Showing posts with label Howards End. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Howards End. Show all posts

Wednesday, August 12, 2026

Season 51 - The Long Song (2021)

I've been a fan of Hayley Atwell's for what seems like forever, but looking at her credits it's been about twenty years starting with the Sally Lockhart films. But it was her portrayal of Agent Carter, giving us a non-superpowered kick-ass female lead in the male dominated Marvel universe that forever made me a fan. That and her hilarious lip-synch videos and self-deprecating social media presence. So I was aware of The Long Song since the day it first started filming back in 2018. And since the day later in 2018 that it aired in England. Nowadays with shows being shown almost simultaneously stateside thanks to premium cable channels and services like BritBox I kept waiting for The Long Song to finally air here. And I waited. And I waited. Seriously, Howards End with Hayley's portrayal of Margaret Schlegel ran on Starz and even re-aired TWICE on PBS and still I waited for The Long Song. Until finally it was announced as part of Masterpiece's 51st season in 2021. I would finally get to see the adaptation of Andrea Levy's book! And ironically, considering how long I waited to see this, I think 2021 was the perfect time for it to air. Right when America finally said enough and embraced Black Lives Matter on a scale it should have always been embraced. Though sadly since that time we've regressed, and it's more important than ever to look back and see the horrors of what we have done in the past and continue to do in the present. To know that this is our history. This happened and if certain people in power have their way it will happen again. To not flinch away from uncomfortable truths. And the truth of the matter is Hayley is nothing more than odious comic relief, as she should be in this setting. As she herself said "I play a heinous, vile old cow [as] Variety reviews my portrayal: 'an actor who typically radiates warmth, does a remarkable job of curdling the atmosphere of every room unlucky enough to have Caroline in it.'" And her partner in crime is Jack Lowden as the ambitious Robert Goodwin. If you've fallen for him as River Cartwright on Slow Horses, well, here you get to see his true acting chops, joining Hayley in camp odious and vile. I wish I could say I knew then that he'd be a star, but I so didn't. Because the real star of The Long Song is Tamara Lawrance as July. A slave who was taken away from her mother to be a plaything for Caroline. Who, despite everything, is a source of joy. Her life keeps beating her down again and again yet she is a "joyous survivor" as one reviewer said. And that's the heart of The Long Song, showing the horrors unflinchingly but celebrating the joy of surviving and creating a better world. Here's hoping we can rebuild and make a better world together.

Friday, August 27, 2021

The Long Song

I've been a fan of Hayley Atwell's for what seems like forever, but looking at her credits it's been about fifteen years starting with the Sally Lockhart films. But it was her portrayal of Agent Carter, giving us a non-superpowered kick-ass female lead in the male dominated Marvel universe that forever made me a fan. That and her hilarious lip-synch videos and self-deprecating social media presence. So I was aware of The Long Song since the day it first started filming back in 2018. And since the day later in 2018 that it aired in England. Nowadays with shows being shown almost simultaneously stateside thanks to premium cable channels and services like BritBox I kept waiting for The Long Song to finally air here. And I waited. And I waited. Seriously, Howards End with Hayley's portrayal of Margaret Schlegel ran on Starz and even re-aired TWICE on PBS and still I waited for The Long Song. Until finally it was announced as part of Masterpiece's 51st season. I would finally get to see the adaptation of Andrea Levy's book! And ironically, considering how long I waited to see this, I think now was the perfect time for it to air. Right when America finally said enough and embraced Black Lives Matter on a scale it should have always been embraced it's more important than ever to look back and see the horrors of what we have done in the past. To not flinch away from uncomfortable truths. And the truth of the matter is Hayley is nothing more than odious comic relief, as she should be in this setting. As she herself said "I play a heinous, vile old cow [as] Variety reviews my portrayal: 'an actor who typically radiates warmth, does a remarkable job of curdling the atmosphere of every room unlucky enough to have Caroline in it.'" The real star is Tamara Lawrance as July. A slave who was taken away from her mother to be a plaything for Caroline. Who, despite everything, is a source of joy. Her life keeps beating her down again and again yet she is a "joyous survivor" as one reviewer said. And that's the heart of The Long Song, showing the horrors unflinchingly but celebrating the joy of surviving and creating a better world.

