Howard’s End : A Film Review


Howard’s End

Directed by James Ivory, Produced by Ismail Merchant, Screenplay by Ruth Prawer Jhabvala, Based on Howards End by E. M. Forster

Cast, Anthony Hopkins, Vanessa Redgrave, Helena Bonham Carter, Emma Thompson, James Wilby, Samuel West, Jemma Redgrave, Prunella Scales, Music by Richard Robbins, Percy Grainger (opening and end title), Cinematography Tony Pierce-Roberts, Edited by Andrew Marcus, Production company, Merchant Ivory Productions





Edwardian period piece.

This remastered release of the classic Merchant and Ivory Howard’s End depiction of the E.M. Forster’ 1910 novel is a favourite and is seen as one worthy of revived rerelease.  It has not worn that well and is a reminder that when it was made in 1991 it gave of a wiff of sentimentality which Tory Britain resided under and still does.  It reflects on handed down residue of imperial warfare when things are not entirely explained.  The question of how we arrived at this state.  Forster is essentially playful and creates characters with complexities of a backstory and the Anglo-German was to be a prescient but fateful insert with how alike the nations of wealth were like.  It was an age of industrial growth and come hell or high water money was to be made and flights to be taken ships to despatch people to far ends of the earth and Henry Wilcox a true British capitalist is one to take interest in all things colonial.  The import export world of trade and stealing wealth in the form of their minerals of helplessly under developed nations such as in Africa and the Middle East where oil wealth was a bottomless pit.  The wars stay outside the nation.

There is a conceit or play on names with the Schlegel family of an Anglo German bourgeoisie class, with whom the Wilcox’s become entangled and unexpectedly so.  The conceit being maybe a realisation of the already modern Europeans.  The brittleness of the comedic almost farcical leanings of both families, across each other’s lives in a time when place and position were unable to recovery from slight and mishap is something Forster and the duo of that pairing of Ismail Merchant and director James Ivory, who were not just creative partners but life partners, savour.


At least the upper crust were not ridiculing themselves but a colonial pairing who got the absurdity of the characters extremely observantly.  It set out a past which Britain could reflect on.  The suffragette period and optimism of nations trading withoutvwarring but the warring and colonialism of French, Spanish, English were kept of their respective shores.  The wealth of Henry Wilcox is burgeoning throughout and property after property, become acquired – Mayfair, Shropshire, Somerset – so as to present the period as one where the acquisition of money was enabled by compliance to the golden rule of buy cheap sell high.  In whatever commodity regardless of its origin could facilitate it.

This makes Howard’s End, the family home where the Wilcox family all grew up all the more portent yet a simple piece off rural England.  Possibly Hildenborough in Kent which is renamed Hilton.  


Literal Strength

Random House provide an excellent readers guide.  The following is taken from it.

It was as a university student at King’s College that Forster was first inspired by the liberal humanism of philosopher George Moore, who advocated the contemplation of beauty and the cultivation of personal relations as a spiritual antidote to the rootless, mechanistic ethos of his age. Forster, together with the young men who would later form the Bloomsbury group of writers (Lytton Strachey, John Maynard Keynes, and Leonard Woolf, among others), embraced this challenge to traditional religious morality and to the growing commercial spirit of the time. Forster spent some of his happiest days in this company, a lifestyle mirrored in the Schlegels’ passion for art, friendship, and the life of the mind.



Comparisons are then clearly explored between the two families.  One rooted in intellectual (Cambridge is never evoked) the artistic, cultural explorers, pioneering, liberal family the Schlegel’s and the industrial rampant Wilcox family immersed in ideas of commerciality and gain.

Implicit is Forsters unease with the limitations of the Schlegel families oeuvre so he nails each character into a dilemma and we see we’re their true values reside.  Margaret played immaculately by a extremely well observed, nuanced performance of Emma Thompson, is the most apparently pragmatically incisive one of the Schlegel family, whose about turn is all too conceited and carried of with superb, carefully careworn empathetic playing.  I always have an affinity with a fellow left-hander.  Albeit a the fictional one is not within our more worthy characters and I believe it’s realised by Emma Thompson.  That about turn is huge.


Away with nature

Frailty is not a trait of Henry Wilcox but we are given insight after insight as to his loose arrangements with human nature.  They betray his weaknesses and all come around again.  Margaret has visions of uniting town and country, man and woman, commerce and culture while she hold also to the wisdom of ancient voices.

