A brief comparison of Howard's End (1992) and Howard's End (2017/2018)

Okay, folks, here's how this is going to work: I'm a reader first and then a movie watcher, so any novel-to-film review will mostly examine the faithfulness of the adaption. Secondly, I love historical costuming, so I can never review a period drama without touching on the clothes. Thirdly, I'm short on time because right now it's 8:45 pm, my bed time is 9:00pm, and I still haven't finished my reading my 8:00am class tomorrow...heh. And even though I'll be working this in more than one sitting, the likely case is that I will have homework calling my name regardless of when I finish this. So basically, you're going to get the down and dirty version of my thoughts, so to speak (except I'm not speaking. I'm typing and you're reading. So take that for what it's worth, I guess).

I'll attempt to talk in veiled terms so as to be spoiler-free for those of you who haven't read the book or seen either of these adaptions, but I'll also be referring to "that one scene where the guy talks about his job," which will obviously make no sense if you have no frame of reference for the story. I do recommend reading the book. I listened to it, but think I would have appreciated it more reading it. I didn't immediately know what I thought about it when I finished. It seemed sort of abrupt, and had some "unreliable narrator" moments which I'm not a fan of. However, I think it's really quite a progressive book for its time (written by a E.M. Forester in 1910) and deals with such complex themes as women's roles, sexism, classism, extramarital affairs, the spiritual relation to the physical, and the intellectual life. It would make for a great book group discussion, I think (which is sort of ironic, as some of the book reflects on the fact that it is only the wealthy, privileged class who has time for intellectual pursuits and discussion clubs).

A Hasty Overview of Plot Points

1992: For a fairly short movie, this stuck to the plot very well. The main important episode that was omitted was the drive down to Evie's wedding. The car hits a cat and the Wilcox clan blows it off as the fault of the peasants who were in the road, while Margaret leaps from the car to check on the people. This basically shows to demonstrate, once again, the worldly, money-fixes-everything, spiritually deficient nature of the Wilcoxes.

The iconic keys-in-the-grass scene.

2018: As a miniseries, they were able to be a bit more detailed, but they also omitted the cat-turned-pancake scene. Surprisingly, for having more time than the 1992 movie, I thought that it was a little bit less faithful to the book. 

Evie being fake nice, as usual.

For instance, in the scene were Leonard Bast has tea with the Schlegels, they changed the dialogue. In the book (and the original movie), Len takes the hint about his business being likely to "smash" as though the Schlegel girls are trying to "pick his brain" (i.e., use him to get information about his company for some devious underhand purpose). He simply is not used to people who have the leisure to do an act out of pure (if misguided) benevolence. 

However, in the 2017/2018 miniseries, Tibby comes in as Helen is trying to smooth things over with Len and says something like "Is this the fellow you talk about in your social club? Part of your experiment?" I think this was the writers' attempt to make one of the themes of the book —interaction across social classes and how that can benefit or harm both parties — more obvious, but it was very clumsy in my opinion. It put an entirely new spin on Len's irritation and/or embarrassment that I didn't feel was in the book at all.

Even more importantly, I was pretty shocked that they entirely skipped the conversation between Helen and Margaret that takes place when Margaret surprises Helen at Howard's End. In the book and the 1992 adaption, when Margaret bursts in they have a long conversation, as Helen is angry and Margaret explains, etc. In the movie, they show Margaret walking in and then cut to a scene presumably an hour or so later, alluding to the fact that they talked but entirely dismissing the viewer from participation in this important conversation. Also, I felt they rushed one of the most important scenes of the story, where *SPOILER* Meg confronts Henry and drops the keys on the grass. *End spoiler* Also, why was Aunt Julie with the Schlegels the first time they met Leonard Bast? But overall, I'm pleased with this transfer of book-to-screen as well.

A Quick Sketch of the Cast

1992: Overall, I thought the cast was very well chosen. I love Emma Thompson, but I felt she was too old for the role. In the beginning of the book, Margaret is 29. She is still viewed as a naive girl, even though she is more mature and firmly grounded than Helen through virtue of being the oldest child and having basically raised Helen and Tibby. But Emma Thompson is such a good actress that by the end of the movie she had convinced me into loving her. Plus she and Anthony Hopkins are a great pair. 

