Heavy donegal raglan coat
Many thanks for all the illustrations. I need to watch Brideshead again because I completely missed that coat. I was actually so consumed by the story that I obviously did not pay enough attention to the wardrobe. Is that weird?!
I was actually so consumed by that wardrobe that I obviously did not pay enough attention to the story. Is that weird?!shredder wrote:Many thanks for all the illustrations. I need to watch Brideshead again because I completely missed that coat. I was actually so consumed by the story that I obviously did not pay enough attention to the wardrobe. Is that weird?!
The story is fabulous, indeed. I wonder if the recent version of Brideshead on the big screen does actually make justice to Waugh's book, and to the garments seen of the TV serial.
Marcelo, based on some reviews I read about the cinema version, it sounds like they butchered the story a bit, e.g., Julia acommpanying Sebastian and Charles to Venice, Sebastian and Charles having a snog, etc. Even if they did a stellar job with script in the new one, it's virtually impossible to match the sort of cast the original had, I think.
Anyway, I have a new project on my to-do list!!
Anyway, I have a new project on my to-do list!!
Entirely true. The new movie version looks great but it's not Brideshead Revisited. The TV version was entirely faithful to the novel almost scene by scene but the movie has little similarity to the novel. The problem is that with a novel as dense and complex as this it's virtually impossible to produce a film version that does justice to the rich cast of characters and the nuances of the plot which are all about class, human reliationships and the decline of the British aristocracy.shredder wrote:Marcelo, based on some reviews I read about the cinema version, it sounds like they butchered the story a bit, e.g., Julia acommpanying Sebastian and Charles to Venice, Sebastian and Charles having a snog, etc. Even if they did a stellar job with script in the new one, it's virtually impossible to match the sort of cast the original had, I think.
Anyway, I have a new project on my to-do list!!
Hmm... There are many reasons why the latest version of Brideshead is rot, but I agree generally with ottovbvs that the latest version's problem is that it certainly does have "little similarity with the novel" (to use his kind phrase). The reason why there is little similarity is not because Brideshead Revisited is too dense and complex, but rather because the intent of the film was to promote the beliefs of the writers and its main star, Emma Thompson - beliefs that run counter to Waugh's; indeed, beliefs that do not exist in the novel.ottovbvs wrote:Entirely true. The new movie version looks great but it's not Brideshead Revisited. The TV version was entirely faithful to the novel almost scene by scene but the movie has little similarity to the novel. The problem is that with a novel as dense and complex as this it's virtually impossible to produce a film version that does justice to the rich cast of characters and the nuances of the plot which are all about class, human reliationships and the decline of the British aristocracy.shredder wrote:Marcelo, based on some reviews I read about the cinema version, it sounds like they butchered the story a bit, e.g., Julia acommpanying Sebastian and Charles to Venice, Sebastian and Charles having a snog, etc. Even if they did a stellar job with script in the new one, it's virtually impossible to match the sort of cast the original had, I think.
Anyway, I have a new project on my to-do list!!
While it is true that the novel uses class, human relationships, and the changing status of the British aristocracy (class, again) to advance the story, Waugh's intent in Brideshead was to have a discussion about faith and religion, and the role and importance of these things in modern life. One of the great PR triumphs in recent years was to pitch Brideshead Revisited (the novel) as a story about Oxford (the "The Oxford novel..." snippet on the cover, from the review in The Times). I suppose it is easier to sell the book with this on the cover rather than "A meditation on faith, religion, and Catholicism," but it is misleading, all the same. (As for truth in advertising, certainly Larkin's Jill has more claim to be the novel about Oxford...)
No, the problem with the current Brideshead is that, title aside, it is not Brideshead Revisited. Fewer people are readers today (much less critical readers), so they don't know the difference. Such a pity. The producers and writers of the ITV program (that is, the television series) wished to produce a visual version of the book; the producers and writers of the current cinema version wished to produce something quite different and contrary.
Do yourself a favour: buy the novel first and read it; afterwards, watch the 12-hour ITV production. Take the current cinema version and dump it in the trash.
