MovieChat Forums > Brideshead Revisited (1982) Discussion > Charles- Repressed Homosexual?

Charles- Repressed Homosexual?

posted 16 years ago by Buffyimmortal
33 replies | jump to latest

I don't buy the sensationalized notion that Charles' motivation lie only in his desire to attain Brideshead, at least not in the grand scheme of things. The relationship that Charles shared with Sebastian was what led him to the house to begin with and I think the memories that rest there were evocative of a time in Charles' life when he was happier, when he had Sebastian. The path Charles takes seems to be indicative of a repressed homosexual more than a budding property owner. He only pursued Julia when the seriousness of his relationship with Sebastian was noted, this indicates to me that his intrusion on Julia was some form of compensation. He only again pursues her, on the sole basis of their interaction in Venice when Julia is unattainable and thus he seeks to attain her when he stands even less of a chance, when her faith (which is her biggest resistance) impedes on their relationship. This, also, is after Charles is rejected by Sebastian which I feel seemed validation to Charles' of the struggle their relationship would endure. Increasingly, the feeling of failure wipes over all else in Charles' mind and his fixation on Brideshead is the only thing he longs for as Sebastian slips away. He marries a woman whom he doesn't appear to love and has no children with (she's also an adulterer in the book) then again pursues Julia under what she felt were shameful circumstances, both relationships prevented Charles from indulging romantically which leads me to believe he subconsciously set himself up for disappointment. Then add to that his love of Brideshead which is an unfulfilling romance or, more curiously, an asexual one which leads me to believe that Charles' feelings of failure regarding Sebastian were channeled into Charles' desire for a safe haven, for a family and a sense of belonging he never had. His love of Brideshead is the seal on his asexuality, the end to his humanly romance and thus an ultimate repression of his character as people like Julia become possessions to him rather than people. It's practically played out for us in the beginning when we're led to believe Julia is the love of Charles life and yet, as always, he only finds himself attracted to her is while she walks away, when his chances are decreased.

In the flashback we see two images of Sebastian and Julia. In the case of Julia it's a flashback of his intrusion on her life which seems as though that's where his guilt lies when it comes to her, he's sorry he was ever involved with her because it was always doomed. And what do we see of Sebastian? Not a precise memory but instead a weakened vision of Sebastian who's entirely vacant of any hope within himself. Charles' guilt, in the case of Sebastian, is more a feeling of obligation, he'd wished he'd done more for Sebastian when it counted.

Sound good?

- Elaine Patrisse Stockard Babcock Newbury

[–] siobhan-rouse 16 years ago

Nope.

Plenty of people have "crushes" when they are teenagers, but then they grow out of them and mature. That is what happened to Evelyn Waugh, and it's what this story is about. That's why the character of Sebastian basically appears in only the first third of the book.

[–] Buffyimmortal 16 years ago

Wow, overwhelming retort. "Nope" - I am defeated.

- Elaine Patrisse Stockard Babcock Newbury

[–] ScottishFilmFan 16 years ago

No you're just wrong. The over-emphasis of many people on homosexuality in the novel misses what it's really about. It's a novel about much greater things than sexuality, be it hetero or homo.

[–] tante_fiolett 15 years ago

spot on! sebastian and charles have a relationship that's romantic, but not sexual, and is based on persona, not gender.

[–] Noir-It-All 15 years ago

Doesn't Charles say at the start that he was looking for love? His mother was killed during WWI and his father was inaccessible.

I've seen people from unhappy homes latch onto a seemingly happy or at least glamorous family. As Marchmain's friend says, "It's all right as long as it doesn't go on too long."

"Two more swords and I'll be Queen of the Monkey People." Roseanne

[–] fico_of_arboria 16 years ago

"He only again pursues her, on the sole basis of their interaction in Venice when Julia is unattainable "

Steady the buffs. You've clearly put some thought into this, which is super, however, and correct me if I'm wrong (it is some years since I read the book), but Julia did not go to Venice, at least, not when Charles was there. Are you perhaps thinking of the Hollywood interpretation (a term I use loosely)? If you are, might I suggest you go to the movie board, and not this one, which is very much to the taste of the novel.

Please don't think me rude, I really appreciate what you have considered here, but I am infering that you are referring to the recent film, rathr than the television series and book.

[–] murph24 16 years ago

You've expressed my feelings exactly. The plot, as described by Buffyimmortal, reflects the 2008 film adaptation - which severely distorted the characters and situations created by Evelyn Waugh.