Friday, April 6, 2018

Book Review - Kelly Jones's Murder, Magic and What We Wore

Murder, Magic and What We Wore by Kelly Jones
Published by: Knopf Books for Young Readers
Publication Date: September 19th, 2017
Format: Hardcover, 304 Pages
Rating: ★★★★
To Buy

Miss Annis Whitworth has spent the majority of her life reading gossip columns and advising her friends on what to wear. Her only worries have been the strain her Aunt Cassia is putting on the postal service with her voluminous correspondence and when she might see her father again because he is almost constantly abroad for work. When her father's man of business, Mr. Harrington, arrives one day a rather cryptic greeting reveals that Annis will never see her father again, he has died and left his daughter and his sister destitute. They were completely dependent on his military half-pay and now have nothing, not even his silver pocket watch with his wife's portrait was recovered, only two handkerchiefs which Annis embroidered for his birthday. That watch is an item which could come in handy what with their scarcity of funds, as could access to her father's overseas accounts. Cassia though is practical and has spent her life raising Annis with very unique life lessons in an attempt to make her more self-reliant. Therefore Annis will embrace the horror of shapeless ready-made black mourning gowns and a possible life of employment. Yet Annis knew something about her father she didn't know if it was polite to mention... he was a spy. In fact the handkerchiefs recovered conceal a coded message and she knows that she needs to get them into the hands of the War Office because her father might have died for this intelligence and was possibly murdered for it.

Though Annis shudders to be seen in the black bombazine! Therefore a little tailoring prior to visiting the War Office is necessary... tailoring that her new maid, Millicent O'Leary, points out is actually magic! The best seamstress can't change bombazine to brocade! This gives Annis an idea. What if the War Office could use her skills? What if they need a glamour artist? Then her and Aunt Cassia's life needn't be completely uprooted. A "Mr. Smith" though quickly shuts down Annis's daydreams and instead she must face the bleak future that Cassia is laying out for them, including a trip to an employment agency! Annis would literally chose any future but this, even marrying a man who wears horrid waistcoats! It is Millicent who puts forth the idea of Annis becoming a dressmaker. Though Aunt Cassia and her helpful friend Miss Spencer agree that this would be beyond the pale. Annis would lose her reputation and would never recover. But what if this little experiment were done outside of London and in disguise? A new plan is formed, against Cassia's better judgment. They are to relocate to Flittingsworth, a small town between London and Dover, where Miss Spencer has her own shop, and so soon shall "Madame Martine" the glamour artist! But will Annis have the time to maintain two identities, get all Madame Martine's work done, and solve her father's murder? Perhaps with a little magic.

Murder, Magic and What We Wore is a wonderful addition to the Regency Magic genre. Somehow it complies to all the rules of the genre while simultaneously taking all the building blocks and turning them on their head. Instead of finding a worthy husband when finding herself destitute Annis finds a purpose in an occupation she excels at while sneakily maintaining that ever important reputation. While being the biggest fan of Jane Austen it is a bit depressing that every book is about putting a ring on it. That wasn't a viable option for many women and the whole point about Regency Magic is taking this framework that Austen bequeathed us and making it something more. Yet time and time again while creating this wonderful genre all the stories at the end of the day end with matrimony. As Kelly Jones herself said on my blog "I was craving a Regency fantasy that wasn't a romance. I love romance, but I also love stories about work, and family, and friendship, and responsibilities. I wanted to read about a girl who was too busy with other things to fall in love" and how little did I realize I wanted it too! While there is a possible suitor with Mr. Harrington, he's off to the side, in Annis's rear view mirror. Sure one day she might have time for him, but not right now. Now is Annis's time to shine, to show the world what she can do, not as someone's significant other, but just as herself, for the first time. And Annis is magnificent, and with Aunt Cassia and Millicent we have a comedy of manners that sometimes edges into a level of farce only Blake Edwards and Peter Sellers were capable of.

Yet the humor never detracts from this females first theme that is carried into every aspect of this book. Yes, it might be shocking for some to realize that women can be funny and kick ass at the same time but I defy them to read this book and not come to this conclusion. While being set in 1818 this book is oddly timely with the #MeToo movement. The truth of the matter is #MeToo was a long time coming. Especially in any time period where there are oppressed classes there is a chance for some scum to take advantage. Here it is a rather odious man who happens to be the nephew of a Lady Prippingforth who Millicent worked for, and his habit of taking what he wants from female staff is deplorable. Millie was thankfully spared because he locked her in a cupboard to "save for later" and was able to escape, but many many others weren't so lucky. It just so happens that he is in Flittingsworth and sees Millie and continues his reign of terror. Once Cassia hears of this she helps Millie and Annis learn how to protect themselves from such attacks. If you're a fan of the film Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, you know that visceral thrill seeing Lizzy Bennett kick ass. Instead of a well placed gaze to show disgust, Millie can now take him down with a well placed knife. This pro female empowerment in a time period when you don't usually think of it as such is magnificent. Get that rapist out! The truth is a timely tale can be set anywhen, so long as the message is still relevant.

