Howards End (2017) - General Discussion

[Athena]

A new adaptation of the E. M. Forster novel currently airing on BBC One in the UK and on Starz in early 2018. It stars Hayley Atwell and Matthew MacFayden. 

[Athena]

Bumping this up for its Starz airing.

[attica]

OK, when Atwell uttered the line "Oh, Crikey!" after reading Helen's 'it's over' telegram, I might have wailed at my teevee: Peggggggyyyy! Whyyyy did you leave meeeee?!? Might have done. No witnesses.

So far, really good cosdram fix.  I'm enjoying comparing and contrasting the cast with that of the movie. I hate Tibby in this quite a bit more than I did in the 92, and MMcF is significantly more appealing than AHop. I never mind seeing Tracey Ullman in anything. 

[filmfan2480]

Thoroughly enjoyed this last night.  It's interesting to see where this 1st HOUR episode stopped in regard to the 2. 5 hour long movie version from 1992.  I like how they're pacing this one so far; considering that this is 4 hours long.

[ElectricBoogaloo]

Hayley Atwell, Matthew Macfadyen, and Philippa Coulthard discuss Howards End:

[Moxie Cat]

I loved it! Kudos to Starz for picking this up. Atwell is SO enjoyable.

Oh, and can I buy that house?!!

[Avaleigh]

I'm going to save the bulk of my comments for when people are finished with all four episodes so I'm just going to post some of my superficial thoughts. (Lol and somehow this turned into a massive post anyway.)

I really liked Hayley as Margaret Schlegel. I definitely feel like she understood the character and liked the dynamic between the three siblings. 

I feel that some of the humor in this was lacking in comparison to the 1992 movie but will give a rundown on my list of complaints later. The scene with Aunt Juley and Charles Wilcox for example played much better in the 1992 movie and I thought Prunella Scales and James Wilby were hilarious in their one and only scene together. It was so memorable and the miscommunication is a bit more prolonged so when the truth finally is understood by both parties the argument becomes more intense, insults are thrown, and Aunt Juley basically tries to jump out of a moving vehicle to escape the "perfectly dreadful Charles". It's funny stuff and I don't feel the series did justice to the scene. 

Regarding Howards End--I like the house here a lot but I *love* the one in the movie and feel that the outdoor scenes in the movie are far superior. It's so easy to see why Ruth Wilcox loved her childhood home so much and how it would have killed her if Howards End had been pulled down. Her description of the garden and the tree with the pig's teeth. I really missed that we didn't get the full conversation there. 

The Schlegel sisters remind me of the Dashwood sisters in a way. Margaret is older and more practical. Helen is romantic and impulsive. Helen uses the piano to express emotion. The sisters are forced to leave their beloved home and have worries about becoming (or already being) spinsters. I think the biggest difference between the Schlegels and the Dashwoods is that the Schlegel sisters are financially independent for the most part and are more intellectually curious. 

I LOVE Matthew Macfadyen as Henry Wilcox. Terrific casting. I was on the fence when I first heard that he was cast but I thought he nailed it. I actually think he's better than Anthony Hopkins in the 1992 version and I thought Hopkins was great. His laugh and his deceptively jolly nature is so on point. This might be my favorite bit of casting along with Hayley in the entire series.

Julia Ormond as Ruth Wilcox. I like some of what she's doing but feel that she's missing that dreamy and romantic quality that Ruth was supposed to have. There was something very stiff and rigid about her overall body language and facial expressions. I prefer the Vanessa Redgrave version but think Julia had some nice scenes with Hayley. I also think that the casting works in terms of Margaret having something of a resemblance to a younger version of Ruth.  

Regarding Tibby--the actor here looks so young, wow. To me so doesn't look old enough to be at Oxford but maybe that's the point. He's kind of annoying but I like that the sisters take care of him and obviously love him very much. Whereas Helen is a little bit more of an equal, Tibby really is like Margaret's child.

[biakbiak]

Loved the book and movie, I might feel differently if I was watching it in 4 hours straight but I find this boring.  Two episodes in my main takeaway was the bench that Mr. Wilcox read the inscription from his dead wife was the same one that Leslie Knope sat on with Ron Swanson and lead him in a scavenger hunt that led him to Lagavulin!

[Moxie Cat]

On April 17, 2018 at 6:29 AM, biakbiak said:

Two episodes in my main takeaway was the bench that Mr. Wilcox read the inscription from his dead wife was the same one that Leslie Knope sat on with Ron Swanson and lead him in a scavenger hunt that led him to Lagavulin!

Haha....where she (amazingly) tells him what pubs are!

On April 16, 2018 at 12:35 PM, Avaleigh said:

The Schlegel sisters remind me of the Dashwood sisters in a way.

