I don't really see that, what with them undressing in front of each other, apparently waking up together, cuddling, and all the other signs.

First off, Charles immediately says he was looking for love. Then we see him find it in Sebastian. Sorry he was not looking for platonic friendship or "agape" with Sebastian.

- Charles immediately falls in love with Sebastian when he throws up through the window. He later sketches Sebastian vomiting. This is not a platonic love but a physical passion and desire.

- They are both so drawn together that they almost immediately drop all other friends. It is mentioned several times during the series. This is also not a platonic love - it is an obsession and it is romantic. Sure they might have been celibate, or torn and guilt ridden over longings, and I will grant you that, if you insist, but they were in love, so that is not platonic, whether they ever touched or not.

- Samgrass also appears to have a more than platonic interest in Sebastian. In a controlling, almost sleazy way. It is not even subtle.

- Charles and Sebastian run with and party with a notorious gay set, at least two of whom are flamboyantly gay. Were they straight in college, they'd stay away from the gay set. Charles is drawn into it immediately.

Anyway the movie is not chiefly about the homosexual aspect. Maybe Sebastian became a drunk because of guilt over his being gay, but nowadays we know that there is a depression gene and an alcoholism gene that runs in families. There was no help available then, and no one knew how to treat it. Notice how his mother thought that not giving him money would actually keep him from buying liquor, so she chastised Charles for giving him money?

Charles's coldness and failure to care that much about Sebastian's alcoholism; his taking up with a woman, even the sister of his male love, shows total selfishness - like he fell out of love with Sebastian because he drank too much. So this again shows it was not a platonic love or real friendship. He no longer had any use for Sebastian and was willing to drop him from his life.

Yet Charles is the protagonist from the very first scene. And I guess that showing us how he failed is part of his memoir, and is done with regret and honesty.

All the sadness in the movie makes it so depressing to watch. Yet I can't turn away, as I must find out what happens.

PS, since writing the above, I have almost finished watching it, and I watched the retrospective in which the gay theme is discussed in full by the film makers.

I didn't realize Sebastian was only a main character in the early episodes although I realized he was heading for a bad end. The characters have some concern for him, but in general they seem to not mind too much that they never see him. Now Julia and Charles are falling in love and Charles calls Sebastian "the forerunner." I really must read the book now because I need to have more details about what motivates them.

This is such a complex story and so heartbreaking. It is actually very much like a soap opera but much more lavishly filmed.

reply

[–] fico_of_arboria 17 years ago

"Charles's coldness and failure to care that much about Sebastian's alcoholism; his taking up with a woman, even the sister of his male love, shows total selfishness - like he fell out of love with Sebastian because he drank too much. So this again shows it was not a platonic love or real friendship. He no longer had any use for Sebastian and was willing to drop him from his life."

I think Charles cared about Sebastian's alcoholism. Perhaps he left because he couldn't bear to see Sebastian falling apart. Alcoholism is difficult to live with, not just for the alcoholic. Indeed, the more you care about the person, often the harder it is to bear.

reply

[–] suze-4 17 years ago

I wrote the above post before I finished watching the whole series - I now feel more compassion toward Charles, though I still loved Sebastian more because he was more lovable and more vibrant in every way and I could relate more to him. I agree with you now that Charles did care but had no means of showing it. He was not raised to show his emotions but rather to just move on when he couldn't deal with something.

I still don't like his taking up with Julia, which to me was unbelievable. Others found it romantic but I couldn't imagine them falling in love after all those years. For me he was meant to remain in a relationship with a man and I think he was fighting that side of his nature and that in itself is so sad.

reply

[–] maddie01 16 years ago

I just recently read the book and watched the miniseries for the first time, and my first and lasting impression of Charles/Sebastian's relationship was that it could probably be labeled as a bromance if you were going to label it at all. For those who aren't familiar with the term, a bromance is an intimate, often nonsexual relationship between two men. I mean, I love how close they were in the series but I couldn't really see them having a physical relationship other than the occasional snuggle...