At the heart of this female empowerment is Cassia. While she is very clever to maintain the outward appearance of a very respectable maiden aunt, through her charitable work and her lessons imparted to her niece you grow to love this modern woman who is able to work within the system and get it to work to her advantage. I couldn't help drawing comparisons to another strong female character in literature, that of Margaret Schlegel of Howards End. While separated by almost a hundred years with Margaret firmly in Edwardian not Georgian England they both have the same animating spirit. Here are two women who believe in expanding their minds through literature and music. They have cultural pursuits, humanitarian pursuits, they believe in thinking and speaking and saying what's on their mind while still understanding discretion. They feel deeply yet are able to keep that stiff upper lip. It's very rare to find a complete connection to a character in literature, especially one that lives in another time. You might see a shifting reflection of yourself but never fully understand them. In all Austen's canon I most connect to Elinor and Fanny, but still I have moments where I diverge. The first time I read Howards End by E.M. Forster though, it was like Margaret and I were one. Murder, Magic and What We Wore let me have that experience all over again with Cassia. Maybe I'm not one hundred percent like her, but I want to be, and having that kind of role model, perhaps Cassia can make me a better person.

While there is so much that I love about this book, from how the theme of female employment perfectly melds with the magical system to how Millie starts to channel her inner Cato Fong, there is one thing I felt was underdeveloped, and that's the villainous shenanigans that follow on the heels of the murder of Annis's father. Unlike many Regency Magic books Kelly Jones nails the history, so that isn't were my issues reside. My quibbles are that all this spycraft doesn't really stand on it's own, it's like a shaky house of cards, you try to analyze it too closely and it collapses. Napoleon is trapped on Elba, first this person on this boat is going to free him, than this other person on this other boat is, too many changes with a slew of people whose names I can not for the life of me remember from one second to the next. It's a confusing profusion of underlings. Whereas the Big Bad was too obvious. I read another review that said the villain was so irredeemably evil that they almost became a caricature. I wouldn't say it that harshly... but, that reviewer had a point. Either hide the puppet master a little more efficiently, or straighten out the ranks of his organization so that they do the heavy lifting and he can more easily hide in plain sight. I do like my Napoleonic spycraft, but the wonderful madcap infectious fun of the rest of the book isn't brought to bear on this rather important piece of the puzzle. We know the what, we know the why, we just get muddled along the way but thankfully it's handily resolved and I await another installment in Annis's adventures!

Friday, June 3, 2016

Book Review - Zadie Smith's White Teeth

White Teeth by Zadie Smith
Published by: Vintage
Publication Date: March 19th, 1999
Format: Paperback, 448 Pages
Rating: ★
To Buy

On New Year's Eve 1974 Archie Jones sets out to kill himself but ends up being unsuccessful, yet like a butterfly leaving the cocoon, he leaves that gas filled car a new man. A new life and a new wife await him! His old army buddy Samad Iqbal has been saying to him for awhile that what he needs is a new young wife, like his own Alsana. That night Archie meets Clara Bowden and by Valentine's Day they are man and wife. Archie is escaping the life left in that car and Clara is escaping her mother, Hortense, whose religious beliefs as a Jehovah's Witness have stifled Clara's life. It isn't long before the middle aged men are fathers. Archie has a lovely daughter, Irie, and Samad has twins boys, Magid and Millat, who couldn't be more different.

It is 1984 and now Samad's life is about to change forever. He falls hard for his son's music teacher, Poppy Burt-Jones. The lust stirred in Samad has him questioning everything. But the attraction is mutual, and soon he has a new outlet for his lust. Yet his religious beliefs and the sin he is committing because, as he claims, the lure of the Western world has seduced him, leads him to do something that his wife will never forgive him for. He feels that if he could be degraded in this way, his sons are in even worse danger. He wants to send them back to Bangladesh, but only has the financial resources to send one of them. Magid and Millat are separated and Alsana can never forgive him until Magid is returned to her.