Oh yeah, it's hard to not believe that Forster didn't have S&S in mind a little. I definitely have to go back and watch the Hopkins/Thompson movie after this, which I saw years ago but don't really remember.

BTW, if anyone watched the Shonda Rhimes series the Catch with Peter Krause, the younger Schlegel sister is played by the same actress who played his daughter on that show. (Mom was Penny from Lost, grandma was Mrs. Patmore from DA!) Her name is Philippa Coulthard, so she has a ready made career as a romance novelist if she wants it.

[morakot]

I am enjoying this version; it has more time to breathe than the movie.

[Inquisitionist]

I watched the first two episodes today and enjoyed/admired them a lot.  I haven't seen the movie in a good long while, but the pacing here does feel right, as does the casting.  I'm not familiar with many of the actors, only MacFayden, Ormond, and Ullman, I think.  Looking forward to the rest of it.

[ElectricBoogaloo]

Howards End has been nominated for a TCA award!

OUTSTANDING ACHIEVEMENT IN MOVIE OR MINISERIES

[dcalley]

Bumping this thread because it's coming to PBS tonight at 8pm/7c! The last episode airs Feb. 2.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/masterpiece/shows/howards-end/

 

[voiceover]

Holy crap!  I love this version!!  

I haven't seen the '92 film in ages (though I own a vhs copy); hoping that TCM picks it up eventually, bc it's mystifying (Emma Thompson won the Oscar, ffs) that it's disappeared from American TV.  Because of that, I can't really compare them, except for a few things I remember.

Loving the casting of the leads: Hayley and Julia in particular right now.  I felt real affection & warmth between the two: the recognition that they are kindred, scatterbrained soulmates.  And instead of handwaving the legacy Mrs Wilcox granted Margaret as "Eh, the whim of a dying woman who's lost it", in this version with these two actresses, it seems as the only right & natural thing to do.  

Forster sure had a way of writing charmingly eccentric women!

The only couple of negatives: Leonard is a cypher.  And the costumes suck.  They were one of the best things about the '92 film!  Esp how Thompson and Bonham-Carter were dressed -- always with some gorgeously patterned silk shawl thrown over their shoulders.

[JudyObscure]

Well, finally! (I don't get Starz.)  The Emma Thompson movie is one of my all time favorites so I've watched it about ten times and expected to complain throughout this version -- but no, I loved it. 

I agree with most of the comments above.  Prunella Scales always has me laughing from the moment she screeches, "Get me a train time table!" and nobody does upper class snob like James Wilby.  I also agree with @Avaleigh  that I miss Vanessa's dreaminess. Emma Thompson can do no wrong with me, but Haley is doing great.  All these new actors are doing a fine job and I'm loving the extra time we have to develop the story.

I like this Leonard Bast, possibly even better, his face is so vulnerable, but I can't see him feeling as protective toward this Jackie, who looks so much older  than Leonard.  Jackie's weak but lovable character is one of my favorite things about the movie version, so we shall see how she plays the wedding scene, I may like this actress in the part better by then.

I'm just thrilled to have another version to watch. E.M. Forster's story is the real star, wonderfully, subtle and complex, and I think Margaret is one of the kindest and most admirable women in all literature.

[voiceover]

Another great ep -- I missed last week's; fingers crossed it's on the PBS app -- and Hayley continues to shine as Margaret.  Just **loved what she had to say to Helen about her idea of marriage to Henry: that she didn't intend to reform him; that she had private places that he'd never know, and vice versa.  WOW.  I'll have to double check how much of that came from the book, but it sounds like Forster's Meg.

And the sweet, anxious, longing glances between the two!  And that first kiss!!(es)  Put me in mind of Cher's "Wait a minute! wait a minute!" before she grabbed Nic Cage & laid one on him in Mooonstruck.

Afterwards, Matthew had an astonishing moment as Henry.  He's dazed (and aroused) by Margaret.  Out of habit, he bends to retrieve his pre-kiss- abandoned cigar stub -- then leaves it lay.  You know he's thinking he'd rather have the taste of Margaret on his lips, than tobacco.

[JudyObscure]

I'm still loving it, too.  Yes, I think Margaret's speech about why she is marrying Mr. Wilcox, ending with "only connect" is one of Forster's most famous lines.  I really have to get the book now so I can compare it with this and the Emma Thompson film.

Last week's scenes in the hallway between Mrs. Bast and Meg, Helen and Tibby and then later with just Helen and Leonard Bast were so intense and emotional they almost brought me to tears.  This week it was the Basts at the wedding that had me cringing for all concerned.  I'm off to watch it again on the PBS site.

