I watch this mini-series about once per year, and I am always left with the feeling that I haven't quite understood their basic failings, why each member of the family is unsatisfied. I think it has something to do with the mother's dedication to her church. Can someone add to my understanding?
shareThe whole of the novel is about the failure of love: Charles' failure to love Sebastian, Lord Marchmain's failure to love anyone but himself, Julia's failure to love herself, Lady Marchmain and Bridie's failures to love anyone but the Church. The only person to give himself over to love is Sebastian, and sadly he is let down by his family, who co-opt Charles for their own devices. Far from being the hero of Brideshead Revisited, Charles is venal, self-involved and shallow. The ending of the novel does hint that he has found redemption through the Catholic faith, but he has endured a loveless marriage and a thwarted affair before reaching that point.
What I think is beautifully done by Waugh, and also by Nickolas Grace is his incredible performance, is to use Anthony Blanche as the foil for the loveless Flytes. Although the camp drollery could tip over into grotesque, Anthony is the only one who loves without asking anything in return - a character trait that would have immeasurably improved the life of Charles Ryder.
[deleted]
******BOOK SPOILERS******
The last words in the book (before Hooper's line) are entirely about the rejuvenation of the Catholic faith (and presumably the creation of Ryder's faith) and the end of the golden age of aristocracy.
The precise quote is (upon Charles visiting the chapel):
"...the small red flame -- a beaten-copper lamp of deplorable design, relit before the beaten-copper doors of the tabernacle; the flame which the old knights saw from their tombs, which they saw put out; that flame burns again for other soldiers, far from home, farther, in heart, than Acre or Jerusalem. It could not have been lit but for the builders and the tragedians, and there I found it this morning, burning anew among the old stones."
Thanks for that. I have never read the book...and I should.
shareAmen, Blite. No pun intended. This is what makes the final scenes in the series absolutely sublime. Thinking beyond the end of the novel, I don't know whether Charles ever becomes a Catholic, but he's evolved into a man of deep faith.
I only look like a fan of Al Pacino.
You know at the start of the story that he's a Catholic. When Hooper discovers the chapel at Brideshead he says to Ryder "There's an old RC Church up there ... more in your line than mine."
BR is the story of Charle's conversion.
[deleted]
Oh my goodness. If you think Charles remained an agnostic then I'm afraid you don't really understand the book or the movie.
shareOh my goodness, I have my own mind and my own interpretation. I'm afraid you don't really know how to interact well and effectively with others. But your spaceship awaits you and I do hope you have a safe trip back, GB. GB?
Give thanks for a little and you will find a lot.
Your interpretation just doesn't jive with the facts clearly laid out in the book and in the movie. In the very first episode when the army company comes upon Brideshead, Hooper says to Ryder: "There's a RC Church up there - more in your line than mine." RC - Roman Catholic. Then you have the narrative throughout the course of the story in which Charles clearly speaks of his ultimate conversion and the realization that there the word extends beyond "three dimensions". And then there is the scene in the last episode in which Charles enters the RC Church and prays.
I think if Waugh were alive and were able to see your ignorant post with the insipid emoticons, he would probably think "Yes, there's an example of the self-assured stupidity that is a byproduct of the modern age. Hooper armed with a keyboard."
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.
[deleted]
Gduch, you're so bitter and acerbic. I hope the New Year brings you happiness and joy and a change of attitude. I respectfully disagree, Mr. Bailey is arrogant and pompous and you have to chime in with sarcasm.
This board is toxic and I resolve to stay far away from it. It's too bad, because the series is magnificent, as is the novel and there is much to discuss and debate. Implacable and unyielding attitudes abound here and, truth be told, I can't be bothered.
Give thanks for a little and you will find a lot.
marcelproust What I think is beautifully done by Waugh, and also by Nickolas Grace is his incredible performance, is to use Anthony Blanche as the foil for the loveless Flytes. Although the camp drollery could tip over into grotesque, Anthony is the only one who loves without asking anything in return - a character trait that would have immeasurably improved the life of Charles Ryder.
I found Anthony to be one interesting character, one who Charles "saw much more of than his liking warranted" but who Charles realized - after Anthony left Oxford - who also held "the key". Anthony would have realized that speaking with Charles once over a long dinner was all anyone could do with another human being. Charles had to learn his own lessons.
"Two more swords and I'll be Queen of the Monkey People." Roseanne
I read somewhere back when this series was just out that Evelyn Waugh intended to portray the decline and fall of the aristocracy in Britain, which he thought would come about with WWII. When that whole class not only survived but continued to flourish, he realized that he had been wrong.