Ta,
garu
Since we agree most of the way I hesitate to demur from your conclusion that the book is principally a a meditation on catholicism. If you contrast it with books where catholicism is a central theme like The Power and the Glory or The End of the Affair, there's a big difference it seems to me. Religious belief is certainly an important theme of Brideshead but it's one of several and even if Waugh wanted, or even believed, it was his central text it got rather submerged in the accretions. I personally think the central theme of the book is the decline of the aristocracy which Waugh tacitly admitted in his introduction to the early sixties reprint when he said he hadn't anticipated the recovery of the country house culture. He didn't anticipate a lot of things nor I think did he give due credit to the ability of the upper classes to absorb the Mottrams and Hoopers which they had been doing for centuries. After all they absorbed him.garu wrote:Hmm... There are many reasons why the latest version of Brideshead is rot, but I agree generally with ottovbvs that the latest version's problem is that it certainly does have "little similarity with the novel" (to use his kind phrase). The reason why there is little similarity is not because Brideshead Revisited is too dense and complex, but rather because the intent of the film was to promote the beliefs of the writers and its main star, Emma Thompson - beliefs that run counter to Waugh's; indeed, beliefs that do not exist in the novel.ottovbvs wrote:Entirely true. The new movie version looks great but it's not Brideshead Revisited. The TV version was entirely faithful to the novel almost scene by scene but the movie has little similarity to the novel. The problem is that with a novel as dense and complex as this it's virtually impossible to produce a film version that does justice to the rich cast of characters and the nuances of the plot which are all about class, human reliationships and the decline of the British aristocracy.shredder wrote:Marcelo, based on some reviews I read about the cinema version, it sounds like they butchered the story a bit, e.g., Julia acommpanying Sebastian and Charles to Venice, Sebastian and Charles having a snog, etc. Even if they did a stellar job with script in the new one, it's virtually impossible to match the sort of cast the original had, I think.
Anyway, I have a new project on my to-do list!!
While it is true that the novel uses class, human relationships, and the changing status of the British aristocracy (class, again) to advance the story, Waugh's intent in Brideshead was to have a discussion about faith and religion, and the role and importance of these things in modern life. One of the great PR triumphs in recent years was to pitch Brideshead Revisited (the novel) as a story about Oxford (the "The Oxford novel..." snippet on the cover, from the review in The Times). I suppose it is easier to sell the book with this on the cover rather than "A meditation on faith, religion, and Catholicism," but it is misleading, all the same. (As for truth in advertising, certainly Larkin's Jill has more claim to be the novel about Oxford...)
No, the problem with the current Brideshead is that, title aside, it is not Brideshead Revisited. Fewer people are readers today (much less critical readers), so they don't know the difference. Such a pity. The producers and writers of the ITV program (that is, the television series) wished to produce a visual version of the book; the producers and writers of the current cinema version wished to produce something quite different and contrary.
Do yourself a favour: buy the novel first and read it; afterwards, watch the 12-hour ITV production. Take the current cinema version and dump it in the trash.
Ta,
garu
Religion and faith, and the importance of them in modern society, is not my conclusioin of what the book is about, ottovbvs, it is Waugh's. Still, as we are on the same page, philosophically speaking, obviously the thing to do is to sit down over a friendly dram and continue the conversation!ottovbvs wrote:Since we agree most of the way I hesitate to demur from your conclusion that the book is principally a a meditation on catholicism. If you contrast it with books where catholicism is a central theme like The Power and the Glory or The End of the Affair, there's a big difference it seems to me. Religious belief is certainly an important theme of Brideshead but it's one of several and even if Waugh wanted, or even believed, it was his central text it got rather submerged in the accretions. I personally think the central theme of the book is the decline of the aristocracy which Waugh tacitly admitted in his introduction to the early sixties reprint when he said he hadn't anticipated the recovery of the country house culture. He didn't anticipate a lot of things nor I think did he give due credit to the ability of the upper classes to absorb the Mottrams and Hoopers which they had been doing for centuries. After all they absorbed him.
All the best,
garu
Long before the TV serial was broadcast, the idea of turning Brideshead into a film had already been vented and, eventually, abandoned. In the course of the negotiations for the film version of his book, Waugh referred to the novel in the following terms:
“The novel deals with what is theologically termed, "the operation of Grace", that is to say, the unmerited and unilateral act of love by which God continually calls souls to Himself”.
Yet, it seems that Waugh judged the 'Californian savages' unable to make this theological idea comprehensible to prospective cinema goers. Waugh’s own comments on the project were published in The Guardian in 2004: http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2004/may ... .film#down
Now, returning to the main subject matter of the present thread, I had always thought that a raglan was supposed to be worn in the country, or as the least formal OC in town, as Sherlock does in The Woman in Green (1945).
However, this illustration published in Esquire, in 1935, puzzles me, as it describes this raglan as “the very newest in formal outer wear”. I wonder if this OC ever achieved the popularity the editors of Esquire though it would achieve.
Interestingly enough, the Inverness, not the raglan, was Sherlock’s favorite OC.
“The novel deals with what is theologically termed, "the operation of Grace", that is to say, the unmerited and unilateral act of love by which God continually calls souls to Himself”.