[AuntiePam]

I haven't read the book or seen the earlier movie, so all this is new to me. 

On 4/24/2018 at 3:08 PM, morakot said:

I am enjoying this version; it has more time to breathe than the movie.

That's a big part of it, isn't it?  There is time for silence, so the characters seem to be speaking and behaving naturally. 

Leonard is growing on me but I can't explain why.  He's awfully pretty, maybe that's all it is.  I can't figure if he really has any character.  He's letting himself be pushed around too much. He seems a mismatch with Jacky -- I'd have liked to see how they got together. 

I liked Mr. Wilcox's excuse/explanation of his relationship with Jacky: "I'm a man.  I've lived a man's life."  But then it makes you ask, well then, what's a woman's life?  I suppose a woman could say the same if she had a child outside of marriage:  "I wanted a woman's life" -- in the days when women were expected to breed.  

I like that Margaret and Helen are financially independent.  But is 600 pounds a year really a lot, when Leonard moans that 8 pounds is a lot of money?  Or is 600 the income and they have more money invested?

[JudyObscure]

When they speak of income I think they imply that that is the annual interest on their big lump of money and shares.  They did mention, when Tibby was complaining about mustard and rubber, that the Schlegels had shares in a lot of thing, too.  Six hundred pounds a year at that time would be enough to maintain an upper class life with a nice house and a servant or two, but nothing like the Wilcox money with mansions and spoiled grown children feeling entitled to inherit a fortune.  An inflation calculator would make 600 about 71,000 a year now.  Mr.  Wilcox's inability to say how much he has shows how uptight he is about the whole subject, he probably sneers at 600.  The 600 a year is a good amount for Forster to give Margaret. It shows she didn't have to marry for financial security, but on the other hand, she has always had to budget and worry about money  to some extent. 

I would love to know more about Jacky, too. The movie version, and this may not go with the book, says that her father was a poor worker of some kind in Africa when he died and she was left destitute.  Mr.  Wilcox took her as a mistress, then he left her destitute as well, then  Leonard turned up and took care of her.  His brother cut off his allowance and disowned him for being with a prostitute, but Leonard will inherit some money of his own when he turns 21 and has promised to marry Jacky then. If Mr. Wilcox was with Jacky ten years ago, let's say she was at least 16 then, so she is at least 26 now and has been with Leonard a year or two.  I see it as an older woman taking advantage of the kindness of a boy, but I'm sure she was desperate, too.  Jacky is white in the movie and book and I don't really like the decision to make her black in this version, it makes the remarks against her sound racist when they were just meant to be about class.

[seacliffsal]

I appreciated that Meg told her sister that they enjoy the benefits of the work of those who make money and allow them their lifestyle.  Yes, they can feel their "uniqueness" based on their love of the arts, etc., but the reason they can enjoy those pursuits is due to their wealth.  This was especially telling when the sister was telling Bast that there was so much more to life than working and trying to make a go of it.  Yes, because she DOESN'T have to work in order to enjoy her interests.

[ScoobieDoobs]

I think they made some interesting casting choices here.  Most work, but a few are much less effective than the ‘92 film.

Julia Ormond is an OK actress, but she ain’t Vanessa Redgrave, not by a long shot!  Still, she had a nice chemistry with Haley.  And Haley ain’t Emma, but who is?  She’s fine here.  And I like the chemistry btw Haley & Phillippa— it is very much like the Dashwood sisters.  Very sweet when they’re walking arm-in-arm.

MM is 15 years away from his Mr. Darcy days & he does look much older, but he makes Mr. Wilcox a hot middle-aged daddy, who’s kinda likable.  Pretty far cry from Anthony Hopkin’s grouchy, almost elderly version of Wilcox.  Is this what Forster intended?  Probably not.  He meant for there to be a significant age diff btw Wilcox & Margaret.  Here, they look more like Carrie & Mr. Big.  Eh, so what?  They’re good together.

This Leonard is less handsome than in the 92 film, but with his popped out eyes & nervous demeanor, he’s much more intriguing.  This Jacky is off.  Not because she’s black, which I think adds an interesting element — she’s too demure, too soft-spoken, too elegant, too attractive & a bit too old.  Jacky should be coarse & crass & loud & a nuisance.  This Jacky isn’t carrying it off.  She’s also not as strong an actress as the others.

Seen 3 eps so far & have really enjoyed it.  What’s missing here, that’s such a huge part of the 92 film, is the detailed & exceptional attention to scenery & costumes.  It’s not missing entirely here, but neither the scenery or costumes are impressive.  You must see the 92 film to understand what I mean.  If you love house porn (and I do), you’ll be in heaven!

