Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Telly addicts

Howard's end

340 replies

Braceface · 12/11/2017 21:08

Anyone watching?

OP posts:
LouiseBrooks · 12/11/2017 22:32

Cory obviously I know that not everyone who was black (or brown) would have a foreign surname but it would show that the UK was not as white as people seem to think it was. I've been researching my family history and have come across people with Indian surnames on the census 150 or 160 years ago.

Whynewnham · 12/11/2017 22:40

What a disappointment. I loved the book but the clumsy PC casting will distract from the central theme of class and hypocrisy in Edwardian England. And the traffic island and bollards just adds to the total lack of authenticity.
I won't be tuning in for episode 2 but have just bought the DVD instead.

MsAdorabelleDearheartVonLipwig · 12/11/2017 22:46

Oh so were the characters in the book not black then? I just assumed they must have been. I did wonder. Blush

madeyemoodysmum · 12/11/2017 22:59

After watching the first episode I enjoyed it. I feel meg is a little young but she has the character down well.
Leonard seems very true so far m
Helen I'm not sure about but she might grow on me. The rest all seem well cast No one feels wrong compared to the film.

Would a mixed race marriage have been open at that time? I'm not sure about that part.

In the film Jackie was a lady of the night I thought and they were not married.

illuminousopptomist · 12/11/2017 23:04

Lasted about 10mins. Awful. The staging just looked too put together, likewise the costumes. The actors were stilted and unbelieavable.

The book and film were fantastic and this just feels like a terrible TV drama from the 80s.

furlinedsheepskinjacket · 12/11/2017 23:07

watch the hbc film everyone - far superior :)

AlessandroVasectomi · 12/11/2017 23:11

I studied this at Uni circa 1970. At the age of 19 I didn’t understand what it was about and it was a very difficult read, as I recall. However, more recently I saw the film, loved it and dug out the book. Having made sense of the film I read the book again and really enjoyed it. I’ve since seen the film a couple of times and enjoyed it again on both occasions.

One thing I do recall from Uni is that the book is full of symbolism, something which would have passed me by completely at the age of 19 if it had not been explained in tutorials. However, I did think that the idea of Helen Schlegel taking Leonard Bast’s umbrella by mistake was a phallic symbol was possibly reading too much into it.

As I know the plot well, I enjoyed the first episode, although I agree that Tracey Ullman is entirely unsuited and I also noticed the kimonoed women and the traffic bollards. I couldn’t see why they would be needed when traffic was largely horse drawn.

sarasabrownie · 12/11/2017 23:32

Howard's End - blah blah blah, clip clop, clip clop - postman looking puzzled, walk around the same square - I just kept thinking of that French and Saunders sketch where the Penny Farthing keeps going past in every shot - I thought it was very shoddy

furlinedsheepskinjacket · 12/11/2017 23:38

ha sara that's it - house of idiot :)

Battleax · 13/11/2017 01:40

Lucy Mangan's rather muddled take on the meaning of the anachronistic multiculturalism;

www.theguardian.com/books/2017/nov/12/howards-end-review-timely-careful-remake-class-race

The BBC are under pressure to cast period drama multiculturally or not make period drama.

Productions like Tom Hardy's recent taboo get round the problem of historical accuracy nicely by writing historically plausible diversity in.

Literary adaptations are more difficult, I think. If the Bast marriage had been mixed, it would have been a different book. It's Forster after all.

Battleax · 13/11/2017 01:45

I don't know what conclusions to draw, really.

If everyone starts to believe that Victorian and Edwardian society was much more multicultural and at ease with race issues than it was, doesn't that make a nonsense of post-war history, the struggles of the windrush generation, the slow climb to equalities legislation and so on?

BitOfFun · 13/11/2017 01:50

Yes, it would certainly have been a different book. I do think though that the 'race' distinctions help illuminate the class distinctions which seem almost impenetrable to the modern viewer (if not to readers of Edwardian literary novels). I think it makes for an interesting angle in a modern adaptation, much as innovative stagings of Shakespeare do. If it encourages peoooe to read the book, all the better.

BitOfFun · 13/11/2017 01:52

Battleax, yes, I see your point. I'd hope though that viewers would realise that it's a modern dramatic device. Perhaps I'm being optimistic!

Battleax · 13/11/2017 05:21

Ha, yes I'm pessimistic. I think an awful lot of people (most) glean their understanding of UK social history from the telly.

I'd love to know what Secondary English or History teachers make of the anachronistic casting phenomenon.

OhWhatFuckeryIsThisNow · 13/11/2017 06:23

Well, luckily no one has to watch the second episode, thanks to the summary clip at the end of episode one. Told the whole story and saved everyone an hour.

southeastdweller · 13/11/2017 07:30

Agree on a lot of what's been said here. Tracey Ullman is all kinds of wrong for this, MM is way too young to play Henry and the actor who plays Leonard looks too young as well.