In both the novel and the 1981 miniseries, Julia did not travel to Venice with Charles and Sebastian. And Charles and Celia had two children, John-John and Caroline (which always made me wonder if JFK and Jackie were fans of BRIDESHEAD REVISITED).

But if we're talking about the story as written by Waugh, no - I don't believe Charles was a "repressed homosexual."

[–] crisotto 16 years ago

Just someone "whose naughtinesses were in the category of grave sins".
Personally, I can't understand the addiction people have with pigeonholing and reverse-pigeonholing characters. "Gay" "not gay" "half gay". If you have eyes in your head it is pretty easy to work out where each of the characters is coming from and "who" they are. Pigeonholing them as stereotypes is as silly and counter productive as pigeonholing real people.

[–] murph24 15 years ago

Just someone "whose naughtinesses were in the category of grave sins".

Of course, that particular line has been interpreted in more than one way. Some have cited it as proof that Charles and Sebastian had a hard core sexual relationship, others have claimed it simply referred to the "drunk in the afternoon" lifestyle Charles had embarked upon at Oxford (and that his cousin Jasper despaired of when he said that Charles had gone "straight, hook, line, and sinker, into the very worst set in the University").

The variety of interpretations has always fascinated me.

[–] wejpasadena 13 years ago

My understanding is that among the young set at Oxford and Cambridge between the wars experimentation of various sorts was the norm - with ideas, intoxicants, and everything else. I don't think that Charles had a fixed identity as a g*y person (I am worried about workplace firewalls here) but he may have experimented some. Remember this was long before coeducational education. These boys would have gone to the elite "public" (that is, private schools) in England, which were all male, their teachers would have been all male, so they would have had very little opportunity to even meet and interact with women.

Earlier someone alluded to how a person coming from a broken home, or a person whose mother has died and has a distant relationship with his father, can "latch on" to what appears to be a happy or functioning family and I think that is EXACTLY spot on in this case. Charles was looking for a family, and Sebastian's family (at least at first glance) seemed to have everything. Charles was an only child, while this family had four children, including one young enough to be amusing and childlike (the little sister). Of course, as he got to know things better he realized this family was far from perfect.

For whatever it's worth I've had the experience of meeting a family that I thought was perfect and so much more "together" than my family, and it really is a moving and affecting experience.

[–] Harold_Robbins 15 years ago

I've always liked Lord Marchmain's wry observation that Charles "seems to have a penchant for my children."

"Remind me to tell you about the time I looked into the heart of an artichoke."

[–] deeveed 15 years ago

Boy this was a wild film,eh? Sex, heteros, homos, aesthetes, aristos, Catholics and all playing around in the same patch. No wonder Waugh's book was a hit then and still now. In a way, I'm not surprised it wasn't on say a Church made "condemned" book list as they did have for films back when. I'm not sure if Waugh cared so much how Ryder's sexuality would be perceived. I think it was more important for him to explore how Ryder, being an artist after "beauty", navigates a world that he strives to understand but just can't. Probably drove him crazy when he's after "beauty and truth" and finds out the Marchmains raelly care about a fellow who was put on a cross to die.

[–] Chapaev36 15 years ago

Charles was probably not homosexual; rather it seems to me (from watching the mini-series) that he was rather smitten with the family and their lifestyle as a whole.

And the one thing that I think supports this is Charles' declining interest in Sebastian upon making friends with the Flytes. It seemed like he was already 'in'. I recall being surprised at first by Charles' odd sense of distance, especially when it came to Sebastien's alcoholism and subsequent refusal to reintegrate him into his life.

Julia may have been the additional attempt to rejoin the family, although he probably did love her in his own way.

I'd like to add that we're dealing with rather slippery terms here: love and homosexuality. Neither is really static. One can love in different ways, even when it's sexual. And one can be a homosexual on a varying scale between the gay extreme and the straight extreme. Maybe Charles had a penchant for both sexes. I think most people do, to some extent. I think people have a tendency to polarize sexuality.

[–] lark-10 15 years ago

these days we must have that people are "gay" or "straight". Then it was not so clear and it was not unusual to have sexual relationships with both sexes - read James Lees-Milnes diaries.

[–] Sugarminx 12 years ago

"I recall being surprised at first by Charles' odd sense of distance, especially when it came to Sebastien's alcoholism and subsequent refusal to reintegrate him into his life."

For me it's a bit 'which came first? the chicken or the egg?'

Now I will admit I missed a couple of episodes so may be talking arrant nonsense, but did Sebastian turn increasingly to alcohol because of Charles' growing 'distance'? Or did Charles distance himself due to Sebastian's increasing dependence on alcohol.