The 90s have come and Irie is grown up and in love with Millat. Millat has indeed fallen prey to the lure of the West as his father feared. He sleeps around, does drugs, gets into fights, and is still somehow the object of Irie's affection, which he doesn't return. One day at school Irie is confronting Millat near resident nerd Josh Chalfen when there is a drugs bust. The three of them get brought before the principal for Millat's marijuana. In the hope that Josh and his illustrious family, his mother Joyce is an author while his father Marcus is a genetic engineer, will be a good influence on Irie and Millat they are to go to the Chalfens once a week and have Josh tutor them. Soon it's everyday. Joyce takes an extreme interest in Millat while Irie starts to work for Marcus as an assistant. Even Magid, back in Bangladesh, befriends Marcus and decides to return to England. But the life of Chalfenism is divisive, and soon Josh has joined an animal rights group, FATE, to protest his father's genetic engineering of FutureMouse, while Millat has joined a fundamentalist Islamic group, KEVIN, to turn his back on his old life and the fact that Marcus prefers Magid. On the eve of the new millennium, everyone gathers to herald the arrival of FutureMouse... most with differing ideas as to how the evening will go.

From the little blurb I have assembled above you might be drawn to the false conclusion that this book actually has a plot. It doesn't. Well... it kind of does at the very end where Zadie Smith apparently realized she needed one and just threw in a handful of new characters and a whole bunch of organizations with stupid acronyms and built words into an unsatisfying conclusion with guns and Nazis and genetically engineered mice. That is right, she brought in Nazis. And I think that's the problem, she brought in whatever she wanted randomly and then just threw it aside when she got bored. Though she never seemed to get bored of slightly tweaking the reader with little asides in some random post modern moments of incomprehensibility. So the book actually feels like a bunch of interconnected short stories, some of which might have been good if they hadn't been thrown in with the morass of crap and depravity that makes up the majority of this book.

Recently, I was having a conversation with a friend and she asked me if I had read Zadie Smith's On Beauty. I replied that I had, mainly because it was a loosely, if failed, reimagining of Howards End, and was mentioned on The Vicar of Dibley. She was wondering if I was put off by the very detailed descriptions of one of the character's nipples. I honestly said that I had no recollection of this, most likely I had blocked it from my memory. I can honestly say though, after reading White Teeth, I will never forget Zadie Smith's obsession with nipples ever again. In fact, this book can be summed up as very boring with a veneer of eww. If I wasn't bored senseless I was quite literally wanting to throw up. Thirty pages of a 57 year old man masturbating (a different friend claims it might have been more, perhaps I'm preemptively blocking this out). Domestic abuse, where the children are placing bets on their parents. Teenagers marrying men in their 40s (proving Smith has daddy issues). A father of Irie's classmate calling her a big black goddess and ruminating about her breasts, when she's only what, fourteen! The aforementioned nipples, except for multiple characters, not just one. I wanted to wash my brain after reading this book.

Now, you're thinking that I missed the point, that the book wasn't about these accumulated repugnant and repulsive moments. I totally get that the book is about heritage and ancestry and genetics and what limitations we are burdened with, nature, nurture, fate. The second generation versus the first generation. You would have to be blind to miss this, especially once we get to FutureMouse. But the truth is, I can't, I couldn't, give a tinker's damn. It doesn't matter if you set out to write the most amazing, most profound story, if your characters are not only unlikeable, but reprehensible, then there is no way I will care. With all this ick as I will pejoratively call everything in this book, there wasn't a redeemable character or any reason to even finish reading this book except for the fact that I am incapable of leaving a book unfinished. So I finished. I read ever last work Smith wrote and I hated it. Mine is an educated hate, you can't say fairer than that!

Friday, September 18, 2015

Movie Review - Howards End

Howards End
Based on the book by E.M. Forster
Starring: Vanessa Redgrave, Helena Bonham Carter, Joseph Bennett, Emma Thompson, Prunella Scales, Adrian Ross Magenty, Jo Kendall, Anthony Hopkins, James Wilby, Jemma Redgrave, Samuel West, Simon Callow, Susie Lindeman, and Nicola Duffett
Release Date: March 13th, 1992
Rating: ★★★
To Buy