[JudyObscure]

10 hours ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

This Jacky is off.  Not because she’s black, which I think adds an interesting element — she’s too demure, too soft-spoken, too elegant, too attractive & a bit too old.  Jacky should be coarse & crass & loud & a nuisance.  This Jacky isn’t carrying it off.  She’s also not as strong an actress as the others.

Yes.  The other Jacky was both shocking and hilarious during the wedding scene, scarfing up pudding and getting obviously drunk.  This Jacky didn't seem drunk enough to be spilling the beans about knowing "Henry."

[ScoobieDoobs]

I’ve seen much discussion elsewhere, objecting to the Jacky here being black.  Was this a purposeful choice by producers?  Some say it is historically inaccurate or too politically correct — and not the original intent of Forster.  I have no prob with it.  Within the confines of this production, seems to fit OK.

But according to the book, Jacky is definitely an outcast/reject from society — and Bast is too, because of his connection to her. So is the reason for her outcast-from-society status because of her race — according to this production?  That’s pretty far off from Forster’s original intent.

The Jacky in the ‘92 film was not a particularly good or memorable actress, but she struck the right note for the character & what Forster intended her to be — loud, tacky & obviously “low class”.  This Jacky is too tasteful & beautiful to carry that off.

I’m also a bit bothered by the lack of chemistry btw this Bast & Helen.  And this Bast seems so taken with Jacky, it’s hard to believe he’d suddenly have sex with Helen, while Jacky is in the next room.  I know, men can be dogs, but this Bast has been played as so upright & uptight, it seems off to me.

Edited January 30, 2020 by ScoobieDoobs

[JudyObscure]

The ending was so different from the Emma Thompson version I will definitely have to read the book now.  In any case, I loved this series.

[AuntiePam]

Well, it's a good thing that I've ordered the book, because the ending left me with questions. 

How did Helen find Leonard?  First she's searching far and wide for him, with no luck, and then she's carrying his child.  And where did they have their assignations?  Did she rent hotel rooms?

What happened to Jacky?  Did anyone know where she was, so she could be told what happened?

How did Leonard know that Helen would be at Howard's End?  Was it because he'd seen Margaret on the street and figured that Helen would be with Margaret?

I'm really looking forward to the book.  I think I understand why Margaret decided to stay with Mr. Wilcox, but I don't fully understand why he was so adamant about Helen spending one night at Howard's End.  Surely having a sister-in-law bearing a child out of wedlock would be shame enough, so having her in a hotel where anyone could see her would be worse.

I wanted to see another kiss or two, some physical affection from these two.  The chemistry was there.

 

[Avaleigh]

Glad that more people finally watched this. It was a lot of fun and reminded me of my love of the book and movie. The source material is terrific stuff so I knew I'd like the series. (It would be nice if this could lead to a wave of more of Forster's novels being given the limited series treatment. A Room with a View? I love the 1985 version but would be happy to see a series where they have more time to tell the story.) 

I agree with those who didn't particularly care for the treatment of the Jacky character. I think that it was a mistake to make her black. It suddenly makes her story more about race when the core issues IMO were class and education. Jacky has zero intellectual curiosity. She and Leonard couldn't have any of the conversations that he could have with the Schlegel family. That's the reason why they're such a breath of fresh air for Leonard. He can talk to them about books, music, art, etc. and he can receive thoughtful replies in return.

A key moment for me from the 1992 movie was Leonard looking at the stars and trying to point out constellations to Jacky. She doesn't understand why he's fascinated. She tells him "you'll catch your death" because it's cold outside. Then she giggles and covers his eyes to keep him from looking into the sky. When he gets a little annoyed with her she tells him "they're just stars". Later when she finally gets him to come inside, she can't engage him in conversation so she takes off her clothes. 

For Leonard to meet an attractive woman like Helen who shares his interests and to form an emotional connection to her it most have been beyond thrilling. Unfortunately for everyone Jacky pretty much ruins all of this but at the same time she can't really be blamed. I suppose maybe there is some element of an older woman taking advantage of a very young man but when she had no better options it's easy to understand why she thought he might be able to save her. 

It's funny how decisions of Henry's that seem minor at the time he's making them, end up having such an impact in multiple areas of Leonard's life. If he hadn't taken advantage of Jacky then maybe Leonard wouldn't have felt the need to save her years down the road. Without Henry's advice to the Schlegels, Leonard would have kept his job and might have gone far with the company. Without Henry deciding to involve Charles, Leonard might have lived and been able to experience fatherhood. 

The Jacky in the series seems more composed and less cheap. I preferred the way that the movie handled the scene at the wedding reception. 