Most erroneous of all is the multicultural depiction of Edwardian London. More box-ticking, PC crap from the BBC, which doesn't work in the story (and of course wasn't included in the film that successfully made several points about the class system at the period Forster wrote about). Colourblind casting can work within the artificiality of theatre, but not in TV dramas.

calamityjam · 13/11/2017 07:43

Haha, I was thinking this was a retro shit 80s throwback thread about that god awful soap. I then realised it might've been called Howards Way

HappydaysArehere · 13/11/2017 08:11

Portia, that is odd. Thought exactly as you; Beethoven was the best bit. There seemed a lot of drama for little reason. I haven’t read the book or seen the film but any decent production should be self explanatory. As for that terrible background music played so loudly and intrusively....what the hell!

corythatwas · 13/11/2017 08:26

The difficulty would seem to be that you cannot at the same time work in a different way of representing class divisions and expect the author's own conventional observations about such divisions to retain force. This production seems to want to have its cake and eat it, and I suspect that this is because the nature of Forster's writing: it is very difficult to abandon the whole this-is-how-people-behave-in-the-Edwardian-era because it is such a central part of his books.

Shakespeare is different because his plays incorporate a kind of timelessness: they are either set in a past which he and his audience know relatively little about/don't care about keeping historically accurate (the Roman plays, the chronicle plays) or in an imaginary world. No points are made by acute observation of one particular moment in time.

Forster very much depends on the precise observation of social mores in his own time. That is how he works, that is how he makes his points. Take that away and you lose much of the point.

Of course you should update historical drama (though possibly not Forster). But if you do, then you need to be bold enough to eschew the attempt at accurate historical representation in the first place. You need to make it more timeless, not pretend that you are doing a historically accurate costume drama. Branagh's Much Ado, with a black prince of Aragon, worked brilliantly, because his and Shakespeare's Aragon is a place outside of conventional geography or history.

Yes, there were black people in Edwardian Britain (though no doubt far more people of Indian descent than African or Afro-American). But it is highly unlikely that they could have married into even the lower middle-classes without causing comment. And the same with the black maid. It may not have been impossible. But people would have talked, done a double-take first time they met them, registered surprise. In the docks, yes no doubt. But in Leonard's case, it would be the colour of his wife as much as her class that caused a reaction and that would be talked about.

If the script writer is prepared to take that on board, then fair enough. But my suspicion is that they are not going to do that, but will just carry on pretending that this is historically accurate Edwardian England and everybody has the same reactions as we do now. Which (as a pp hinted) has the effect of completely downplaying and ignoring the struggle of black people in this country.

IrenetheQuaint · 13/11/2017 09:05

It would be interesting to see the producers' historical justification for the ethnic minority casting. In a lot of cases I suspect it's quite plausible - we know that there were some upper-class Indians in British society and the Schlegels are exactly the sort of people to have befriended some. We know that the areas round the docks were inhabited by people of all backgrounds and races, and I'm sure there were some mixed-race working-class people (though no doubt they attracted comment). And we know that some upper-class people had black servants, though I thought (possibly incorrectly) that they were more likely to be men than women.

And we know that Forster was very alert to the complexities of inter-racial societies and relationships, from reading A Passage to India.

So I don't mind the mixed casting, but because it's not in the book the race issues can't be mentioned in the script, which creates a slightly weird atmosphere.

HaHaHmm · 13/11/2017 09:49

Being careful not to give any spoilers as I haven’t seen last night’s episode and if it is a four-parter this won’t have been revealed yet, but: Jacky Bast (Leonard’s wife) is a ‘fallen woman’ for whom Leonard feels responsible. It later becomes significant that she was seduced and abandoned by a wealthy man in Cyprus so I suppose you could stretch that point to cast a non-white actress. Forster doesn’t specify that she is white, and he does make a point of mentioning characters’ heritage if it is relevant - see the Schlegel’s German heritage.

Bucketsandspoons · 13/11/2017 09:59

The BBC are under pressure to use multi cultural casting whether anachronistic or not as otherwise these programmes aren't representative of their viewing audience. But it does have a weird effect, and it does re frame and sanitise history, and sometimes then get in the way of a story having the meaning it was intended to. I was very thrown a few years back by their highly PC casting of Oliver Twist's orphanage where every possible world culture appeared to be abandoning their kids in Victorian rural Bedfordshire.

corythatwas · 13/11/2017 10:12

I am very much in favour of multicultural casting. And absolutely shocked at some minority-excluding casting that still goes on.

But it's like anything else: you need to think about the further implications in your specific production. If you simply do it by introducing black actors into a very strictly historical production and pretend nobody's noticing, then, as Bucket says, you are in effect white-washing history.

Lovelise · 13/11/2017 12:02

Well I really enjoyed it and am not familiar with the plot, although I have heard of the book.

(I got it mixed up with Howard's Way at first, the popular 80s drama!)

furlinedsheepskinjacket · 13/11/2017 13:46

gah

just realised the film i was comparing this to was 'room with a view'

no wonder i was losing track of the plot :)

and no point looking forward to the nude scene :)

Swipe left for the next trending thread