Wednesday, 8 October 2008

Brideshead - not really revisited


Some readers of my first blog! post (I must interrupt here - it was actually only one person, the very same one who walked with me on the candlelit slopes of my first blog! He had not realised my rapture of the sentimental kind, ‘but then’, he said, ‘it was too dark to look in your eyes’), that reader thus commented – in private, I give you that – that he was also reminded of 'The Guardian' - you know, pieces written for the in-crowd that make you feel as if you are the most ignorant person on earth with all these references to deep novels and obscure films that one has not read or seen and of which they know every line by heart. It made him cancel his subscription to ‘The Guardian’ in the end and go for ‘The Financial Times’ instead which made him feel infinitely better. That his simple brain, as he put it, could cope with. There he was among his peers. Still, he liked the evocative tone of my introductory blog; the sound of the words, the flow, the feel of it, he remarked – it is just beautiful even if you don't understand it and don’t know where it is heading to. This is a compliment, mind you, coming from an economist. Too bad now for him that I am starting my second post on this blog with a very quotation from ‘The Guardian’, but I know he will forgive me magnanimously. ‘Such is the power of a great novel to make us feel that we own it almost as private property, as it were, and must resent any intrusion on our intimacy with it’, writes Christopher Hitchens in the book section of Saturday 27 September on account of the release of ‘Brideshead Revisited’ the film.

Such is the power indeed. I went to see Brideshead Revisited-the film last night (henceforth referred to as BR-the film as opposed to BR-the novel and BR-the-magnificent-series) in the company of 4 females – not of the female persuasion, although it must be said in this respect that the cinema theatre, quite ahead of London having opened BR-the film already two weeks ago – this for a small provincial town that nevertheless can boast on some euregional unpretentious international flavour and plumage, and I am interrupting again (I am very much aware that I am building monstrous Germanic constructions), although, as said, it must be said that the cinema theatre thus was packed, crammed to the nook with women of all ages (and a handful of men that I guess must be considered as being of the female persuasion, i.e. strong supporters of women’s rights), who must have unanimously proclaimed Monday evening the Holy Female Film Group Evening. I swear to God that I was utterly unconscious of this univocal declaration of independence, the women’s Fourth of July so to speak. Yet there I was among them, with my own retinue. I gather a similar instinctive force must have been at work by analogy of the biological phenomenon, as observed with chimpanzees and in cloisters and prisoner camps, that females living in groups tend to synchronise their menstrual cycle. The country I live in being the country it is and film tickets being available at reduced prices on Monday evening may also have had a strong instinctive, formative influence on this extraordinary occurrence.

Back to Brideshead and the power of a great novel made into a classic by Granada Television in the 1980s. I cannot but agree with Hitchens that BR-the film is a travesty. Oh, how one longs for Jeremy Irons and Anthony Andrews. There is so much not in the film, so much over the top, so much of that delightful subtlety and ambiguity lacking. But one should not mind, remarks Hitchens, as it brings the spectator back to the real Brideshead. In that sense, and that sense only, Brideshead is Revisited indeed. I wrote Mr B earlier today that my head was swimming with BR. With the concept of guilt, of sin, of English Catholicism, of Roman-Catholicism – the continental version. But are Sebastian and Julia Flyte really victims of their Faith, I wondered.

As a lapsed Catholic, which reminds me of someone retorting ‘isn’t that an oxymoron?’, I am still very susceptible to Gregorian chant, to the ethereal mysticism of Hildegard von Bingen’s songs, to the splendour of incense. As a lapsed Catholic of the continental stock I am, in short, a sensualist in religious affairs. Hitchens may say that the whore/Madonna concept could have been invented for Julia Flyte, I would add it could have been invented for me too, and with me for many others. Isn’t it Frank Zappa who has said ‘there’s nothing like a Catholic girl’. Incidentally, it is Woody Allen who has stated that ‘There is nothing sexier than a lapsed Catholic.’

My Catholicism had the innocence of Youth, and I am using Evelyn Waugh’s capital. It was almost an Emile experience – Jean-Jacques Rousseau-like. None of that parental pressure that would leave such a harsh imprint like in Sebastian and Julia Flyte’s case. My parents did not go to church but for the occasional weddings, baptism and funerals. They were catholic in the way so many Belgians are – non-practising, pragmatic, their Catholicism nothing more than a superficial social coating given at baptism. L’Union fait la force. In comparison I was a convinced Catholic as a child. I was enchanted. Enchanted with the whole pomp and circumstance. And even though I have spent one year at a catholic boarding school, I never experienced any of the gruesome repressive cruelties that some other lapsed Catholics recount. I must have been lucky. Or I never took it too seriously. Lapsing in my case was a natural, painless process, one of mind taking gradually precedence over matter, and commenced at the age of thirteen or thereabouts.

But some things cling tenaciously, as Hitchens writes. One of them is the attractiveness of sin, guilt and Redemption. It goes much deeper than one would think. Roman-Catholics, even lapsed ones, are immensely attracted to sin, guilt and sacrifice, and it has a reason. Has it occurred to you how they seem to have a predilection for getting themselves entangled in difficult dilemmas and situations from which they have to refrain or abstain? Remember Graham Greene’s ‘The End of the Affair’.

