sebastian horrendously miscast - Brideshead Revisited (2008) Discussion

[–] Greenteeth 14 years ago

I agree. It's been a few years since I read the book, but my memory of Sebastian is that he was more of the swashbuckling type...effeminate at times, yes, but quite the party animal. His casting was disappointing to me.

reply

[–] agera 14 years ago

"It's been a few years since I read the book, but my memory of Sebastian is that he was more of the swashbuckling type...effeminate at times, yes, but quite the party animal. His casting was disappointing to me."

The first time I watched this movie, I had the same reaction. I thought the book indicated the sort of portrayal Anthony Andrews gave in the 1981 series, that of a sunny, heedless youth whose mood gradually darkened as his alcoholism and family difficulties engulfed him. But seeing this 2008 movie a second time, I really liked the vulnerability and fragility Ben Whishaw brought to the role. In the novel's flashback, it's 1923 and Sebastian and Charles are only 19. I thought Ben Whishaw did a marvelous job of conveying how really young Sebastian was, despite his worldly and wealthy upbringing. By contrast, Anthony Andrews's Sebastian seems more like a young man approaching 30 rather than a boy not yet out of his teens.

Ben Whishaw also has a wonderful ability to convey love and longing with a single glance. Though not conventionally handsome, he has an extraordinary expressiveness which suited the role of Sebastian, I think. He starts on a darker more melancholy note than Anthony Andrews did but I think it works. It shows us Sebastian was already failing to come to grips with his family situation when he first met Charles.

reply

[–] tsauden 14 years ago

He's simply not an aristocrat.

reply

[–] aGuiltySoul 14 years ago

Ben Whishaw also has a wonderful ability to convey love and longing with a single glance. Though not conventionally handsome, he has an extraordinary expressiveness which suited the role of Sebastian, I think. He starts on a darker more melancholy note than Anthony Andrews did but I think it works. It shows us Sebastian was already failing to come to grips with his family situation when he first met Charles.

Absolutely. I don't care what the book had to offer. In this interpretation Ben Whishaw was phenominal.

"I'd never ask you to trust me. It's the cry of a guilty soul."

reply

[–] Esofagus 13 years ago

Totally agree with agera

Ben Whishaw was absolutely terrific and it's totally true what you say about his ability to convey a lot with a single glance.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Ilario1 13 years ago

I have not read the book but I really liked Ben Winshaw in this. Maybe it's not the part was miscast but that they changed the character? There was nothing wrong with the acting.

reply

[–] tsauden 13 years ago

He`s not an English aristo, he`s an utter impossibility. They changed the part into the American type of homosexual to try to make a point.

reply

[–] joli1921 13 years ago

If aristocrats could only be played by aristocrats, we would have a problem as there are rather few aristocratic actors. And even then, would you let a lowly baron play a duke?
And what is the American type of homosexual, btw? I always thought that a homosexual was a man who slept with other men... how exactly does that change in the US?
Ben Whishaw, in my opinion, was really good in this role and conveyed his inner turmoil quite brilliantly.

Had I been told earlier that sharing a sense of humor was so vital, I could've avoided a lot of sex

reply

[–] tsauden 13 years ago

He doesn`t have to be an aristocrat of course, but should be believable as one. Have you read the book? It was not the book.

reply

[–] duckpancakes 13 years ago

Having read the book several times, seeing the miniseries twice and this film once I can say that for me Ben Whishaw IS Sebastian Flyte. I saw the miniseries first and as a whole I think it is far better- largely because it captures the slow, languid pace but also because the film makes the characters too black-and-white (the homosexuality and the fact that Sebastian appears to turn to drink partly because he is jealous of Charles/Julia). I also think Irons was a better Charles. But, as much as I love Anthony Andrews, Sebastian in this is so much better.

Whishaw captures Sebastian's vulnerability and his instability right from the start, whereas Andrews is too brash and only becomes vulnerable by the end. I think Whishaw's size helps because he seems so fragile compared to the other Marchmains and Charles. The scene in the monastery where Charles visits the monastery and sees Sebastian with shaved head was shocking to watch- because Sebastian looks such a wreck but still has a certain fragile charm. He looks like Sebastian- not in conventional good-looks but with the charm and pleading eyes which makes Charles fall for (if he does in that sense, as is debateable) him.

As for not being aristocratic enough Whishaw certainly has the grace, manners and poise of an aristocrat even if he lacks the confidence. But the point of Sebastian is that he isn't really a typical aristocrat. He is different which is why he fails to fit in with others like Brideshead and Cordelia.

reply

[–] tsauden 13 years ago

All I'm saying is that this is not the person from the book. That type of person did not exist then in England; it's an American derivative, almost anti-aristo. He is CERTAINLY not someone Evelyn Waugh would have chosen to spend time with.

reply

[–] tsauden 13 years ago

All this kind of casting does is to falsely flatter people into thinking they are close to a Brideshead life.

reply

[–] duckpancakes 13 years ago

Do you mean because of the kind of character Whishaw plays or because of who Whishaw is himself, when you say people could see it as allowing themselves to have a Brideshead life? I completely agree (I think you implied this) about the homosexual thing, although I don't think it's necessarily just because of the US. I think they made the homosexual storyline much more obvious for film reasons- which may or may not be totally Hollywood's fault. On the whole I don't like this version as much as the mini series largely because of the homosexual storyline. It completely lost the subtly of the books- part of why I love it is the ambiguity of Charles' feelings for Sebastian. In this version it makes it seem as though Sebastian turns to drink because he is jealous of Charles and Julia, which is nothing like the book at all. However in the characterisation of Sebastian, the way in which he talks and his mannerisms, I think Ben Whishaw's performance was great in capturing the essence of Sebatian, even if the storyline of the script let the character down. Andrews was too self-confident as Sebastian and didn't have the same vulnerability which makes the reader/viewer realise the fascination Charles has with Sebatian, although the scripted characterisation of Sebastian was better in the mini series. All in my opinion, of course.

reply

[–] tsauden 13 years ago

I mean that since Whishaw plays a character like someone almost everybody knows, people everywhere (especially college students) flatter themselves into believing they are living something like a Brideshead life. The Sebastian of the book is an aristocrat and a contemplative, neither of which is captured by Whishaw.

reply

[–] duckpancakes 12 years ago

Ah I see what you mean. That is a good point- I hadn't really thought of it like that. Yes I can see that Whishaw seems a bit too ... modern? Normal? I can't think of the right word. I think perhaps a combination of the two actors would have achieved perfection- Whishaw's vulnerability but Andrew's aristocracy withough Whishaw's familiarity or Andrew's arrogance.

reply

[–] Prismark10 10 years ago

You are really way off base. He might not be an aristocrat but he is a noted actor.

Its that man again!!

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]