Will Turner: You cheated!
Jack Sparrow: Pirate.

reply

[–] redroses_blueworld 16 years ago

I agree with Suze-4. Charles was meant to be with Sebastian- and also would like to add that: men at that time were expected to marry and have children, and sexual relations between two men were treated with disdain. Had the time period been different, and Sebastian's family not been such batty loons about religion, Charles and Sebastian would most likely have been very happy together for a long, long, long time (but then I guess there wouldn't be much of a story if everything went okay, lol). Personally, I think it's so sad and terrible that religion and the prejudices of society brought that level of profound unhappiness unto Charles and Sebastian.

reply

[–] murdoch1111 13 years ago

@ redroses_blueworld on Mon Feb 9 2009

They're scarcely "batty loons," as you claim. It's the most important force in their lives.

You and other people who dislike their beliefs run the danger of misinterpreting the major points of the series.

reply

[–] tahoebaby97 17 years ago

Some very astute and relevent observations here. Agree with all of them.

reply

[–] plibby 17 years ago

I've only started to watch this series, so perhaps I should reserve judgement. However, it seems to me that Sebastian is clearly a gay man fighting his homosexuality, whereas Charles is straight. As others have pointed out, the film does show them being very "close" i.e. cuddling arms around each other etc., but isn't it possible to feel love for a member of the same sex without it being sexual? Probably Sebastian was romantically inclined towards Charles, but that same romantic sexual love was not felt (in my opinion) by Charles. I think Charles was more in awe of Sebastian than anything else: here is middle-class Charles from Bayswater, who's led a fairly boring life: and he meets handsome charming Sebastian, whose spent his entire life in luxury and glamor. I think he's more intoxicated with Sebastian's *lifestyle* than Sebastian.

reply

[–] tante_fiolett 16 years ago

it is very clear that sebastian and charles' relationship is NOT of a homosexual nature. i urge you all to read richard alapack's book "love's pivotal relationships" for a better explanation; it talks of the concept of "first love", which depicts this particular relationship perfectly: "My first love draws out the burgeoning man or woman in me. Within the orbit of our "harmonious us," we share a plethora of "firsts" and negotiate the full spectrum of absolutes: the One, the Good, the True, the Beautiful, the Magic, and the Tragic. The person of the person and not sex matters most." he goes on tp say that there needn't be anything sexual about the relationship (http://www.amazon.com/Loves-Pivotal-Relationships-Intimate-Partner/dp/1434319040/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232925361&sr=8-1).

charles and sebastians relationship is romantic, but not sexual, they are in love with each other as persons rather than gender. anthony blache is a homosexual, and is used as a contrast to charles and sebastian, his behavious and manner is very different from theirs. besides, the marchmain family would never have embraced charles in the way they do if the relationship he had with sebastian was a homosexual one. rather, it is very common for "first loves" to be embraced by theis other half's family. so there you have it: it's been researched by a professor in psychology (richard alapack), i am myself a psychology student, and i am confident that gender has nothing to do with charles and sebastian's relationship. so no, this is NOT a classic gay love story, sorry...

reply

[–] holly-hibbs 15 years ago

I saw the newer movie, then read the book, and I'm now watching this series. I'm about halfway through it.

I don't know what to think, really, because it's just not spelled out in the book except for Charles saying to Julia, "Oh yes, Sebastian was the forerunner."

But Charles taking up with Julia and being in love with her, I just don't get IF there were anything more than friendship between him and Sebastian.

And what someone pointed out was true, about Sebastian's family liking Charles so much. If there were more going on between them, I would think they would most definitely not approve.

If Sebastian is supposed to be gay, and I think we all agree he is, I thought that with the time in which this was set, and his Catholic upbringing, he struggled with his feelings and being ashamed, and that's why he was depressed and became an alcoholic. But I'm not sure if I understand anything. I think it would be easier if it had been made more clear.

I do think it odd the way Charles behaves--if he cares so much about Sebastian, and he knows how Sebastian feels about his family, why does Charles have so much to do with them? He doesn't even agree with their religion, and yet it seems almost as if he's sympathetic to Lady Marchmain.

Sorry I'm rambling. I'm just trying to figure all this out.

