Jonathan Last rightly pointed out that I was overly optimistic about the new movie of Brideshead Revisited. In a long, meaty essay in the Independent, John Walsh examines the rumors over the film, what it was that Waugh himself was trying to communicate, and why the book is so highly esteemed. It’s also interesting to see what happened the first time they tried to film Brideshead:

With its gorgeous settings and vivid atmospherics, Brideshead Revisited always seemed destined for big-screen treatment – but has always run into trouble. In 1946, Evelyn Waugh was invited to Hollywood to discuss a “film treatment” and sell the rights for $140,000. At MGM’s offices he met the proposed adaptor, one Keith Winter, who, Waugh noted with distaste, “sees Brideshead purely as a love story”. He dubbed his Hollywood guests “Californian savages” and, in February 1947, sent them a memorandum explaining, with yelping condescension, the point of his book: “The theme is theological. It is in no sense abstruse and is based on principles that have for nearly 2,000 years been understood by millions of simple people, and are still so understood. But it is, I think, the first time that an attempt will have been made to introduce them to the screen, and they are antithetical to much of the current philosophy of Hollywood.” The “principles” were “the operation of Grace” on human souls, the Church’s power to reel in wayward adherents; and the “plans” held by God for each individual by which he or she may find redemption.

Mail delivery to Rome most be delayed. Otherwise our friend Carrie Gress would have asked Joseph Pearce about the hard-hitting review in the new issue of First Things of his new book on Shakespeare’s supposed Catholic faith.

If you’re a print subscriber, the August/September issue of First Things should be in your mailbox within the next few days—if it hasn’t already arrived. And if you’re an online subscriber, you’ll be able to read the issue early next week when it is posted online.

In the meantime, here’s the opening of Robert Miola’s review:

In The Quest for Shakespeare, Joseph Pearce claims that the “real Shakespeare” was a secret Catholic. Pointing in the preface to his own “robust muse” and “Bellocian bellicosity,” Pearce goes on to mock contemporary writers on Shakespeare as “vultures,” “carrion critics,” “gossip and gutter-oriented ‘scholars,’” and “silly asses of academe.”

A promising beginning, you might think. Unfortunately, The Quest for Shakespeare proves to be a patchwork of other people’s work, indiscriminately selected, hastily stitched together, and served up with self-congratulatory fanfare. Seldom has such a slight book managed to combine ignorance and arrogance on such a grand scale.

You might notice a banner ad for the book at the top of this page…

If you haven’t already read it, check out the feature essay Miola wrote for us in May, “Shakespeare’s Religion.”

That’s the title of a new book by Paul DeHart, professor of political science at Lee University. In a wide-ranging discussion of analytic philosophy, metaphysical and moral realism, natural teleology, and moral theory, DeHart builds on the work of Hadley Arkes, J. Budziszewski, and the analytic philosopher Robert Koons. The result is a unique blend of Budziszeski’s What We Can’t Not Know approach to natural law thinking, Arkes’s “logic of morals” going Beyond the Constitution, and Koons’ philosophical Realism Regained. The Claremont Review of Books has posted a review I wrote of the book online here.

Logic dictates that if you introduce a policy that restricts procreation in a culture that values boys over girls, you will end up with significantly fewer girls. The New Republic reminds us that that’s exactly what’s happened in China: “The one-child policy was instituted in an attempt to hamper the wild growth of the Chinese population. But, in the process of plugging one hole, the government may have left another open. The coming boom in restless young men promises to overhaul Chinese society in some potentially scary ways.” (Via Arts & Letters Daily)

North of China, the New York Times reports, we find that the Russians are finding more ways to encourage procreation, namely a new park bench designed to facilitate intimate encounters. But there’s no way to make sure that the stranger sitting next to you on the sloped park bench is one with whom you’d like to be intimate. I sense a problem here. And, I imagine, so do many young Russian women.