I love Tibby.

Can we all just take a minute to appreciate how amazing Anthony Hopkins is as an actor? Helena Bonham Carter was good as Helen, but not all that memorable in my opinion. Tibby was quite good. The actress for Jackie was fine, but the way they made her up gave the impression that she was quite a bit more disreputable than I got the impression she was in the book. Both of the adaptions did a good job of showing that, while the Basts' marriage was not perfect and was in some ways unsatisfying (especially to Len), Jackie does care about him. This movie has my favorite Charles and Dolly. Dolly is honestly the most hilarious personage.

Dolly's ability to always say the absolute wrong thing is priceless.

2018: As with the other film, I'm generally satisfied with the cast. Charles and Evie were just as nasty as necessary. Margaret seemed a bit more the proper age in this one — and Hayley Atwell is really good — but Helen and especially Tibby seemed too young. Tibby is 16 at the beginning of the book but is at Oxford by the end. In this adaption, he seems all of 14 years old throughout (and was as annoying as a fourteen year old boy would be expected to be). I did feel that the siblings seemed a little bit more like a real family than in the 1992 version. 

The actors/directors did a really good job showing the close relationship and mutual oddness between the Schlegels. I love Matthew McFadyen so of course he was great. I liked that in this version, Mrs. Bast seemed a little bit more respectable — yes, I know she has a past, but the book does not imply she has a present, if you know what I mean. This Mrs. Bast wears actual clothing instead of hanging out in a corset and dressing gown all day (in general, this film makes the Basts' seem less destitute — they have walls instead of curtains and decent furniture to sit on. Not sure whether that's more faithful to the book or not, but there you go). 

The Basts

A Disproportionate Amount of Pictures (ie. The Costumes)

1992: There is not enough space on this blog (nor enough screen captures available on the internet) to showcase the costumes from this film. I loooooveed all of Margaret's outfits (though Helen's not so much). Absolutely lovely white frocks, shawls, hats, etc. What I can't figure out is why Helen had her hair down in almost every single scene. Yes, she's young when the story starts, but she's twenty-two, not thirteen! I thought maybe they would use her hair to show her aging, but nope, it stays down. This is the Edwardian era, not the 1970s. Going out without a hat, let alone leaving your hair down, was a social faux-pas.

 I'm sorry, Helen's hair is just a mess and her costumes were not very appealing to me. I love the black and white dress Margaret wears to Evie's wedding, though.

The coat!

2018: Overall, I preferred the costumes in the 1992 film to the miniseries. In the first couple episodes, Margaret wears a lot of plaid and dark colors, which was surprising to me as one usually sees so many light colored tea gowns and blouses in Edwardian fashion. 

Just not feeling the plaid.

Some of Helen's ensembles were downright strange.

In the last two episodes, she wears a lot more of the white, lacy frocks that one expects. I read another reviewer suggesting that they were trying to contrast Margaret's independent, emancipated-woman situation in the beginning with her position after *SPOILER* marriage, as she molds herself to the expectation of the submissive woman. *End spoiler*

I love all the details of this dress.

 I absolutely loved Margaret's hair. I know it's a wig but I'm missing the time when I had hair long enough to do that kind of thing. Can someone put out a tutorial for that, please? 

This movie had the same issue with Helen's hair as the 1992 version. Once again, I thought they would use the transition from loose hair to up-do as a way to show time passing, but she has it hanging loose up to the very end. Perhaps they were trying to show Helen's indifference to social customs that she deemed unnecessary? But I don't get the impression, from the book, that her frankness and independence extended to a flagrant disregard for modesty, which is what this would have been considered.

In Summary

I have compared both versions for the benefit of anyone interested, but I leave the choice up to you, as I cannot pick a favorite. All in all, both versions are excellent adaptions, and I highly recommend you watch them both — always provided that you've read the book first. ;) 

Don't cry over spilled milk

...even when it's precious raw milk.

Well, internet world, it is Labor Day, and being that it is only the second week of college, I have a respite from homework. While I have more posts in "drafts" than I care to see, I thought I might take the chance to write one I've been pondering today.