Helen Schlegel is visiting with the Wilcoxes at Howards End, where she becomes engaged to the youngest son Paul. In fits of rapture she writes a letter to her sister telling her of the happy alliance and due to her sister Margaret being unable to journey down to the house their Aunt Juley heads down to suss out the situation. Everything is muddled, the engagement was off before it really began and due to Aunt Juley's misunderstanding chaos reigns with the Wilcoxes and the two families go their separate ways. So how inconvenient that they happen to take a house in London directly opposite the Schlegels for the elder son Charles's wedding. Helen wisely takes herself off to Germany and Paul goes off to Nairobi. This gives Meg and the matriarch Ruth Wilcox a chance to become dear friends. Meg is Ruth's confidant, informing her of her illness, which she hasn't told her family about, as well as how Howards End is her place in the world. Meg longs to see Howards End with Ruth, but it is never to be. Ruth dies shortly thereafter. What Meg doesn't know is that Ruth asked her family to leave Howards End to Meg. The Wilcoxes think this is folly, not knowing the pain Ruth suffered on hearing that the Schlegels were to soon lose their house as the lease was up. But things have a weird way of working themselves out if they are meant to be. Meg ends up marrying Ruth's widower, Henry, and her possessions end up being stored at Howards End, much to the rest of the Wilcoxes displeasure. While Meg's life is sorting itself out, Helen's is spinning even more out of control. She has a hanger-on, Leonard Bast, a poor clerk whom she befriended after accidentally stealing his umbrella. Due to the interactions between the Schlegels and the Wilcoxes Helen hears of some advice for Leonard that she thinks is in his best interest. Instead his friendship with Helen slowly destroys him. Helen, unwilling to believe that anything is her fault, lays the blame on Henry and she cuts herself off from her family after a scene at Henry's daughter Evie's wedding. Helen's behaviour is odd. Something must be behind it. Could it be Leonard? Or could it be the end of everything they believe and hold dear?

I really don't know how many times I have watched Howards End. I wouldn't say it was overly much, in the realm of Clue and The Princess Bride, but then how do I know so much of the blocking and the gestures and the exact way the lines are delivered? So apparently, without my knowing it, I'm some kind of Howards End junky, or the film is just particularly memorable, you choose. But seeing as I had the recent and mortifying experience of learning a new brand of hatred for the book I was still willing to believe in the film. To believe that all this was just me. It was refreshing to find that I still like the film, but by watching it with a jaded and suspicious eye I picked up on the oddest things that I don't think I would ever have noticed were it not for my skepticism. The biggest change is in how the movie diverts from the book, what I call the music and meaning. When Helen first meets Mr. Bast at the concert of that title Merchant and Ivory basically show their hand as to how they are going to treat this film. Instead of Helen going on about the Goblins in the music, they assign that task to Simon Callow in his requisite cameo. Later Helen disagrees with this fanciful assigning of meaning and narrative to the music. She is more prosaic and that makes her differ from the Helen in the book. The film doesn't delve into the deeper meaning of the story. It doesn't dwell on the morbid thoughts of the leads, going instead for the flash and the gloss. This is why the film still works while the book now fails in my mind. The characters internal lives destroy them and make them unrelatable in the book, being petty and self centered asses. By taking things more at face value we are spared the shallow inner lives that Forster wrote and we are left with a satisfying story.    

The movie isn't hurt either by it's superb casting, it's a who's who of the best in British stars, from Antony Hopkins to Samuel West. Emma Thompson picked up her first Oscar for her portrayal of Margaret Schlegel, though personally, I could take or leave Emma Thompson. Yes, the film wouldn't have worked without her, but the truth is that Vanessa Redgrave deserved all of the awards for this film, because it is through her and her character of Ruth Wilcox that the entire tone of the film is set. I defy you to capture the whole feeling of the film better then the first few minutes where Ruth Wilcox is dreamily walking about the grounds of Howards End. It sets up her love of the house and the love of her family. This is the world entire to her and it is perfect. A role that in the book isn't more than a plot device to bring the two families back together after the rift of Helen and Paul is given such depth and pathos that you can't help but be moved. Through her carefully delivered lines we come to love Howards End as she does. Vanessa Redgrave sprinkles magic over the house at the center of the book and gives it a life. In the book you never quite get why the house is so important, why it is everything. Yet in that one speech where Ruth talks about the tree relieving the tooth ache, what in the book is an odd insignificant line, brings all the magic of home and belonging somewhere in the world. Because that is what Howards End is, a place to belong.

Yet if they hadn't found THE PERFECT house I don't know if all Vanessa Redgrave's magic would have worked. In fact, for quite some time this was my dream home. For the country that is. For the city I really wanted the Schlegels house... perhaps that's why I remember this film so much, I wanted to live in their homes. I wanted to live, not in their world or even with them, but in the places they inhabited. The one thing that Forster does and does better than anyone else is describe places in such a magical way that you feel as if you are there, walking through the fields blanketed with flowers. His world, despite the death and despair that always comes at the close, is a place for nature to show it's wonderful bounty. This film felt like the very best of Forster's writing on nature. While Leonard Bast's actual walk through the night isn't magical or mystical in the least on the page, the film captures the romanticism that is found on the road to Monteriano, the woods abundant and fecund with bluebells, even if Broadchurch has tainted my views on woods and bluebells ever so slightly, the magic is still there. There is a Pre-Raphaelite sensibility to the clothing and the flowers that romanticize the setting. Though I will saying that the coupling of Helen and Leonard might have taken the Pre-Raphaelite aesthetic a little too far. Overtones of John Everett Millais's Ophelia, and John William Waterhouse's The Lady of Shallot, while apt for their love affair, just made you think how uncomfortable being seduced in a rowboat would be.

