56 thoughts on “Howards End: The Remake

    1. It’s very much like the wedding coat that was part of my grandmother’s trousseau in 1900. I still have the garment today.

  1. Completely agree with this review in every way. I did not agree with the colour-blind casting in this as EM Forster’s books reflected the strict social (especially white upper middle class) structure at the time and individuals feeling trapped by it and wanting to break free, as EM Forster did himself as a gay man. In fact, I imagine it would have been more of a focus that the sisters were friends with different ethnicities but EM Forster did not write about that, therefore they should have stuck to the story he wrote. I thought it lacked the warmth of the original too. Sorry to ramble but am a big Forster fan and his books are interesting enough without being meddled with! I dread a Room with a View remake :-(

    1. I agree with all your points! Forster’s Victorian gay sensibility was very closeted (he specifically didn’t want ‘Maurice’ published until after his death), so the whole point was that these women were struggling with independence & class issues & it was not easy.

      Btw, there was a Room With the View TV remake in 2007 — I couldn’t bear to watch, but Kendra did & was not impressed!

      1. I cannot ever watch that, the original and Julian Sands has a very special place in my heart!

    2. Oh, but they already did an A Room With a View remake in 2007, and it was pretty dreadful. What’s next, A Passage to India?

      1. I shudder to think what a modern take on the British Raj era would end up as… the colonialism is complicated enough as a period piece but add in 21st-c. political attitudes & just ew.

  2. The “colorblind” casting thing in the UK is interesting. Another unrealistic effect I’ve seen is that there are almost no black-black couples.

    1. I’ve seen some reviewers claim it ‘adds depth’ but I swear they’re just looking at photos & didn’t actually watch the show bec. the dialog hews very closely to the book (so, yay for literary purity) & never actually mentions race.

  3. April’s issue of Vogue had a brief article about the re-make, and the writer flippantly declared that the hairstyles and blouses of the Merchant Ivory production were basically 80s fashion trying to look historical. Thinking about writing them one of those “Well ACTUALLY” emails.

    1. Hey Sarah, SO curious about your rebuttal of the critique that the Merchant-Ivory production had 80s-influenced fashion and is not realistic. I heard that exact assertion from a podcaster and was wondering if it were true, because I MUCH prefer the costuming in the 1992 film—literally the clothes I would like to wear myself!!! But then I heard this podcaster saying they were “80s versions” and was bummed. So, are the 1992 costumes realistic? Have my dreams not been dashed? And if you know of anywhere the 1992 costumes have been written about in detail, I’d love to read it! Thanks! (Love the costumes in this new version, of course, but they just don’t steal my heart the way the 1992 Howard’s End does….)

      1. I adore the 1992 version, the costumes and the hair! in 1910 when the book came out we know hair was big! just Google 1910 hair and you’ll see (Gibson girl anyone!). As for the costumes I’m surprised that a writer from Vogue didn’t bother to even check their own archives to see that the costumes weren’t 80’s fashion trying to look historic, actually if anything I wouldn’t be surprised if some 80’s fashion was inspired by the Edwardian styles! e.g the blouses worn by the New Romantics (and their fans) to name one.

  4. The BBC (who part-made and originally aired this) have this thing going on right now where 15% of their casts/lead roles have to be played by POC by 2020 so we’re likely to see more of this hamfisted colour-blind casting in the near future. (whilst they repeatedly turn down adaptations of more modern works where the cast are POC in the source material…. it baffles the mind, honestly)

    1. Totally onboard with the concept, but the execution is so weak! POC existed throughout British history, so let’s talk about that, not just shove ppl into roles randomly, ugh.

      1. It seems to me that the POC castes here didn’t make sense with the period. If they are going toast POC in costume dramas, it should be accurate to the time and place.

        Here, it’s weird. Although, I wouldn’t say no to Margaret and Helen having Indian upper class friends. But. the English at the time were insular, class and race conscious.