To illustrate his belief that they were doomed, Waugh made all the characters in the family not reproduce. Bridie, the only one who stays married, doesn't have children of his own but acquires stepchildren, who will not inherit Brideshead. The family will literally "die out" with this generation. Even the stately mansion becomes a military barracks.
My own personal interpretation of the church thing is that being Catholic made the family different in Protestant Britain. I believe Waugh was Catholic and maybe he used Catholocism because he was more familiar with it. I could be wrong.
@MoonsofJupiter on Mon May 24 2004
The Church of England and the Anglican Communion of which it is a part claim both Catholic and Protestant traditions: They are Catholic and Reformed. Hence it is inaccurate to style a country whose established church is the Church of England "Protestant Britain."
Moreover, the correct spelling is "Catholicism."
little late here to the party, don't know if anyone will read this.
don't believe it's about love, or the failure to love. The last comment was right, Waugh set out to note the decline of the aristocracy, hence the failed or dismal marriages.
He thrust in Catholocism as an irony at first. Catholics are, well, let's be honest (yeah, I'm on of 'em) well known breeders. So it was meant to be an irony that a Catholic family who should have had more than just an heir 'n' a spare would fail to reproduce. And why? because of their religion.
It was a criticism of religion as something used to fill in the holes in our dismal lives.
And at the end of the novel, not so much in the film, Charles crosses himself and remembers this "door" theme which suggests he's catholic.
like a lot of books of the day it was basically the point of how we all fail in self-actualization (research Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs). One major step in the common failure to self-actulaize is religion because it gives us an illusion of purity, goodness, and selflessnes.
Note Charles asks Julia and the others good, pressing questions on religion and is rebuffed and isolated, punished. Then when he's divoced, lonely, and a pathetic military man he's fallen back on religion to fill the gaps. Truly depressing.
Interesting angle. I didn't find the end depressing, however. I interpreted it as Charles turning to a higher power after all his posturing got him nowhere. I think Waugh was truly spiritual, wasn't he?
shareI read somewhere that Waugh converted to Catholicism later in life. But I also remember seeing an old TV interview where he claimed that the the whole point of writing was to exercise the language and that plot, characterisation etc was pretty much immaterial to him ! If he was telling the truth when he said that, then maybe people are looking for a deeper meaning that he didn't intend they should find ?
shareWaugh was a convert and Brideshead--according to him--was a very religious novel. He said it was about "the operation of divine grace on a group of diverse and closely connected characters." Waugh was artful enough to present the story in such a way that different readers could form different views on the characters and events of the story based on their (i.e., the readers') own world view, but the author's convictions are pretty well summed up by the death-bed reconciliation of Lord Marchmain.
share"If he was telling the truth when he said that, then maybe people are looking for a deeper meaning that he didn't intend they should find?"
~~~~~
Most writing -- even banal poetry about flowers and trees -- usually means something, even if the author himself is unaware of it. Even if all Waugh intended was to tell a cracking good story, his feelings and attitudes about faith, doubt, sexuality, society, and sterility will naturally inform what ends up on the page. So no ... I don't think people are reaching too far. That's why most of us read, so that fiction can inform our reality with meaning.
Cheers, all.
EP in DC
"I don't want life to imitate art; I want life to BE art." -- Postcards from the Edge
Let me speculate here: I think you're letting your own view of religion or Catholicism affect your analysis of the story and its conclusion.
Re-read that amazing passage where Charles speaks of chapel and the red flame "burning anew among the old stones" and try to convince that that is depressing passage. And what's the last line of the book/movie?
Hooper to Ryder: "You're looking unusually cheerful today sir."
Any depressing message you find in this movie's conclusion you bring there yourself.
Since you think your word is divinely inspired, why did you delegate your story to four men who tarried and wrote your bio as late as 60 years after your death?
You've a nerve -- disagree and put forth your view, but kindly treat the rest of us as adult, intelligent and thoughtful beings. After all, we were created in your image, weren't we?
This board is just one huge sketch and utterly useless.
Give thanks for a little and you will find a lot.
[deleted]
the point about BR is that religious faith is not there to make you happy but to save you from damnation.....
Why Catholics like the book, why Waugh would write it and then become a Catholic, those are the questions that I can't answer. In their own way every one of them has their life ruined by their religion, and still Charles is on the doorstep begging to be let in. Religo-Masochism would be my answer.