[Avaleigh]

3 hours ago, AuntiePam said:

I'm really looking forward to the book.  I think I understand why Margaret decided to stay with Mr. Wilcox, but I don't fully understand why he was so adamant about Helen spending one night at Howard's End.  Surely having a sister-in-law bearing a child out of wedlock would be shame enough, so having her in a hotel where anyone could see her would be worse.

Regarding when Leonard and Helen had the opportunity to hook up--It was after the wedding. Jacky was sleeping off a hangover and they were all staying in a hotel so they were probably in Helen's room.

As for Leonard finding the sisters at Howards End, IIRC he first goes to Wickham Place and the staff inform him that Margaret is at Howards End. 

I'm not sure exactly what Henry's thought process was regarding not allowing Helen to stay at Howards End. He's all about being conventional for the most part so it would have gone against convention to receive a pregnant unmarried woman in his home. Having her stay at a hotel, while not ideal either, at least shows that distance is being placed between his family and a society rule breaker. If Helen were not pregnant then she would be staying with them in the house like family. I also think that he was worried about Helen staying there one night being the so called thin end of the wedge. If she stays there one night what's the big deal if she stays there another and another. 

[AuntiePam]

18 minutes ago, Avaleigh said:

Regarding when Leonard and Helen had the opportunity to hook up--It was after the wedding. Jacky was sleeping off a hangover and they were all staying in a hotel so they were probably in Helen's room.

 

Did they have sex just that one time then?  If so, that's some bad luck right there.  So she's hiding from Leonard as well as from her family?  I can see her not wanting Leonard to leave Jacky, even though Leonard and Jacky aren't married. 

These people are fascinating.  I could have spent a lot more time with them. 

 

[Avaleigh]

27 minutes ago, AuntiePam said:

Did they have sex just that one time then?  If so, that's some bad luck right there.  So she's hiding from Leonard as well as from her family?  I can see her not wanting Leonard to leave Jacky, even though Leonard and Jacky aren't married. 

These people are fascinating.  I could have spent a lot more time with them.

 

They had all night and all morning lol but yeah, I think Baby Bast came from the one encounter. 

You're going to enjoy the book. Makes me want to read it again but I'm behind enough on my reading as it is. 

[ScoobieDoobs]

The book stressed that Henry is disgraced by Charles’ actions against Bast.  His life is altered forever because of it.  That is not clear here.  But no matter.  The scene where Margaret says she has forgiven Wilcox for his supposed sins & she expects him to forgive Helen for the same “sins”, was highlighted in the book (& the ‘92 film), just as it is here.  It was well done.

Charles’ attack on Bast was way more violent here than in the ‘92 film.  It was effective.  But this version works as a whole because of the actors.  Haley & MM are riveting.  A bit of a surprise for me cuz I think of MM as only Mr. Darcy — an unpleasant, dour, sad-sack.  Here, he shows us he’s  really a fine actor.  

This Wilcox is quite different than in the ‘92 film.  Hopkins’ Wilcox was haughty, humorless & outwardly cruel & thoughtless.  He was mostly a pretty nasty piece of work.  MM’s Wilcox may be oblivious, but he mostly seems like a jovial nice guy, if a bit of a hypocrite.  Man, he’s quite unaware of who he is — that is, until Margaret deliciously clues him in.

What’s missing here is Helen ever hooking up with Bast.  Er, when did they do that?  With a sick & sleeping Jacky nearby?  Really?  Ew, guess I’ll skip pondering too much on that.

I liked the upbeat ending, but still, when Margaret & Wilcox were walking off together, I was expecting to hear Sex & the City music . . .

Btw, did anyone notice Howards End looked spooky & creepy when it was sitting empty?  But when Helen’s & Margaret’s things were unpacked, it started to look sorta cozy.  And at the end, when Helen is playing outside with Baby Bast, we can see the exterior has lush vines growing all over & the house now looks charming, rather than spooky.  That was very subtle & rather sweet.

[AuntiePam]

I'm reading the book now, and wishing that I hadn't deleted the show already.  So far, it's remarkably close to what we saw.

I'm only posting to say that if there's anything anyone would like me to look for or double-check as I'm reading, for whatever reason, let me know and I'll keep a lookout for it.

Loving the book, by the way.  It's my first Forster -- I had no idea his writing was so delicious.

 

[twoods]

I felt like there were a lot of scenes cut from the Masterpiece version. I didn’t see any build up between the leads and some of the scenes were so choppy. Was the last scene between Mrs. Wilcox and Margaret the train scenes, and then they just show her funeral? How disappointing. 

[JudyObscure]

8 hours ago, AuntiePam said:

I'm reading the book now, and wishing that I hadn't deleted the show already.  So far, it's remarkably close to what we saw.

I got the book from the library and will start reading today.  I'm so anxious to find out which version, the Emma Thompson movie or this mini-series is closest to the book in what  scenes and character portrayals.