        Why not make a version of the Indian set mysteries, such as A Very Pukka Murder and its sequel, Death at the Durbar. They’re set in Indian during the 1900s

  5. I did not see the movie you are comparing this to, and I haven’t read the novel. But I agree with you, the direction and screen play are pretty heavy handed, and I am not very impressed by the acting. The costumes are lovely though. I’m not sure I will see this one through. I am going to look for the movie everyone seems to like.

  6. Sorry This gets a 0.75 for me! Accurate hair and costumes,and stays reasonably accurate to Em Forster and a PoC, Still I’m sticking with the 1992 one despite all the ads for the Starz version on my Facebook! I wonder it they’ll make a sexed up version of A Room With A View or even Maurice to make them look “Progressive”! What aLoHs! a Load of Horseshit!)

  7. I loved it. It kept me going through all four episodes. The movie was good, but Emma Thompson was too showy for my taste and they skimmed bits. Why should there be Only One version of this book? I suppose I like thorough. I don’t think the Brits have ever been as obsessed with colour as Americans. Because Britain was a seafaring nation and also had an empire, there was always more diversity in society. So it honestly didn’t bother me. I quite liked it, because it added an extra nuance to the story.

    The latest thing is saying that Achilles can’t be black! Troy:Fall of a City was a bit dreary, but a black Achilles is entirely possible, because the Greeks really were colour blind. They rarely commented on the colour of someone’s skin, and it’s known that there were a fair few black people in Greek society.

    1. Maybe you’re misunderstanding — we do need POC in historical drama! But it’s doing everyone a disservice to only put black actors in a drama & ignore the fact that they’re black — especially (as I said above) in a drama that is totally obsessed with issues of class & gender. Britain was (is?) a hugely hierarchical society, which applied to POC too, so it’s historically inaccurate to gloss that over in a story that is discussing class differences & women’s independence in the 1900s.

    2. Britain is not less racist than America- they just hide it a bit better. I mean, they also had slaves, but because they were not on British soil proper, England got the profits without having to look at the blood (which creates a different feel to racial politics compared to our country). For more on this, I recommend “Why I’m No Longer Talking To White People About Race” by Reni Eddo-Lodge, a black woman from England.

  8. I liked it all right, but then I only saw the Emma Thompson version once, and I was about… twelve at the time. May be time for rewatch, as I recall it had an excellent cast.

  9. I’d like to know why the time period was moved. the Merchant Ivory setting was clearly late Edwardian, 1910-12ish, and the miniseries appears to be 5-8 years earlier. It really does make for a shift in tone, I think. Is there a time frame specified in the book? It’s been at least 15 years since I’ve read it.

    (And I would commit most unseemly acts to have the dress and hat that Margaret was wearing to Evie’s wedding in the MI movie. And to be able to fit, of course.)

    1. The novel was published in 1910 & while no dates are specified within, it’s definitely a ‘contemporary’ work referencing things of it’s own time.

  10. This production IS NOT a remake of the 1992 movie. It is the THIRD adaptation of the novel. And yes, I’ll be watching it the first chance I get.

  11. I’d like to know why the time period was moved. the Merchant Ivory setting was clearly late Edwardian, 1910-12ish, and the miniseries appears to be 5-8 years earlier. It really does make for a shift in tone, I think. Is there a time frame specified in the book? It’s been at least 15 years since I’ve read it.

    To be honest, I have always been somewhat confused by the time span in the movie. However, I think it began before 1910.

  12. Thanks so much for this review! I plan to see this version. I’m almost certain I won’t like it as much as the Emma Thompson / Anthony Hopkins etc. version, but still looking forward to it. Wonderful novel.

  13. I loved it. It kept me going through all four episodes. The movie was good, but Emma Thompson was too showy for my taste and they skimmed bits. Why should there be Only One version of this book? I suppose I like thorough. I don’t think the Brits have ever been as obsessed with colour as Americans. Because Britain was a seafaring nation and also had an empire, there was always more diversity in society. So it honestly didn’t bother me. I quite liked it, because it added an extra nuance to the story.