Though, for all they did right with the production of the film, whomever did the makeup needs to be called out. Seriously people. I am glad that I don't have a high definition television, because the horror of the men's makeup might not have been endurable. They all look like silent film stars, as in that very overly made up way. I kept expecting them to start mugging for the camera, or for ominous music to start as Emma Thompson was tied to the railway track, or even an Errol Flynn sweep across the screen on a rope as Samuel West showed off his swashbuckling skills. Across the board, their skin is a nice flat spray tan, with the eyes and eyebrows comically enhanced. So, was the makeup lady blind or just hired off the most recent Christmas Panto? Every time Anthony Hopkins wasn't shamefully hiding his face I was about to bust my gut with laughter. I wonder if he saw the dailies and came up with that clever hiding of his face when he had to talk about unpleasantness with Margaret just so that the hideous makeup job had less screen time. All I kept thinking of was the season seven episode of Red Dwarf "Blue," where in order to get Dave to stop missing Rimmer Kryten creates "The Rimmer Experience," a virtual reality ride of Rimmer's life seen through Rimmer's eyes. Everyone is heavily made up to the comical extreme. While it works in a comedy, I don't think that was the look they should have gone for in a period drama! As for how the women escaped this fate? I don't think all of them did, Helena Bonham Carter looks a little too Mary Pickford for my liking.

One thing that drove me crazy throughout was the film's heavy handed foreshadowing. So, if you don't want to be spoiled, stop now. Though it you've read my review of the book I kind of spoiled it without warning, oops. Anyway, so two key things that happen at or near the end of the book is that Charles Wilcox repeatedly hits Leonard Bast with the flat or a sword until Leonard dies of his heart condition, though it is manslaughter. The other is that it comes out that Henry Wilcox cheated on his wife Ruth with Leonard Bast's wife, Jacky, while he was in Cyprus. So how were they heavy handed? With Jacky and Henry, it's just a deliberate mentioning of Cyprus in both their pasts that is never mentioned in the book until they fatefully meet at Evie Wilcox's wedding. As for the killer blade? Oh dear me, even if you didn't know it is coming from reading the book, you would have known it was coming with how they handled every mention of the sword like it was semaphore code. "THIS SWORD IS IMPORTANT PAY ATTENTION!" First it's mentioned by Meg at a dinner party she has at her house with Mrs. Wilcox, then on Leonard's second coming to the house he plays with the hilt, then there's a big to-do with unpacking it at Howards End and hanging it under the mantelpiece, AND THEN Meg and Helen discuss how perfect it sits over the fire, AND THEN it's used as a murder weapon. Four, yes FOUR clumsy and obvious references to that damn sword. Couldn't they have alluded to it in a more sly way? Couldn't they have, I don't know, mentioned it twice and not felt the need to point it out with big flashing lights. The only thing they could have done worse is a giant lighted sign pointing at it going, "Keep Leonard Away!" So much for subtlety. But then again, they were painting the book in broad strokes, which overall worked, how can I fault them for doing a better job overall than the author himself?

Wednesday, September 16, 2015

Book Review - E.M. Forster's Howards End

Howards End by E.M. Forster
Published by: Book-of-the-Month Club
Publication Date: 1910
Format: Hardcover, 461 Pages
Rating: ★
To Buy (different edition than one reviewed)

Margaret and Helen Schlegel met Mr. and Mrs. Wilcox while abroad. Now back in England the two sisters have been invited to the Wilcox's country house, Howards End. Margaret can not make it, but Helen not only falls in love with the house and the family, but with the youngest son, Paul. The imprudent love affair is over before it has begun, but it creates a tension between the two families. That tension is increased by the Wilcoxes taking a house opposite the Schlegels in London. But the unexpected happens, Margaret and Mrs. Wilcox become dear friends. They confide in each other and Mrs. Wilcox is saddened to hear that the Schlegels will lose their home shortly because the lease is up and the block of houses is scheduled for demolition. Mrs. Wilcox asks Margaret to go to Howards End with her on the spur of the moment, they are about ready to embark when the whole Wilcox family returns home, and their journey to Howards End will never happen. Mrs. Wilcox dies just weeks later. In a note she asks that her family give Margaret Howards End. Not knowing about the impending loss of her home, the Wilcoxes dismiss it as the whim of a dying woman. But the death of Mrs. Wilcox doesn't stop the intercourse between the two families and eventually Margaret ends up marrying Mrs. Wilcox's widower, Henry. This new relationship strains the two families, but nothing will strain them more than one man, Leonard Bast. The Schlegel's met him at a concert where Helen accidentally stole his umbrella. Helen took him up as a pet cause and her family's influence leads this man closer and closer to the brink of destruction. Could one man destroy everything? Or could one woman destroy one man utterly?