I wonder if anyone on here has seen the other version, the newer, movie version? I like both versions, but I think I like it better in some ways. It's more clear in some ways, and the girl who plays Julia in it is much prettier than the one in this miniseries.

reply

[–] tante_fiolett 15 years ago

the new movie isn't true to the book AT ALL. and anthony andrews makes a much better sebastian, in my mind. the tv-series is fantastic and doesn't leave anything out.

sebastian is not gay. neither is charles. my professor agreed with my analysis and i got an A on my bachelor's thesis, and my professor is one of the leading minds when it comes to these kinds of relationships, so i firmly believe i'm right in the analysis of charles and sebastian's relationship.

reply

[–] ScottishFilmFan 15 years ago

Sebastian is completely gay! It's a part of that psyche that destroys him, that his sexual preference is at odds with his religion.

Charles isn't, he's seduced by aristocracy.

reply

[–] tante_fiolett 15 years ago

what makes you think he's gay?

reply

[–] murdoch1111 13 years ago

Listen, people, whether you want to believe it or not, Charles and Sebastian had a discreet homosexual relationship when they were at Oxford. That is what Charles means when he says that his and Sebastian's naughtiness was "high in the category of grave sins."

reply

[–] joyfarrah 13 years ago

I dont think that that is definite. I think that they had a homoerotic friendship, which was far from unusual at the time, but the "naughtiness" could simply refer to their heavy drinking.

reply

[–] murdoch1111 13 years ago

@Joyfarrah on Wed Jun 6 2012

You remark, "'I dont think that that is definite. I think that they had a homoerotic friendship, which was far from unusual at the time, but the "naughtiness" could simply refer to their heavy drinking.'"

My response: Heavy drinking hardly qualifies as a "grave sin." Please remember that in the television series Charles Ryder narrates retrospectively through long flashbacks that show his relationships with Sebastian, Julia, Lord Marchmain, Lady Marchmain, and people in their social circle. The "Et In Arcadia Ego" part of the series leaves little doubt that Charles had a brief homosexual relationship with Sebastian at Oxford. Evelyn Waugh himself had similar relationships at Oxford: He once remarked that his novel "Brideshead Revisited" is about "Catholicism and homosexuality."

reply

[–] deeveed 13 years ago

I'd be curious to know how Irons and Andrews looked at their characters along this line. They appeared to play it sort of subtly is you ask me and very well. Question is what did they believe as to the extent of the relationship? I'd think actors need to be grounded somewhat as to how they understand the characters. If they don't have that understanding well the acting would be unmoored and all over the lot I think.

reply

[–] murdoch1111 13 years ago

@deeveed on Wed Jun 6 2012

What I shall paste below does not address exactly what you asked about how Irons and Andrews viewed their roles or their relationship, but I shall place it here anyhow. It's from a recent "Trivia" section on IMDb about the TV series:

"Originally, producer Derek Granger asked Anthony Andrews to play the role of Charles Ryder. Andrews, however, felt he was better suited for the part of Sebastian Flyte. Jeremy Irons, Granger's first choice for Sebastian, preferred to play Ryder, so the two actors swapped roles."

reply

[–] joyfarrah 13 years ago

Yes in Catholicism drunkenness can indeed be a grave sin. Temperance is a virtue. I havent seen anything from Waugh to indicate that the book was about "homosexuality". Can you please quote? The fact that Waugh himself had some homosexual relatonships at Oxford does not mean that he intended C and Seb's relationship to be sexual.

reply

[–] murdoch1111 13 years ago

@joyfarrah on Wed Jun 6 2012

Please read the entries in Wikipedia about Waugh, his novel Brideshead Revisited, and the TV series Brideshead revisited. They may assist you in this regard.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] anghmho 14 years ago

Hear, hear! Finally, a clear voice! But this actually IS a love story. It's about love of God, isn't it? And God's love for us. Even if the author's interpretation of that love doesn't agree with yours, it does agree with that of the characters in the story, and that's the point.

One thing I have noticed about IMDB postings is how hung up posters are about GAY implications and how they see them where they don't exist. As the previous poster has indicated, such hang-ups can lead you to miss the point.

reply

[–] deeveed 14 years ago

Interesting...Reading Brideshead really knocks it to one that yes you can sin like hell but there's a way back (but with suffering) and it's usually God (that divine grace) operating.

reply