Yet, it seems that Waugh judged the 'Californian savages' unable to make this theological idea comprehensible to prospective cinema goers. Waugh’s own comments on the project were published in The Guardian in 2004: http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2004/may ... .film#down
Now, returning to the main subject matter of the present thread, I had always thought that a raglan was supposed to be worn in the country, or as the least formal OC in town, as Sherlock does in The Woman in Green (1945).
However, this illustration published in Esquire, in 1935, puzzles me, as it describes this raglan as “the very newest in formal outer wear”. I wonder if this OC ever achieved the popularity the editors of Esquire though it would achieve.
Interestingly enough, the Inverness, not the raglan, was Sherlock’s favorite OC.
It is interesting that Basil Rathbone is (largely because of the propaganda films opposite the incomparably bumbling Nigel Bruce, as the doctor), often seen as the earliest screen Sherlock Holmes but, in fact, Clive Brook was the first 'talkie' Sherlock and gave him his 1920s-early 1930s tweedy screen image. Brook is now best remembered for the leads in Shanghai Express and Cavalcade but deserves more credit for the enduring image of Holmes as well - as for always being perfectly dressed and groomed.
[img][img]http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/gg55 ... rlisle.jpg[/img]
Here he is opposite Mary Carlisle in Love in Exile.
NJS[/img]
[img][img]http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/gg55 ... rlisle.jpg[/img]
Here he is opposite Mary Carlisle in Love in Exile.
NJS[/img]
The horse show at the Madison Square Garden: was it a day or evening event?
Mine's is a Glenmorangie with a teaspoon of water. I don't disagree that this is what Waugh thought his book was about but that in fact it got submerged by the other themes which were narratively and artistically stronger. After all it's not unusual for a book to turn out to be something other than the author expected. I'm a great Waugh fan and have first US or UK editions of most of his novels. Regards.garu wrote:Religion and faith, and the importance of them in modern society, is not my conclusioin of what the book is about, ottovbvs, it is Waugh's. Still, as we are on the same page, philosophically speaking, obviously the thing to do is to sit down over a friendly dram and continue the conversation!ottovbvs wrote:Since we agree most of the way I hesitate to demur from your conclusion that the book is principally a a meditation on catholicism. If you contrast it with books where catholicism is a central theme like The Power and the Glory or The End of the Affair, there's a big difference it seems to me. Religious belief is certainly an important theme of Brideshead but it's one of several and even if Waugh wanted, or even believed, it was his central text it got rather submerged in the accretions. I personally think the central theme of the book is the decline of the aristocracy which Waugh tacitly admitted in his introduction to the early sixties reprint when he said he hadn't anticipated the recovery of the country house culture. He didn't anticipate a lot of things nor I think did he give due credit to the ability of the upper classes to absorb the Mottrams and Hoopers which they had been doing for centuries. After all they absorbed him.
All the best,
garu
All the Sherlock talk is interesting. The Rathbone movies have great clothes but they are a complete bastardization of the Conan Doyle stories. In all the original novel illustrations Holmes only ever wears black and grey. In town he wears a black frock coat and striped pants with a silk hat, and in the country a grey sportcoat or topcoat of some kind usually with a grey homburg or occasionally the fabled deerstalker in grey. The grey topcoat and homburg is also usually his uniform for expeditions into the London night. In the Jeremy Brett definitive Holmes TV series they followed this rule to the letter. Watson gets to wear the colorful clothing and pick up the girls.
-
- Posts: 383
- Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 1:51 pm
- Contact:
There were "classes" both day and night with the top events in the evening. DDMshredder wrote:The horse show at the Madison Square Garden: was it a day or evening event?
For evening dress, the Inverness or a cape was traditionally the correct garment to wear. Later, in the Edwardian era, the Albert top frock or Chesterfield became acceptable. The idea was that an overcoat for evening dress shoud be loose so as not to disturb the clothing underneath.marcelo wrote:
However, this illustration published in Esquire, in 1935, puzzles me, as it describes this raglan as “the very newest in formal outer wear”. I wonder if this OC ever achieved the popularity the editors of Esquire though it would achieve.
Interestingly enough, the Inverness, not the raglan, was Sherlock’s favorite OC.
A raglan is traditionally a much more casual garment. So, they are pushing a novelty that more discerning readings in 1935 would have been horrified by.
In refernece to the Donegal coat you can actualy order one with the cloth of your choice from Kevin Howlin in Dublin they are located on Nassau Street and are the representative of small crofters in dDonegal where they get their cloth ,be warned these coats are HEAVY but there are a few that are lighter using some alpac/cash fibres.
-
- Information
-
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 51 guests