Howard's end

[Braceface]

Anyone watching?

As far as she was concerned, Mr. W was responsible for the Basts' situation and he should fix it.

But he was responsible and it just demonstrates how little the rich thought about the poor, that he couldn’t even remember the advice he gave, whilst to Leonard the advice had destroyed his life.

I reckon the reason Margaret fancies Mr W is just that he’s so different to what she’s known so far. And the whole him being wrong for her on paper is just part of the attraction.

I can’t believe I have to wait till Sunday for the next episode.

knittingwithnettles

Ah, thanks.

It’s never been my favourite Forster. I think that’s A Passage to India.

Helen is so obtuse I want to shake her.

WARNING, big spoiler about the novel in the review section of the Times today. Not limited to the text, either, a photo gives a lot away.

Hayley Atwell was certainly very good in the scene where Margaret confronts Henry.

I agree. Wish I could say the same about MM.

I think the ending felt a bit rushed.

Did they explain what happened to Jacky after Leonard died or was she not important enough?

Very well done, but even with Matthew M in the role, it's hard to see why Margaret is so forgiving of her husband.

I think Helen is the cause of all of the trouble here, and there she is at the end, after devastating two families, smiling with her son, who will eventually inherit Howards End. ????

Agree tonight's episode was a bit rushed, I've enjoyed the series though!

Am struggling to believe life would have been as idealic as the ending tonight...

Isn't there a possibility that Margaret might have kids? She's still young enough but everyone seemed to be going about as though that's not on the cards.

ooh I loved the rumble of thunder and the intimation that the grass in the meadow was going to be scythed/metaphor for young men being scythed in WW1 (although it was written before WW1)

Very very elegiac ending, much more than the other film.

Made me think a lot about nearly everyone had their part in the tangle, and in the end the outcome was both sad and happy. Henry was devastated by his son's shame and imprisonment, but happy to be with Margaret and happy to have Helen and her son in the house, joyful even. I felt it was impossible to disconnect any of the actions in the play without ending up with other equally unfortunate outcomes. After all, if it had not been for Jacky's original seduction and Mr Wilcox's part in it, Helen would not have slept with Leonard, as that whole scene in the inn would not have had same confessional quality. If Tibby had not told Charles about the Basts then Charles would not have attacked him and killed him. If Margaret had not asked Henry for help then Leonard Bast would not have seen then walking down the street that day and decided to go to Howard's End when he did. Nothing was inevitable, everything was tangled up.

I thought they brought out Margaret's goodness through her natural sympathy for those around her, from Henry to Aunt to Helen. I understood her character much better in this film than in the Emma Thompson version. Emma Thompson seemed too vigorous and bossy in comparison to imagine as a truly sympathetic person.

i think that Henry didn't like his children.
Am I right?

Actually I think he really loved his children especially his daughter. He was just a Victorian father who was of his time.

I agree it all felt very rushed at the end.

It just seems odd... after all that trouble Helen & Margaret caused the Wilcoxes, they end up getting their hands on Howards End. (I've read neither the book nor seen the movie so had no idea what to expect TBH)

How could Mr Wilcox have been so forgiving, was it just because Margaret showed him the error of his ways and the consequences his actions had had on others?

Someone please tell me the point of this story? I'm feeling a bit dense ...

I was thinking about that last night. Your immediate response is that yes Mr Wilcox is to blame for Leonard's death (and various other things, societal wise - spoilt by muddled thinking etc). Yet if you look closely at how the plot develops it is entirely the fault of the Schlegels that Leonard ever ended up in that house, being attacked by Charles.

Some phrases echoed in my head, Have I done wrong and I've done wrong uttered by both Henry and Leonard, AND both Helen and Margaret admit they have done wrong too, in so many ways (Helen says she effectively seduced Leonard, and did not care for him, and Margaret admits she has spoilt Henry by acquiesing to his muddle headed thinking previously) There is this sense that everyone has done wrong, the house, Howard's End is the only thing that is above the muddle, and human relations, connection, sympathy itself are above the muddle.

Henry is very fond of his children, he tries to advise them, but they misunderstand him, misinterpret him. He tells Charles to go and sort out the Howard's End situation but not to do any violence. It would have been better if he had not advised anything. Advice and suggestions are constantly shown as treacherous. Kindness in the sense of understanding people and putting up with their foibles is not shown as a particularily successful method of education.

When Margaret bars the door (gate) to Henry and tells him to go away and leave her and Helen alone, for the first time she is being unkind and firm, there is no persuasion or language really just My Darling forgive me [to Helen]

And the bits about loneliness...wow.

potato I thought this version did not really explain how dependent Mr Wilcox was on Margaret, even before the catastrophe. The romance was not really solidified in the same way as in the film (where Emma Thompson is shown in bed one morning having tea, whilst Henry prances around getting dressed) It was a bit wishywashy really.

But once you realise how attached and dependent he is on her, dealing with the catastrophe and the SHAME without her would be unthinkable, because she has already proved herself not to mind shame, by allying herself with Helen. Still it didn't seem possible that he and Helen could live side by side in the house without any recriminations.

Maybe he felt the guilt of his actions in killing Leonard, finally he was less obtuse about his responsibility to others, and horrified at the idea that Charles should have been so dense himself.

And Jackie looked so lonely didn't she in her last scene.

The seriousness of Helen's situation didn't really hit me in the last film, this one, I could see how she could have ended up abandoned like Jacky, by society, and how she could have been imprisoned in an asylum or if poorer in a magdalen laundry of some kind, all that was suggested by the doctor scene and Margaret's desperate desire to protect her from societal forces.

Thank you for that knitting. I do enjoy period dramas but also find that as I am a quite direct about things, I end up questioning many things without remembering that the way people approached matters was different in the past. Including expectations of behaviour according to class especially!

You’re not the only one who sometimes finds it oblique. A critic once quipped that the book was so vague about certain key events the only inference he could draw was that Leonard Bast’s umbrella had somehow fathered Helen’s baby.

I have had to remind myself that we look upon the story from a 21st century perspective, which does alter how certain events come across to us. The Schlegels end up with Howards End, which to us would be like a lottery win. But in the time the story is set only the financially comfortable and the well off would have been able to buy property and in proportion to incomes it would have been considerably cheaper than today. The concept of a property driven economy was then a long way off and, although we don’t know how they derived their income, the Schlegels could afford to rent a beautiful house in Wickham Place for example. Leonard Bast could afford only very modest accommodation but then he was only 20 or 21 so he would not have been earning a decent salary yet.

My point is that when Forster wrote the novel the idea of the Schlegels acquiring Howards End almost by luck was not as sensational as it is now. And Henry talked in very casual terms about his various properties, almost as though they were minor chattels. He was a rich and successful businessman, but to me it illustrated how the loss of Howards End to his children was no great issue.

But also keeping Margaret, Helen &baby at HE keeps them out of society with the hope of the scandal remaining as forgorren as possible after Henry's death.

That said, could Henry, Margaret or Helen have ever been in society again?

@Abra1d very witty critic!

Miss