We have until Feb 16 to watch this again online at  the PBS site.  I want to be done with the book by then so I can binge watch the whole thing with the book in mind.

[AuntiePam]

16 hours ago, twoods said:

Was the last scene between Mrs. Wilcox and Margaret the train scenes, and then they just show her funeral? How disappointing. 

Yes.  Chapter 10 ends with Margaret and Mrs. Wilcox at the train station, and Mrs. Wilcox leaving with Evie and Mr. Wilcox.  Chapter 11 begins with the funeral.  So no more interaction than what we saw in the show. 

At least so far -- maybe later in the book we'll hear that Margaret visited Mrs. Wilcox in the nursing home.  Was that alluded to in the show?  I can't remember.

[JudyObscure]

Yes, when Charles Wilcox is being all huffy about his mother's wish that Margaret have Howards End, Henry mentions that she had visited her in the hospital many times.

[Inquisitionist]

On 2/6/2020 at 11:35 PM, twoods said:

I felt like there were a lot of scenes cut from the Masterpiece version. 

Masterpiece is notorious for doing that in order to make things "fit".  In this instance, however, the episode run-times listed at the PBS site seem to match up with what's shown at Starz On-Demand.

I watched this back when it was released two years ago.  Might be time for a rewatch!

[JudyObscure]

I'm in the part of the book now where Leonard Bast is first introduced.  I love reading all Leonard's thoughts about Margaret and Helen.   Considering that the actor has very little dialogue and must convey so much with just his facial expressions, it makes me really admire the efforts of this actor and Sam West in the film version.

[izabella]

In the book, do the sister feels suitably bad that they totally fucked up Leonard's life and led to his death?  Because I can't stand either of them due to that.   They ended up with everything while Leonard ended up dead.

[ScoobieDoobs]

3 hours ago, izabella said:

In the book, do the sister feels suitably bad that they totally fucked up Leonard's life and led to his death?  Because I can't stand either of them due to that.   They ended up with everything while Leonard ended up dead.

Idk, if you think about it, Leonard was a pretty stupid, self-destructive guy, who mostly made terrible choices in his life.  When told about what happened with Bast’s demise, Henry was dismissive. He’s not necessarily cruel, but dispassionate — and I agreed.  Helen’s reaction was kinda nutty.  Look, it was Leonard’s decision to quit a perfectly good job.  Even he was skeptical at first, when M & H told him about the “likely” downfall of his company, as told to them by Henry.  He didn’t have to heed their warning.

Ah, but Forster is all about ironies — and man, there are a ton of them here, eh?  I didn’t remember that it was actually Henry who egged on Charles to “thrash” Bast.  Well, maybe Charles took that task on his own, but Henry certainly made clear he wanted  Charles to toss M & H out of Howard’s End,  Yeesh, very ugly!

This version really makes you wonder why the heck Leonard is with Jacky.  She looks old enough to be his mother & she seems really sickly — she’s an all around burden.  So what gives?  Is Leonard such a charitable fellow?  It’s never made clear here & doesn’t make much sense.  In the ‘92 film it’s made very clear.  That Jacky was all about sex, sex, sex.  He just had absolutely nothing else in common with her — and he did have cultural aspirations, which is why Leonard & Helen hooking up in the’92 film flowed so much better than it does here.  Helen described their hookup to M briefly here, but it didn’t seem too believable.

Forster clearly wanted to make statements about hypocrisies of the upper classes.  Yes, H & M may have been well-intentioned about the Basts & yet their lives are made worse — and Leonard ends up being violently murdered, and Jacky is likely to suffer a grim end, all while M & H live on comfortably & happily.  I thought it was particularly cruel of Margaret to so abruptly write Leonard she could not help him find a job.  She could have tried to help him in some way when he so desperately needed it.  But she put her own position with Henry first.  It revealed her to be quite a hypocrite!  She thinks of herself as kind & thoughtful, but she certainly was not here . . .

[AuntiePam]

2 minutes ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

Forster clearly wanted to make statements about hypocrisies of the upper classes.  Yes, H & M may have been well-intentioned about the Basts & yet their lives are made worse — and Leonard ends up being violently murdered, and Jacky is likely to suffer a grim end, all while M & H live on comfortably & happily. 

Maybe Forster is saying that the Leonards of the world are doomed, or that they were doomed at that time and place.

The intro to my edition has the three sets of protagonists as three aspects of British society in that time period.  The Wilcox family are "narrow, unimaginative and concerned with property, money, and social position."  The Schlegels "devote themselves to music, art, books, and ideas.  They are sophisticated, clever, idealistic, and liberal."