It happens so rarely to me that I often forget that it can happen. That feeling while re-reading a book that all is not right. You have this sense of the curtain being drawn back and the wizard being exposed. I can't think of anything worse for a reader than to be disillusioned by a previously loved book. Worse, you don't have any idea how you had come to revere it so in the first place. You even start to question if it's you. Not just that you've probably changed in the years since you first read it, but more than that, you start wondering if you're in a bad mood and you don't know it. Did something happen to tick you off that is somehow seeping into your enjoyment of the book? You start soul searching, trying to find the why, when perhaps it's not you and it really is the book. That is how things stand with me and Howards End at the moment. In fact, if you had asked me prior to right now what are my favorite books of all time, Howards End would have been one of them. Five stars all the way, praise the glory. Yet I should have known better. I should have had an inkling that this would happen. Most changes of opinion aren't foreshadowed by some event that you think insignificant at the time, but this one was. Years ago when the DVD for Merchant and Ivory's production of Howards End was finally released by Criterion I eagerly ripped off the wrapping, sat down and was bored stiff. While I'm not going to go into the film adaptation at the moment, the scales were falling from my eyes and I should have seen that my change in opinion as regards the film might herald a change in opinion as regards the book. Howards End is a muddled mess of ideas and theories and cant and talk talk talk wherein nothing ever comes of the talking. Big topics are handled badly, there's a smug pretension prevalent throughout and I can't help thinking that it's like high schoolers sitting around thinking they're SO DEEP because they're talking about philosophy and the plight of the third world, when really they know nothing.

What struck me first and foremost was the book's preoccupation with money. Yes, it's to be expected with the Schlegels and the Wilcoxes, being rich, and their interactions with the Basts, who aren't just lower-middle-class, but eventually destitute. But it goes beyond this. It goes to Margaret musing about how wonderful money is and how she's on this lovely little island oasis and all those who are struggling are just below the surface. Because obviously the poor are drowning souls. Ugh. Then her and her discussion group talk about what they can do, theoretically, for all those "deserving" poor. Concert tickets, and seaside holidays, and education, for all that spare time they have while scraping by! Because that's all she or her friends are capable of. Talking about it. Being smug and satisfied and content with their lot while never actually doing anything for anyone. And even if they did, it would be something useless to the "deserving" poor, ie a seaside holiday. What makes Margaret so damn superior? Condescending bitch. She could actually go out and do something good, but does she? NO! She's just all talk talk talk. I'm on my lovely island, money really is so wonderful don't you think? At times I almost thought she'd break into the song by Kander and Ebb from Cabaret "Money" because obviously money makes Margaret's world go round. In fact, what proof do we have that Margaret isn't the money grubbing opportunist that Mr. Wilcox's children fear she is? Yes, she's always encouraging him to give his children money, but he's a freakin' millionaire! It's not like supporting his children is even going to make a dent in his fortunes. Oh, this really does add a different spin on things... I think it actually makes more sense than any other reason put forward for the union of Margaret and Henry...

As for those "deserving" poor, let's look to those pathetic Basts. Leonard and his wife Jacky were doing OK. They were struggling along, but surviving. The Schlegels enter their life and everything goes to hell. Because Helen takes the stupid ideas of Margaret and their group and actually tries to help the Basts without actually understanding their situation. She comes in like a gale force wind and destroys everything. This shows so clearly that you just shouldn't meddle in things you don't understand. I don't know if Forster was trying to make a point, but all it pointed out to me was how much I hated the main characters. Helen is so holier than thou, here let me drag you off to confront the man who did you wrong. But it wasn't Henry that did them wrong, it was Helen and Margaret forcing this rumor of Henry's on Leonard. Leave the poor man alone! The worst is after Helen has inadvertently taken everything away from the Basts, destroyed the morale and hope of this couple, she then leaves them behind in the country, never thinking how they are to get home. She has brought them to the brink of destitution, and then by skipping out on them, they are pushed that final inch to full destruction. She is such a self centered ignorant interfering bitch, how can ANYONE like her? She even seduces Leonard and destroys all his personal worth, with him actually welcoming death! And how much thought do any of the Schlegels give to Leonard after the confrontation at Oniton? Negligible. And after his death? Hey, they seem to view his death as logical and inevitable. As for Jacky? Never a backward glance. These people are reprehensible!