The key-word is sacrifice. Sins are there to be committed, to indulge in. We are speaking here of the grave or mortal sin. "Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God's laws. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin." (C.C.C. # 1859). Conscious complicity is an absolute requirement. Sebastian and Julia Flyte meet that requirement perfectly. Sarah Miles in ‘The End of the Affair’ does as well. They need to commit their sins in order for them to sacrifice, deny themselves and be redeemed. Here we are at the crux of the affair: Divine Grace, and self-importance. Roman-Catholicism is a religion of grand deeds and dramatic gestures that are intrinsically egotistic in nature. It is the great Shakespearean masterpiece among existing religions, definitely in the Judeo-Christian atmosphere. It is the Greek tragedy reinvented. It centers on Racine’s emotional crisis. It is the religion of Titans, of heroes. No way is man regarded as a worm in Roman-Catholic eyes. On the contrary, man acquires mythical proportions, a God-like posture, in overcoming all these astounding perversions and unspeakable sins ("naughtiness high on the catalogue of grave sins" - BR) through suffering and sacrifice. Guilt, though not necessarily a prerequisite, definitely not for lapsed Catholics, helps so very well to build character, necessary for the Great Action, that the hero or heroine, i.e. oneself, simply feels he or she has deserved redemption, as a medal of honour, after such Herculean feats of relinquishment.

But one has to commit sin first. As Julian of Norwhich said: 'Sin is behovely, but all shall be well and all shall be well and all manner of things shall be well.'
One does not have to be a practicing Catholic to know the feeling. A lapsed one will do equally well.

Sunday, 5 October 2008

The first blog post!


I finally did it. With thanks to Mr B.

Introductions are important. One goes by first impressions. So, you will understand that I am a little apprehensive, a little nervous too.

For how am I to fix myself in a formulated phrase?, to quote T.S. Eliot. And when I am formulated/ sprawling on a pin/ When I am pinned and wriggling on the wall/ Then how should I begin/ To spit out all the butt-ends of my days and ways?/ And how should I presume?

A mighty task lies ahead of me. And would it have been worth it, after all/ Would it have been worth while/ After the sunsets and dooryards and the sprinkled streets/ After the novels, after the teacups, after the skirts that trail along the floor—/And this, and so much more?—/ It is impossible to say just what I mean!/ But as if a magic lantern threw the nerves in patterns on a screen:/ Would it have been worth while/ If one, settling a pillow or throwing off a shawl,/ And turning toward the window, should say:/ ‘That is not it at all,/ That is not what I meant at all’.

Well, let’s take the risk and take it from there.

Mr B. finds Pamela writing indeed. Let me assure you that Samuel Richardson’s Pamela is not quite what she seems. An astute reader commented that Pamela is not so innocent, so virtuous or traditional, but rather clever, manipulative, devious and she is rewarded for it. She gets what she wants. A sentimental novel, it is being labeled. On the surface, yes. This contrasts nicely with how I use to present myself. Anything but sentimental.

But those who walked with me in Liège last night on the candle-lit slopes of the Citadelle, had they looked a tad deeper in my eyes, would have seen rapture of the sentimental kind. The long trail of hundreds and hundreds of people walking up, walking down through the forest in a procession of quivering pinpricks of light, reminded me of that scene in Walt Disney’s Fantasia, when Night on Bald Mountain abruptly ends with the sound of the Angelus bell to reveal a line of faithful townsfolk with lighted torches. The camera slowly follows them as they walk through the forest and ruins of a cathedral to the sounds of Schubert’s Ave Maria. I read on IMDb that ‘the animation of the worshipers is some of the smallest animation ever done: the camera had to be so close to some of the work that it had to be rendered at only an inch or so high’. That is exactly what it looked like from afar, the smallest animation ever done.
But once one was part of the townsfolk, which I would not describe as faithful or devout given the non-religious nature of the Nocturne, a sentiment would settle upon the crowd.

Definition of sentiment:
1. (a.) A thought prompted by passion or feeling; a state of mind in view of some subject; feeling toward or respecting some person or thing; disposition prompting to action or expression.
2. (a.) Hence, generally, a decision of the mind formed by deliberation or reasoning; thought; opinion; notion; judgment; as, to express one's sentiments on a subject.

Not exactly worship, not veneration. Serenity, that is what the crowd exuded, voices muffled to a gentle, expectant hum. This wonderfully interspersed with distant sounds of a hunting horn concerto. Chicken skin music, I tell you.
Then with the crowd, downwards it went, down endless steps, entering the hors chateau with its narrow, steep, winding alleys flanked by old town walls, and everywhere, everywhere, the incandescent merriment of a city that did not look at all like Jacques Brel’s Il neige sur Liège. This was a different city, bohémien, outre-temps and at the same time very much in it. A broad smile went to Barricade, centre culturel en résistance in the quartier de Pierreuse, which put its endearing placards in true rebellion fashion on, up, above and across the street. It almost felt like Paris.
Yes, this is my country.(http://www.lanocturnedescoteaux.be/en/la_nocturne_coteaux_liege.php)


If this blog is going to be a sentimental journey, I am using sentimental in its older 18th century meaning. The human ability to endow objective phenomena with personal meaning, and certainly not entirely devoid of cynicism or irony at times. Its sentimentalism a celebration of the emotional and intellectual concepts of sentiment, as defined above.
I am a great admirer of Sterne. As to how my blog will go and how I am to be formulated, allow me to quote some literary critics here (I won’t do it too often, have no fear). "Sterne invokes his literary parentage, calls the reader's attention to his repetition of other voices, so that the difference of his own voice will be marked […]." Sterne's tradition opposes that of Richardson and Fielding, who, for all their differences, believed in the possibility of realistic fiction to "secure inductively certain interpretation." Sterne "construct[s] a narrative in which the techniques of Richardson and Fielding, carried to comic extremes, subvert naturalized interpretation by offering multiple inductive possibilities, proliferating connotations, and thus dramatizing the reader's role ... in manufacturing a form of coherence" in "a world supersaturated with meaning”.

(http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Biblio/shandy.html
- Donald R. Wehrs)

So, I will be dramatizing your role, not wanting this to be a solipsist conversation.