Bast is a third segment of British society -- "unleisured and insecure".

The question Forster posits is "Who shall inherit England?"

Well, it sure wasn't the Basts.

[JudyObscure]

28 minutes ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

I thought it was particularly cruel of Margaret to so abruptly write Leonard she could not help him find a job.  She could have tried to help him in some way when he so desperately needed it.  But she put her own position with Henry first.  It revealed her to be quite a hypocrite!  She thinks of herself as kind & thoughtful, but she certainly was not here . . .

In Margaret's defense ( I admit I really like her) Leonard and Jacky had just that same day broken up her engagement.  Also, I think  both girls felt quite strongly that so far their attempts to help the Basts had only made things worse for them and now that the previous relationship between Henry Wilcox and Jacky was revealed, it made any further contact between the two families completely impossible and inappropriate. 

I think the main reason Helen slept with Leonard that night at the inn was that she felt so sorry for her part in his loss of a job. Of course that didn't help Jacky at all, but it was Leonard's sadness that was right in front of her, she was 20 years old and probably felt that was the only comfort she could give.  Helen cared enough  about both Basts to give a substantial amount of her own inheritance to them.  Four thousand pounds at that time would have made them secure for life.  I always expected she gave that much to Jacky after Leonard's death.  Maybe I'll learn more in the book.

I've just read the part in the book where Forster describes Jacky.  The film version comes much closer than this series.  Jacky is 33 to Leonard's 20 and they've been together a few years so that tells us a lot about why he is with her.  She is full figured and smiley but her smiles never reach her eyes. She has recently aged a lot, has become so "massive" that it hurts Leonard when she sits on his lap.  He tries to engage her in conversation, but she has none and only, every night, repeats the same thing, "Do you love me? Do you promise to make things right, Len?"  At some point he has promised to marry her when he turns 21 and will come into some money, he has promised her this probably out of pity for her being abandoned by the Henry Wilcoxes of the world and, as he assures her, he is not the type of man who would abandon a woman himself.  What I would like to know is what she did in between Henry (10 years ago) and meeting Leonard.

[Athena]

I love reading everyone's take on the book. It's one of my favourites and makes me want to reread it.

I do agree that while the series did better or as good as the movie in most areas, the casting of Jacky didn't work. The Jacky/Leonard relationship is an odd, awkward one but when you read the book or know a bit more about their history, it sort of makes sense. Leonard was very young and he is quite stupid about his life at times. Jacky is a tragic character. I do not think they really adapted it well to the series. I also agree the series really did not go into the Helen/Leonard hookup enough. I remember thinking, "That's it?" after they cut away when they nursed Jacky. 

[ScoobieDoobs]

See, but here’s the great Forster irony — that this production correctly highlights.  H & M are clearly nice & thoughtful women & their intentions toward Leonard may have been good — yet their end was awful, and they didn’t help them at all.  And the other irony here is that H & M would not have been able to help the Basts, no matter what they did.  Leonard had a weak heart & would likely have died young & Jacky was sickly & would probably have also died eventually.

I liked Margaret, but her abrupt cut-off of Leonard & Jacky turned me off.  Seemed harsh & brutally cold to me.  She prioritized her own position with Henry over the Basts’ well-being.  Ick.  And Helen’s offer of 5 thou to Leonard, even tho Tibby said it was half of what she had, seemed shallow to me.  Was she so clueless, she wouldn’t understand that a clearly proud fellow like Leonard wouldn’t accept such charity?  She could have helped them in some less direct way, but she seemed too self-absorbed to think how.

The end may have been ultimately happy for Margaret & Henry, and Helen & Baby Bast, but it’s tainted by the ugly end for Leonard (and likely grim end for Jacky) — or are we supposed to forget about the Basts?

[AuntiePam]

2 hours ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

 

And Helen’s offer of 5 thou to Leonard, even tho Tibby said it was half of what she had, seemed shallow to me.  Was she so clueless, she wouldn’t understand that a clearly proud fellow like Leonard wouldn’t accept such charity?  She could have helped them in some less direct way, but she seemed too self-absorbed to think how.

 

I'm at the part in the book now where Helen and Margaret are in a discussion group, and the discussion is about how best to help the poor.  Do we give them books, or clothing, or a library subscription, or food?  God forbid we give them money directly.  Or if we do, do we give them a little or a lot?  There's little consideration of what the poor person feels, and not even an assumption of what they might do with whatever they're given.  It's as if once the gift is made, their responsibility has ended. 

Leonard might have accepted a small amount of money from Helen -- something he might be expected to repay.  But certainly not 5,000 pounds. 