But then, the book has a rather odd grasp of death. It seems to be 100% endorsing that our reward in the afterlife is better than anything on earth. That the concept, not the reality, of death makes us strive to be better people. Excuse me? It's not that I don't disagree with this. I mean, the whole afterlife, that's your own belief, but the inevitability of death should make us try to be better, do better, help one another. And that is totally not upheld by the actions of any of the characters in the book. If they actually believe this, then every single one of them is going to burn in hell for hypocrisy and more importantly, for actually leading to a man's death. Because they are ALL responsible for the death of Leonard Bast. Each and every single one of them. It doesn't matter if Charles Wilcox delivered the blow in, what I must say, is the most convoluted scene in the book, each and every one of them is responsible for that death. Yet, aside from Charles who ends up serving three years in prison, and Henry who's morale is destroyed with the imprisonment of his son, everyone else is just, hey ho, it's all rainbows and puppies and oh, who cares if one of the lower classes is dead, life goes on, don'tcha know? What is with the cavalier attitude? Is it that weird stoic German in them that they keep alluding to? Or is it just Forster throwing in another death right at the end to shake us up, but he just didn't know how to handle it? Let's face it, this whole book is a muddle, so should this further muddle be a surprise?

Though I have saved the best for last. The view of women as, well, basically there to support their husbands and have no thoughts of their own. You MIGHT think that this isn't actually the point of the book, Helen and Margaret are rather outre and independent, but look what happens to Margaret when she gets engaged? It's like she's had a brain transplant, or as the book says, the glass or whatever came down between her and her husband and the rest of the world, blah blah blah. She's basically been "upgraded" into a robot. It's all, Henry may say this and that and be a total dick, but I know deep down that's not him. We never see into Henry's head. My guess? He's a dick! There is no proof to the contrary, just Margaret's vain justifications for her husband's actions. Plus what experience does Forster have with marriage or with women? He seems to be drawing on what the male ideal is, but with no experience of that ideal in actuality. Ugh. And least we forget Mrs. Wilcox, a woman who wouldn't burden her family with her death and had one wish, that Howards End be given to Margaret. Of course she didn't really mean that, why would a woman do something so foolish? Obviously her family knew her better, and let's just ignore a dying woman's request. Let's just shove all the unpleasantness under the carpet and worship our husbands and be there just for them and be only as original as it suits them and their life. Because that's the point of life right? Margaret may have started to regret it for one moment, and that moment was gone in a flash and let's take care of Henry, he's had a rough time of it for a millionaire with two successful marriages and lots of houses and cars and blurg. Enough already. Seriously, if my house hadn't lost power and I had nothing else to do this book would never have been finished. I was the true idiot to ever think this was a good book.

Tuesday, September 1, 2015

Forster Fall

I remember when I was first introduced to the work of E. M. Forster. I don't think anyone can forget the juggernaut that was the 1992 adaptation of Howards End starring Emma Thompson, Vanessa Redgrave, and Anthony Hopkins. It was the darling of the awards circuit garnering nine Academy Award nominations and winning three, Emma Thompson winning her first Oscar. I was in high school when the movie came out and didn't do much reading outside of school, I know that's shocking. But when I finally graduated in 1996 I spent that summer luxuriating in reading. The complete Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy started my summer, followed by all of Jane Austen. After finishing Austen I was bereft, I was encouraged by a kindly soul to read Forster. I read A Room with a View and was enchanted, despite the shoddy ending, Howards End instantly became one of my favorite books ever, A Passage to India wasn't really my cup of tea, and as for The Longest Journey, the less said the better.

It was apparent to me that Forster was a very uneven writer, and hence I hesitated to read his final two books, even though both had had lavish movie adaptations, one even by Merchant and Ivory. Despite my feeling otherwise time hasn't stood still, and it's almost twenty years now since I first read Forster. Besides wanting to re-read my two favorites, I thought I might as well bite the bullet and finally get around to reading Maurice and Where Angels Fear to Tread. Because my first introduction to Forster was through the Merchant and Ivory adaptation of Howards End I thought it would be fun to combine the two sensory experiences of literature and film. I hope you will join me this month as I delve back into Forster's work, revisiting some old friends and hopefully making some new ones. The one thing you'll be guaranteed of is a lot of Helena Bonham Carter and Rupert Graves, seeing as they couldn't keep themselves away from any adaptation!

Older Posts Home