    Actually, I believe they are. But I think they hide their racism better than Americans do.

    1. Britain always had more diversity than the USA? I beg to differ as Black Americans have been in America as long as white Americans, albeit as slaves, and brown Americans have always been there. Please see my comment below. I was well into my twenties before people of colour were seen in any numbers generally on the streets of London… Diversity was not a thing at all in London when I was a child.

  14. The danger of “colour blind” casting of this kind is that it white washes history too, implying that there was no racism in the past. My other concern is that there is a subtext which is saying “everyone is white really”, which is deeply deeply racist so either way the pretence that black people were able to mingle as equals in British society in 1900 is dangerous and not the way to redress the racial imbalance in film and tv. (Maybe producing a few dramas and films about non-brits would be a good start or showing films and tv dramas not made in Britian/US also an excellent move.)

  15. I’ve only seen Episode 1 so far. Love the Liberty print ties, scarves, & shawl. But what’s up with all the ugly, flat, & (mostly) knitted hats? Was this another part of the “New Woman” outfit?

  16. I’ve watched the first two episodes (as far as I can tell that’s all that’s available to stream, or at least for U.S. viewers using Starz via Amazon add on) and I actually liked this Jacky better than the 1992 Jacky. I didn’t like how the 1992 version went with this over the top characterization of her as totally stupid and pathetic and awkwardly seemed to make some of her actions comedic. This Jacky might do the same things but there’s more nuance an self-awareness there.

  17. I’m all for color-blind casting for a production of something as old and well-known as Shakespeare, or Greek literature. Here, though, it feels odd. This time period is close enough to our own that we know how much of a big deal race would have been. So putting people of color in the film, without having their characters face the challenges unique to people of color in that culture and time period, is like making a story in Germany in the 1940s without alluding to that whole holocaust thing that was happening.

    1. Excellent point. Forster said he only wrote about upper classes because they are the only classes he knew. It would be difficult for us to imagine how codified and staid that era was for Victorians/Edwardians, but keep in mind that in current day England, there remains a class system that is a means by which people can look down on people who look exactly like themselves. I think the writers and producers of the BBC Howards End sought to put the cookie cutter stamp of today’s values onto the original work, and it rings a sour note.

  18. I feel like I should give the 1992 version of HE another try. My first viewing of it was tainted by the fact that a friend’s woman-hating homophobic brother brought it to a party for a group of us to watch, and kept talking about how great it was. So I wasn’t paying very close attention, and my take on it at the time was “Feminist marries rich caveman for no good reason, eventually learns her place and that Feminism Is Silly, gets thrown a bone in the end.”
    Now that I’m familiar with the book, I see how it’s more of an exploration of the oppressive class structure and gender norms of Edwardian England. Definitely requires superb acting to pull off the nuanced characters, though, and it sounds like this latest version doesn’t deliver.
    So maybe I’ll give the 1992 version another watch. After all, I think I have a better understanding of my friend’s brother now. Sure hope he finds his way out of that armored closet some day. I think we’ll all be happier then.

    1. The 1992 HE is definitely worth a second look, so I am glad the book has inspired you to possibly check out the film again. Meg’s big pronouncement is “only connect,” and she is something of a conduit that unifies and smoothes the way between disparate characters. I believe Forster was saying that we all have our own frames of reference, and that whether or not we agree on things, we do have to come together and connect despite those disagreements. When with non-judging frankness Meg confronts Henry’s ugly past, the way is paved for a society in which the meek might inherit the earth, and a new path is forged, one that is more egalitarian in nature. Forster is tremendously subtle, but he slivers in an ultra-thin blade to wedge the new idea into staid old society that he knew must inevitably change. The book is perfection, to my view, and the film is only better every time I see it.