However, I feel little motivation to write here anymore, because I simply wonder if anyone reads this.  What, indeed, is the point of jettisoning one's thoughts into the atmosphere if no kindred spirit will be edified, amused, or at least have the pleasure of recognizing mutual feelings? Why not simply journal? (Especially if I'm writing a soul-searching post like this one; I'm a blog reader, too. I know the witty reviews get more reads.)

And yet, a part of me feels guilty for abandoning this corner of cyberspace (does anyone use that word anymore?).

In fact, guilt drives more of my behavior than I'd like to admit, or that I am always conscious of. I read about the keto diet, which restricts carbs so severely that bananas (which are obviously very high in sugars) can not be consumed. For a few months I stop buying bananas in preparation for this diet. Then, even when I'm not following the rules of the diet, I only reluctantly and guiltily start buying them again. To make green smoothies. And feel an inward shame that I'm destroying my health by doing so.

Another example: Today I made yogurt. I started buying raw milk over the past couple months to make my own yogurt, because grass fed yogurt is basically liquid gold. Well, I recently found a grass-fed, organic raw milk source, and that stuff is liquid silver (or maybe copper; the point is, it's not cheap). I believe it's worth it, but I'm pretty conscious of what I'm using it for and making sure I get the right amount. Well, in the process of making yogurt, I spilled rather a large amount on the counter, because our large glass measuring cup doesn't pour the best when it's very full. Now, this is a frustrating thing, because every bit of milk becomes delicious yogurt, and I hate waste. It's natural to be a bit annoyed or distressed. But I didn't just feel a bit put out; my feelings quickly escalated to anger and taking offense at everything around me. All glory to God, the Holy Spirit was quick to point out the shift in my attitude, and I was able to reorient myself, in his strength.

Later on in the day, I was making a big batch of hummus, and realized I had less than 1/2 cup of tahini, an essential ingredient. Again, I felt more than a little frustration, beyond what was reasonable about having to make a quick trip to the store (about a 5 minute drive).

As I analyzed my reaction to these two situations, I realized that it wasn't about the wasted time or money — at least, only at a superficial level. Friends, I'm sure I spilled less than 1/4 cup of milk. At $8/gallon, this comes to the equivalent of about $0.13 wasted. So, yeah, I think our budget will be able to handle it. Ha.

The point is, both of these situations jabbed at my false self, my worldly identity. I desire to be an efficient, capable housewife, and in many ways I'm fairly good at this. Thus, it's easy to mistake my human confidence and positivity for the secure identity that is only possible when rooted in the unchanging love of the Father. Because everything else is changing, friends. It doesn't matter if I made a great batch of brownies, homemade yogurt, and cleaned the bathroom, if I can't even pour out of a measuring cup. It doesn't matter if my last several grocery trips were well planned and I got the best deals if I forgot to buy tahini. The authors of a popular book on budget meal planning say that the one best practice is reducing your grocery trips — if you don't have an ingredient, it's better to change your plan than to make a trip just to get that one item. Thus, in the rules-driven, guilt-ridden mind of a Katie, it doesn't matter if I planned to make hummus weeks ahead so that there would be lunches for the week; it doesn't matter that I soaked the beans from dry instead of using cans; it doesn't matter that I live five minutes away from a grocery store: I failed in planning, and thus in housewife-ing, and thus as a person, because I forgot tahini.

Writing this out, I can't decide if it sounds pathetic or like a subtle form of comedy. I suppose it's a little of both. Sometimes, I have to actually write out my fears to recognize their foolishness; I have to tell myself "I'm practically on the shelf," in order to laugh myself out of insecurity about lack of a suitor.

But while it may be funny (because really? no one in my house cares a pin whether I have to go to the grocery store twice in a week or twice in a day. get over yourself, girl) it is built on an insidious lie, that my identity is based on what I can do, that I'm only worth what I'm able to accomplish, cook, clean, earn, write, or prove.

These words remind me that, yes, who am I, compared to the Living God? All my good deeds, my attempts to prove myself, are like filthy rags. Yet, in the glorious riches of his love, I can sing that I am who he says I am. 

P.S. College is busy. Long posts are hard. So if I maintain any kind of presence here over the next nine months, I'm thinking about doing mini-posts. I can't do a full fledged review of a movie with thirty pictures (that was probably too long in the first place), but I could do a ten-bullet-point comparison with my three favorite costumes. Etc. So look for that. Maybe. Haha.