With his last mooched nickel Burroughs sneaked off to the pay-phone and called the law.
No, Waugh converted before his mariage, which was in twenties, I think. This novel is 20 years later. I didn´t find it depressive, contrary. I think he intended - among other - to show somenthing Graham Greene loved to do: a glory of Church hidden in weak, sinfull, average people and ugly liturgic objects. Just remember Greene´s Power and Glory! The faith of Lady M. and Bridey is painted as a parody of faith. Absolutelly without life. Cordelia says somenthing like: "Poor Mom, she killed everyone she touched." And the sentence about her false sainthood... I have read this book at least 10 times and I´m searching the film feverlish now...
share[deleted]
I've read where Waugh has stated that Lady Marchmain is the personification of the Catholic faith --- as loathsome a creature as she is. Waugh would assert that she has it right. Not my opinion, only what Waugh has said over the years.
Give thanks for a little and you will find a lot.
[deleted]
@pillfeast on Mon Sep 19 2005
The book and the series are fundamentally about Catholicism. It is not a destructive force: It is the most important subject of the narrative. Please reexamine your views.
Er, no, I respectfully disagree with you. I don't think the novel nor the series supports the view that Charles becomes a Roman Catholic. I can see where many may be convinced of this --- after all, consider what that chapel represents to Charles. But, gduch, I certainly appreciate and respect your view -- I just don't think the material supports it.
Give thanks for a little and you will find a lot.
[deleted]
First of all, I said that I respect your view and never called it nonsense. If you want this discussion to continue, you might have the good sense and manners to show me the same respect as I have exhibited toward you.
This novel is very complex, a beautifully woven tapestry of complicated and intensely interesting characters. Again, I disagree with you, but it's your right to believe that Charles converts to Catholicism. I do believe that Charles is a better person and a more spiritual person at the incandescent end of the novel, but I don't happen to believe that he is ready to take instruction in the faith.
If you're intent on believing that was the case and having the last word, tbat's fine. But I think you do yourself a diservice by your being so narrow and myopic in your view.
I really am rather weary of people like you -- self-appointed guardians of literature who know precisely what the author was thinking. Indeed, the more you claim to know, the clearer it becomes that you don't know much at all.
Give thanks for a little and you will find a lot.
[deleted]
I've seen it several times -- it's a masterpiece. His praying in a Catholic chapel does not make him a Catholic -- he feels connected to a Higher Power, to God, for sure.
You know what?? --Go and play elsewhere. I really would rather not be bothered.
Give thanks for a little and you will find a lot.
[deleted]
I don't believe Waugh is on record as saying this -- as for my being 'peculiar' about this, keep setting fingers to keyboard for all to see how disrespectful and foolish you are. Peculiar yourself.
Give thanks for a little and you will find a lot.
I don't think that Charles became a Catholic. That was never the point. It ends on a religious note, but that's unrelated to Catholicism. If Charles was going to become a Catholic, it would have probably been a gradual process, starting much earlier. Why would he have a sudden conversion then? It doesn't make sense.
share[deleted]
Well, you're entitled to your opinion, but I don't think he does suddenly convert. It's not a definite ending, and the viewer's sort of left to decide what happens themselves, but I think that the whole point of the final scene is that Charles, who never really saw the point of Catholicism, suddenly realises that there is a point, after all. It's not that he suddenly becomes a Catholic, it's that after sticking firmly to atheism throughout the story he realises that Catholicism isn't as pointless as he might have thought previously.
It's open to interpretation, but that's what I think, anyway.
Well said, eloise. It is open to interpretation, but two things have happened to Charles -- he becomes more attuned to spirituality and he uses it as a tool for consolation. He's a better man for it. Also Catholicism is his link to the Flytes and he loves that link.
I respect other's opinions, but when some people are so fixed in their view, well, there is not much one can do.
Give thanks for a little and you will find a lot.
[deleted]
Is it possible that in a film version that was Waugh's intent? Where is this memo -- I would like to see it?
The TV series was produced between 1979-1980 -- a more faithful adaptation of any novel I have rarely seen and I am sorry - I don't believe neither the novel nor the TV serialization supports, conclusively that Charles converts to Catholicism. He may or may not have.
Oh, give over, gduch!
Give thanks for a little and you will find a lot.
Yes, I'd like to see the memo.
Whether that's what he meant or not, I don't know if that really matters. It's defnitely not obvious if Charles does convert, so the reader can't be expected to assume that that's what happens. Unless Waugh actually stated very clearly that Charles converted, I think that it's still open to interpretation.