I know that's a simplistic reduction of their relationship and that Sebastian turned to alcohol in part because he was having issues with his family, but I wonder if Charles could have 'saved' him. Did he feel abandoned by Charles? Did he love Charles? I haven't seen the whole show yet so perhaps these questions are answered in the end, I hope so. Sebastian makes me so sad, he seems so lost.

Tap Tommy

[–] ronfirv 12 years ago

Interesting.
My reading of S. was that he became an alcoholic because of his family issues and not Charles. However, he did remark to C. early in their friendship, when Charles was keen to get to know his family more, that he didn't want him to know them as they would steal Charles from him, and in some ways, that happened.
Charles might have saved him but he was seduced by the charm of the family and the Brideshead lifestyle, and the exquisite buildings around them. remember he was an accomplished artist.
Yes, S. was a tragic figure, a lost soul.
Part of this was connected to his persona, something of a Peter Pan, and he mourned his own slowly dying youth, and loss of beauty.

[–] Sugarminx 12 years ago

Yes agreed. I too remembered that Sebastian didn't want Charles to get too involved with his family, that he wanted to keep Charles for himself.

It must have broken his heart to see Charles become more and more wrapped up with the family, to see the closeness they once shared slowly disintergrate.

Tap Tommy

[–] IveGotASecret 12 years ago

"Now I will admit I missed a couple of episodes so may be talking errant nonsense, but did Sebastian turn increasingly to alcohol because of Charles' growing 'distance'? Or did Charles distance himself due to Sebastian's increasing dependence on alcohol.

I know that's a simplistic reduction of their relationship and that Sebastian turned to alcohol in part because he was having issues with his family, but I wonder if Charles could have 'saved' him. Did he feel abandoned by Charles? Did he love Charles? I haven't seen the whole show yet so perhaps these questions are answered in the end, I hope so. Sebastian makes me so sad, he seems so lost."

I just finished watched the 1981 mini-series. The characters sexuality is never made clear and seems to be left up to interpretation. Before Charles got involved with Julia, Celia said that Julia liked women now, and suggested Julia had had a sexual relationship with a woman. That seemed to make Charles interested in her. Also, when Sebastian made Charles come to him when he'd hurt his toe and Charles first met Julia, and seemed to suggest she was a female Sebastian and he was glad when she left him alone with Sebastian because she made him feel uncomfortable.

In regards to Charles and Sebastian's relationship, I felt that it was Sebastian that dumped Charles. It started when Sebastian wouldn't let Charles in and explain what demons were driving him to become an alcoholic. He even accused Charles of spying on him for his mother. So it was Sebastian that ultimately drew away from Charles and shut him out.

In regards to Charles, I was surprised he got married, since I never got the impression he was interested in women. He certainly wasn't interested in his children. And it was kind of odd he ended up becoming interested in the woman he once labelled as being a female Sebastian. I didn't feel Charles relationship with Julia had the passion or depth of feeling that he had with Sebastian.

What really attracted Charles to Julia? Was it because she was Sebastian's sister and possibly reminded him of Sebastian? Was it because of the story his wife told him about Julia being sexually involved with a woman?

Whatever the case may be, ultimately neither of his relationships worked out with either sibling. Julia left him just like Sebastian did. With Julia the reason was her religion; it wasn't so clean-cut with Sebastian.

There's an interesting Sebastian quote on the DVD set, "If only it could be like this always -- always summer, always alone, the fruit always ripe, and Aloysuis in a good temper." -- Sebastian Flyte.

Did Aloysuis represent someone in Sebastian's life? Possibly his father? It's interesting that Sebastian went down the same road his father did, but his father found someone that saved him from the abyss and Sebastian didn't.

[–] suzycreamcheese1 15 years ago

He tells Julia Sebastion was the forerunner.

RIP Heath Ledger 1979-2008

[–] murph24 14 years ago

He tells Julia Sebastion was the forerunner.

And this could have simply meant that Sebastian was his first love. But just because Charles loved Sebastian deeply doesn't mean the two were having sex.

[–] suzycreamcheese1 14 years ago

Very true. "Julia understood."

RIP Heath Ledger 1979-2008

[–] Snoopymichele 13 years ago

I've only seen the miniseries. But my take is that Charles was intoxicated by Sebastian's sense of freedom and his devil may care lifestyle. He was priveleged, but not snobbish. And he was hot as all get up in his youth.

[–] Prismark10 13 years ago

Charles seem to be more of a social climber to me.

Its that man again!!