  19. Initially, I thought the longer format of this series would allow for a more complete use of Forster’s elegant dialogue, but I was disappointed by episode 2. Interaction between Meg and Ruth was not fully realized, and that is so crucial for the establishment of the almost spiritual-level of connection between Ruth and Meg, and sets the trajectory for Meg to ultimately land at Howards End. I was prepared to forgive that and give the series a chance. However, by episode two, as every sight of Tibby came with a sidecar of his bombastic wank-fest on the exploitative nature of Henry’s business dealings, I just wanted him to bugger off to college, already. Aunt Julia’s politics seemed too “with-it” as well, instead of the old-fashioned prim lady from the book. Helen, too, was preachy AF with little to none of the eccentric charm that made her riveting to watch in the Merchant-Ivory production. I don’t blame the actors, in this case: the script is clearly flogging an agenda, and I find the writing heavy-handed and forged from the mold of current mores, with little regard to the subtlety of the original book. I don’t WANT Edwardian literature run through a 2018 filter: I want the original work intact and uncut, in keeping with the vision of the original author. Also, interplay between Bast and Helen is so dreary that I sensed absolutely NO frisson between them, so when he goes to help her with the window, well, it seems jarring. I will seriously be surprised if she ends up pregnant in the next episode. I will still watch the final episode, but with reservations.

  20. I was in love with Meg’s black and white ensemble for Evie’s wedding. The piecing on some of the tartan blouses was almost hypnotic, and I felt like I would have a seizure looking at one in particular. They were brilliantly pieced, but distracting.

    I generally agree with you about the costumes.

  21. I loved this version! I have never been able to get through the 1992 version. Plus Matthew MacFadyen was hunky :)

  22. I thought the costumes were great. I really want Haley’s red sweater!!!! Where can I find it??? The acting was well done. I was just never a fan of the story in general but I did watch because of the actors and the costumes.

  23. I find the “colour blind” casting very jarring. As an older person brought up in London in the fifties and sixties I do not ever remember seeing any people of colour at all. I’m not saying there weren’t any, just that I never saw them. I first saw depictions of people of colour in the “Black and White Minstrel Show” on TV and subsequent on “Soul Train” from the USA. I went to University in the centre of London and didn’t see any there except in an Indian restaurant once. I did not lead a sheltered life and had several holiday jobs in East End office buildings, the Central Sorting Office in Holborn, Marks and Spencers and the records room of the London School of Economics. Still no people of colour or anyone dressed in Geisha outfits. The inclusion of several people of colour in this production seems to me to be a patronizing nod to current susceptibilities and has nothing to do with historical reality.

  24. Why are so many people in a tizzy over the idea that there were people of color living in Britain before the post-World War II era? Why cling to illusions, instead of making an effort to find out on one’s own?

  25. My wife and I actually enjoyed the series, and thought the costumer were indeed fantastic! We also enjoyed the ’92 version and would like to watch that again. My wife LOVED the blue navy coat with the white buttons (the one Hayley wears in the pic above similar to one from Far from the Maddening Crowd) Does anyone know where I can buy that coat (or a similar one?) as I’d love to get as gift for her.

    1. Just a follow up to my earlier note that after a lengthy search I did find a brilliant vintage dressmaker in the UK to make the coat for my wife (who LOVES it). Reply back if anyone wants details or pics of her in the coat.

  26. I like it, and I didn’t think I would, since the Merchant Ivory is a hard act to follow. This one is just different, still with wonderful acting, and more true to the story. When I saw the movie I was a bit too swept away by the scenery and costumes to catch as many nuances of the story. Jacky is from Cyprus, so she represents a foreigner and I think she’s well cast. The servant Annie is nervous in her position compared to the white servants. I also think the Schlegel sisters look more like actual sisters.

    I do prefer the actual Howards End cottage in the movie. The house in the new version is a lovely place but lacks the magic of the movie version.

  27. Please I just found your website and I could lose myself here! Before I dive in, I’d like to ask about the red tam in Howard’s End! I fell in love with it and want to make it. Do you have any idea where to obtain the pattern for it? I fall in love with the knitted items in period dramas. I still watch “Chariots of Fire” for all the beautiful fair isle knitted tams and other pieces. Many thanks!

Comments are closed.