[deleted]
So am I, and I've only just joined.
Let's just say that you think Charles is Catholic, and that we think he isn't Catholic, and leave it at that.
Let's just say that you don't know how to read a novel or watch a movie where it's stated several times that Charles ends up as Catholic, and leave it at that.
share@GeorgeBailey on Sat Dec 2 2006
My remarks are belated, but nevertheless:
You observe, in response to an earlier post, "Let's just say that you don't know how to read a novel or watch a movie where it's stated several times that Charles ends up as Catholic, and leave it at that."
I do not understand why people take issue with the fact of Charles' conversion. It was perfectly clear to me from the first time I viewed the series. In fact, it is the major point OF the series. Charles, as I have remarked in other connections, is a surrogate or spokesman (of a sort) for Waugh.
The first clue that we are given of Charles' conversion comes very early when Hooper tells him that inside the house was "an RC church" with a service going on, and then adds:
"More in your line than mine."
That seems to make it pretty clear.
"I've got six black Cordelias. Isn't that lovely?"
@ dizexpat on Mon Jun 11 2012
Indeed it does, dizexpat. Thank you for making the point.
I don't know why people get so worked up over the issue of whether Charles converts. I am a member of the Anglican Communion, but I have friends and relatives who are Roman Catholics, and I have learned a great deal about their church over the years. Many posters seem virulently anti-Catholic. There is no other way to account for their objections to Charles' conversion, which is perhaps the most important point of the series.
The only issue more tedious than this one is that of Charles' and Sebastian's gender orientation. I am sick of questions and complaints about the matter. As one intelligent person observed, the series is ultimately about far more important matters than sexuality.
Many posters seem virulently anti-Catholic. There is no other way to account for their objections to Charles' conversion, which is perhaps the most important point of the series.
Interesting. This is making me think a bit more on the point. I'm wondering if those who have a hard time with Charles' conversion are those who make this comparision of the Anglican and Catholic religions which Waugh alludes to in his writing. Waugh did make the point that the history of the Church in England is connected to medieval churches and cathedrals, country parishes, Canterbury and York and the culture of Oxford and Cambridge and the ceremonies of the monarchy. So what do you get with the Catholics? He says, "Catholics meet in modern buildings, often of deplorable design, and are usually served by simple Irish missionaries". So the the thinking perhaps could be and Charles 'converted' to that???????..;-)...
Waught's memo - an essential part of it:
"The Flyte family is seen through the eyes of Charles Ryder, an atheist, to whom at first their religion is incomprehensible and quite unimportant. It is only bit by bit throughout the action that he realises how closely they are held by it, and the book ends with Charles himself becoming a Catholic."
Source:
http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/classics/story/0,6000,1221962,00.html#down
[deleted]
All right - happy now?
If it was Waugh's intention that Charles became Catholic, that's fair enough. But I don't think I'll ever really see it that way.
[deleted]
From the same article that gives background to the memo Waugh wrote while visiting Hollywood to discuss a potential screen adaptation. Here goes:
Writers have often had a difficult relationship with the film world, and none more so than Evelyn Waugh. The following memoranda were sent by Waugh to American studios in the context of negotiations, in 1947 and 1957 respectively, to film Brideshead Revisited and Scoop . Neither project bore fruit, but the memos shed a fascinating light on Waugh's dealings with "the Californian savages" as he dubbed the world of Hollywood.
________________________________________________________________________________
The Brideshead memo has been previously unearthed in an article by Jeffrey Heath in English Studies, an academic journal. The Scoop memo is previously unpublished; it was discovered by Donat Gallagher in the Waugh archive at the Harry Ransom Research Center at the University of Texas.
The part of the memos which at once demands comment is the visceral racism of Waugh's suggestions for a location for Scoop. Even those familiar with the stamp of Waugh's writing will be shocked by his remarks in this business context - not least because they take on board early American moves towards racial equality, at a time of segregation and lynchings, and then explode them, with distasteful results.
Then there is the snobbery about cinema audiences' aesthetic capabilities, which sits oddly with the expectation that they will grasp theological niceties. But why did Waugh imagine Hollywood would countenance any of these bizarre maunderings?
The answer is that he never meant them to. The Brideshead memo was written for a visit to Hollywood in early 1947. Ostensibly the reason for the journey was to discuss terms and treatment of the novel with MGM. The notional purchase price was $140,000, but it is clear from Selina Hastings's biography of Waugh that what he was really after was a jolly. "The sort of offer I should find most attractive would be a tax-free trip, lecture-free, with a minimum of work of any kind... Luxury not lionisation is the thing. And all the trouble spared me of getting permits & booking cabins etc."