[–] murdoch1111 13 years ago

@murph24 on Tue Aug 31 2010 and others:

Charles and Sebastian had a brief homosexual relationship at Oxford.

[–] murph24 12 years ago

Charles and Sebastian had a brief homosexual relationship at Oxford.

And where in the book does Evelyn Waugh say this?

[–] Brooch 14 years ago

WildIan220 mentions Sebastian's relationship with Kurt but perhaps doesn't really follow it through. I think that in the scenes with Kurt and what we learn about him through the lips of others provide many clues to Sebastian's nature and thus to his relationship with Charles.

Sebastian tells Charles that he stays with Kurt because he needs someone of his own to look after. Viewing the film recently it seemed to me that Sebastian could not look after Charles, because Charles in the end was such a self-contained cold fish that he, Sebastian, could no longer reach him. Charles deliberately distances himself as he takes on the role of dispassionate observer, to a certain extent.

There is a scene between Kurt and Sebastian, witnessed by Charles, where Kurt orders Sebastian around and Sebastian willingly does his bidding by fetching drink/cigarettes? from under the bed. Kurt comments words to the effect that he will have to go on doing this and that he will enjoy doing it. I can't remember the exact words. There seems to me to be a classic dominant [Kurt]/subservient [Sebastian] relationship here.

So I am coming round to the view that whilst Charles may be a repressed homosexual, Sebastian is not repressed as regards Kurt, although, of course, he has had to leave family and polite society behind.

[–] deeveed 14 years ago

There is a scene between Kurt and Sebastian, witnessed by Charles, where Kurt orders Sebastian around and Sebastian willingly does his bidding by fetching drink/cigarettes? from under the bed. Kurt comments words to the effect that he will have to go on doing this and that he will enjoy doing it. I can't remember the exact words. There seems to me to be a classic dominant [Kurt]/subservient [Sebastian] relationship here.

And I think there's a point in there somewhere. Sebastian I think at that time
kind of comes to terms as to what his religion really means. At that point in his life he seems to be cognizant that with Kurt he will lead of life now of charity and service. I think suffering brings with it self-knowledge and a crystallization of how one may live.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] murdoch1111 13 years ago

@Buffyimmortal

You've made a laudable effort to interpret the narrative, but no, it does not "sound good." Your discussion contains errors of fact and also potential errors of interpretation. One error of fact: Charles and his wife Celia have two children. What seems to me an error of interpretation is that Charles is a repressed homosexual. It's simply not possible to determine Charles' actual gender orientation from the television series. It is implied in the series that he moves from his early homosexual involvement with Sebastian to solidly heterosexual behavior--as evidenced by his marriage, his prolonged affair with Julia, and his reference to the affairs he had during the two years he traveled by himself in order to achieve maturity in his art.

Candidly, I find the protracted discussion on the boards about one or another person's gender orientation tiresome. The series raises issues that are far more important than that of human sexuality.

[–] Sugarminx 12 years ago

"Candidly, I find the protracted discussion on the boards about one or another person's gender orientation tiresome."

Fair enough.

"The series raises issues that are far more important than that of human sexuality"

Issues that are more important to *you* perhaps, but Charles' sexual orientation may indeed be of importance to other viewers. For example, it may help in understanding his feelings and motivations.

Tap Tommy

[–] ronfirv 12 years ago

Human sexuality played a major part of this story whether the poster finds it tiresome or not.
Yes, Sebastian had to deal with issues surrounding his family, faith AND his barely latent gayness.
Tiresome to a handful but it is there and has to be grasped.

If you read the book, you will note too that C. stated, very clearly, that he and S. had committed offences "high in the catalogue of human sins", which to most, pointed at even a fleeting gay relationship.

C. was captivated with S., as were most who met him, (even his barber, which C. commented upon)but did C. fall in love with him? Not much doubt about it for many of us, that was part of the charming story.
After all, C. said (in one of the most memorable lines from the book):

I was drowning in honey, stingless.

[–] deeveed 12 years ago

Human sexuality played a major part of this story whether the poster finds it tiresome or not.

hmmmm. a part surely but a major part? The subtext I'd agree is there throughout Brideshead itself but I'd think Waugh had more fish to fry than sexuality in his book. It's there but it seems overrated. What I think is being examined in Brideshead is a coalescense of an individual's entire being, physical, sexual, intellectual and spiritual, as he or she moves through a specific world of suffering. What we get an idea of is how they each react to those challanges. I guess it's ok if you want to magnify the importance of sex but I think it comes at the risk of understanding other facets of the novel and Waugh's genius in presenting it all to us.