[ScoobieDoobs]

And what about Philippa as Helen?  She was good & had a nice, credible, sisterly chemistry with Haley — but she’s a bit too cute/adorable & not really eccentric enough for the part.  When she talked about being an “old maid”, I laughed.  Sorry, nuh-uh, wasn’t buying anyone could see Philippa as an old maid.

Sure, Margaret & Tibby said she’s “odd” or “mad” often enough — and yet Philippa doesn’t really carry it off.  She seems more overly dramatic or bratty, rather than odd or mad.  Now, Helena Bonham Carter got the quirkiness required for this part perfectly in the ‘92 film.

Edited February 9, 2020 by ScoobieDoobs

[JudyObscure]

13 hours ago, AuntiePam said:

There's little consideration of what the poor person feels, and not even an assumption of what they might do with whatever they're given.  It's as if once the gift is made, their responsibility has ended. 

I guess I'm no better than they are.  When I give money to a charity I don't follow up to see exactly how the money is spent and I don't feel responsible for each person on the charity's list.  My husband volunteers at a free store and he doesn't ask how the bags of food he gives to people will be cooked and used, he doesn't follow them home to see that the children are getting their share, and he doesn't invite the ones who look homeless to stay at our house. 

I think it's perfectly natural to put the safety of your own family above that of other people the way Margaret put her marriage above helping the Basts.

I don't agree that Margaret and Helen are forever responsible for the Basts because, once, with the best of intentions, they passed on advice from a business man in a position to know things.  If the Porphyrion had stayed out of the insurance ring it would have failed.  Henry's advice was good at the time, none of them could see the future.  

Leonard and Jacky are adults responsible for themselves.  Leonard didn't have to quit the Porphyrion just based on a word of advice, he could have done some investigating himself  from inside his own bank and might have found out they were joining the insurance ring.  He didn't have to get Helen pregnant and he didn't have to follow them to Howards End. 

Margaret and Helen did not give Leonard heart trouble, they did not cause his second bank to downsize, and they're not at all  responsible for what Charles did.

I don't see this as a novel about hypocrisy in the upper class at all.  I don't think there's a hypocrite in the book.  Everyone is exactly what they say they are.  Henry is pragmatic and says straight out that he doesn't believe in helping the poor because "they just end up poor again."  A hypocrite would make  sympathetic  speeches and then not help.  Helen and Margaret try hard to do what is helpful and put a lot of consideration into it, they even have a group discussion about it, then they actually do something about it.  It may not work out, but they definitely put their money where their mouth is.

16 hours ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

The end may have been ultimately happy for Margaret & Henry, and Helen & Baby Bast, but it’s tainted by the ugly end for Leonard (and likely grim end for Jacky) — or are we supposed to forget about the Basts?

The end takes place a few years later. Margaret and Helen and Baby Schlegel are living in Howards End an old run down, albeit charming, house in the country, far from their London friends and activities.  They aren't living in any of the Wilcox mansions and they have turned down any of the Wilcox millions, they are living on their own modest incomes inherited from their own parents. 

I feel absolutely sure they would have taken care of Jacky, probably with that 5000 that I'm sure Jacky would have taken in the first place if Leonard had let her see it.

As an openly unwed mother and her sister, they would be beyond the pale of polite society and isolated in  their home.  That they seem happy is because they're the type to make the best of things.  That they aren't daily beating themselves over Leonard's death doesn't make them bad people to me.

Howards End, the house, represented a place of peace and love for Mrs. Wilcox and became one for the Schlegel girls.  I always thought the theme of  Howards End, the book was "only connect" the idea that human relations, rather than politics or class is what counts and we should try to connect with each other.

With the exception of Charles, who is probably learning some hard lessons in prison, I love every character in this book.  I think they're all doing their best.

[dcalley]

On 2/3/2020 at 11:49 AM, Avaleigh said:

(It would be nice if this could lead to a wave of more of Forster's novels being given the limited series treatment. A Room with a View? I love the 1985 version but would be happy to see a series where they have more time to tell the story.)

Ugh, the 2007 version (still movie length) for Masterpiece was so bad, as I recall, that I don't much trust anyone to touch it again! (But I'd watch this hypothetical series nevertheless.)

I don't think I've seen the 1992 Howards End in at least 20 years, so I will be rewatching it (it's on Netflix) at some point now that I've finally completed this version.

[JudyObscure]

8 hours ago, dcalley said:

 

I don't think I've seen the 1992 Howards End in at least 20 years, so I will be rewatching it (it's on Netflix) at some point now that I've finally completed this version.

Please come back after and tell us what you think.  I'm still wondering why I think Margaret Schlegel is one of the best women in literature while so many here can't stand her and I'm wondering if it's because I began with Emma Thompson's version and maybe she brings her good qualities forward a little better.