Another provocation for the trip seems to have been to cheer up Waugh's wife, Laura - though her putative state of mind is unaccountably linked to the state of her husband's behind, which had recently been operated on for piles. "One of the reasons for my putting myself under the surgeon's knife," he wrote in his diary, "was the wish to be absolutely well and free from ointments for Laura's American treat. All the reasons for the operation appeared ineffective immediately afterwards. The pain was excruciating and the humiliations constant."
· Giles Foden
From About.com: "The Catholic themes of divine grace and reconciliation are pervasive in the book. Most of the major characters undergo a conversion in some way or another. Lord Marchmain, who lived as an adulterer, is reconciled with the Church on his deathbed. Julia, who is involved in an extramarital affair with Charles, comes to feel this relationship is immoral and decides to separate from Charles in spite of her great attachment to him. Sebastian, the charming and flamboyant alcoholic, ends up in service to a monastery while struggling against his alcoholism. Even Cordelia has some sort of conversion: from being the "worst" behaved schoolgirl her headmistress has ever seen, to serving in the hospital bunks of the Spanish Civil War. Most significant is Charles's apparent conversion, which is expressed very subtly (otherwise, it would have been sentimental); at the end of the book, set 19 years after the main thread of the novel, Charles kneels down in front of the tabernacle of the Brideshead chapel and says a prayer with "ancient words newly learned" — implying recent instruction in the catechism. Waugh speaks of his belief in grace in a letter to Lady Mary Lygon: "I believe that everyone in his (or her) life has the moment when he is open to Divine Grace. It's there, of course, for the asking all the time, but human lives are so planned that usually there's a particular time — sometimes, like Hubert, on his deathbed — when all resistance is down and Grace can come flooding in." Aside from Grace and Reconciliation, other Catholic themes in the book are the Communion of Saints, Faith and Vocation."
share@gaelicguy on Fri Mar 24 2006 and others:
There exists a good deal of discussion here and elsewhere on the boards as to whether Charles converts to Roman Catholicism or not, so I shall simply say that it seems to me he does convert and adduce a few reasons for my view. His crossing himself in the chapel near the end of the series suggests as much. I know that members of other churches that claim Catholic traditions cross themselves, but Charles does so in what is explicitly a Roman Catholic structure.
Also, early in the series Hooper indicates that Charles has converted when he remarks that there is a Roman Catholic chapel attached to Brideshead and adds, "More in your line than mine."
Finally, here are some apt observations that I have copied from another poster because I don't have the book at hand. The original poster is quoting from the book.
"...the small red flame -- a beaten-copper lamp of deplorable design, relit before the beaten-copper doors of the tabernacle; the flame which the old knights saw from their tombs, which they saw put out; that flame burns again for other soldiers, far from home, farther, in heart, than Acre or Jerusalem. It could not have been lit but for the builders and the tragedians, and there I found it this morning, burning anew among the old stones."
Well, the first pages of this discussion are very interesting. After that egos become more important than the story. It's a shame!
share@bjvanslyke on Sat Apr 24 2004 and others:
One has to know something about Roman Catholicism and the way that Roman Catholics think in order to understand that what ultimately happens in the Flyte family is something to be celebrated, not deplored. Lady Marchmain has been a devout Roman Catholic throughout her life: She lives and dies in the faith. Bridey and Cordelia are also devout. Sebastian and Julia, whom Sebastian styles "semi-heathens" in Episode 2, eventually return to the church [Julia does so obliquely; Sebastian quite openly, according to Cordelia]. Lord Marchmain eventually repents and in a sense reconverts. Charles likewise converts.
So the point is that, whether viewers of the series like it or not, by the end of the series all the major characters embrace the Roman Catholic faith to one degree or another.
Absolutely. And that is why I find this item from Waugh directly attritubale to the action in Brideshead Revisited:
"What we can learn from Helena is something about the workings of God; that He wants a different thing from each of us, laborious or easy, conspicuous or quite private, but something which only we can do and for which we were each created."
I think the working of the novel truly shows all those individual conflicts. Each trying to make their way and define their role in the world. Even with their blemishes they are all beautiful in their humanity as they engage the spiritual through their inner sufferings. Of course, Brideshead perhaps is not a perfect book but it's Waugh's genius that lets us grasp a bit what that striving for entails as individuals go through their lives.