The ancient voices she hear through herself and the troubled vexed and impoverished Leonard who has the misfortune to recieve a bit of advice which turns his life upside down.  Their meeting is another happenstance which is a necessity of the story.  The advice given completely breaks him and his loving wife Jackie, who was left as an orphan at 16 in Cyprus through the death of her trader father. On  returning to England found Leonard.  Leonard is the ancient voice of another time.

His scholarly endeavors at home confuse and make for strange relations with his fiancé,  she is a homemaker but they are in poor housing next to a railway.  The sky and the country are a dreamland which he is unable to share with Jackie, intellectually or spiritually and this side of him finds him behaving erratically, very out of normality for what it is.  Nature v Human nature as Margaret Schlegel would have it.  Her rationalit’s scopes out acceptance of peculiar actions while being unable to fully accept them.  On the other hand Helen is a wild rover on the landscape of the new world arriving.


Forster challenges through his juxtaposition of the symbolic Howard’s End as an idyll and enchanted garden, the comparison of  modernities progress in London where insurers prosper, gather the risk, where Leonard works diligently and effectively as a clerk (the Porphyrion Fire and Life Insurance Company) against his own anxiety of knowing there is something other than this to life. His character development pitches the redoubtable Mrs Ruth Wilcox into the fray.


As the eldest and Henry’s wife she is totally in love with Howard’s End which is hers and it came to her through an old yeomanry stock route. When he casts Howard’s End as a fulcrum of the story he does so having regretted leaving his own ideal childhood home just north of London, Rooksnest, and through the industrialisation moving at a quick pace found himself living in Tonbridge, or Tunbridge Wells, where the business class congregated. This was very significant to Forster. He seen it, in his own childhood, as a loss of connection to place, a respect for individuality, and a commitment to the contemplative life which he regarded as in essence England.   It shows how strong place means to the young.  Imbedded in the psyche as a function of survival perhaps as essential knowledge of belonging.

As a King’s College student at Cambridge Forster would be influenced by the Liberal humanism of George Moore, who sought beauty as spiritual solace setting his philosophy out of religious and capitalistic values. In later years he would be stimulated by fellow students later to belong to the Bloomsbury Group, Lytton Strachey, John Maynard Keynes, and Leonard Woolf, among others. It previous times it would have been Wollstonecraft, Godwin, Stewart, Blake, Paine radicalising the form of governance with ideals of liberal enlightenment. One separated from religion.


Samuel West as Leonard Bast

When Forster sets the two families across the street from one another; the Wilcox family move into Wickham Place, the inevitable meeting of the two ladies Mrs Wilcox, Ruth, and Meg, Margaret of the Schlegel family whose aunt is the busy body of their family, Aunt Juley (Prunella Scales) is imminent.   Once formalities are over and they meet regularly Ruth forms a bond with Margaret who is she sees, a younger version of herself. Though Sufferage is not the thing for Ruth who is content for men to be the ones to vote, Margaret is a habitué of the former quietly or thunderously disappearing Howard’s End life epoch. Recognising this Ruth introduces unknown to Margaret another plot device which has the rest of the Wilcox family turn to treat her with distrust and distaste. This is a very re-siting of the Howard’s End ‘character’ as a metaphor for the English throwing the baby out with the bath water and ruining the jewel in the crown, its garden of Eden.

The presence of Henry becomes more evident and the Schlegels seek his advice concerning a person of their acquaintance, the young clerk a Leonard whose tenuous introduction into the Schlegel fold has Helen at least a member of the cause celebre class.  She sees in him a worthiness chrysalis wanting to search for light.  Henry is also seen as a possible real estate advisor which he reluctantly becomes involved in.  Very quickly he is established as having enough wealth to himself plan his next move from Wickam Place and a small flat to a salubrious house in Mayfair.  So Howard’s End, Wickham Place, Mayfair.  To that list he later adds stately houses and farmholdings.  It is never clear how different he regards the lives of the classes but certainly Ruth despairs at this less than Human regard for servants and his lackies.


The events conspire to create a problem Margaret and particularly Helen feel is partly of their making with their assistance for Leonard having not worked out at all as intended.  The two stories overlap and intrigue in the way they unfold.  There are family asides concerning Howard’s End with Henry’s Ruth obedient sons, Paul and particularly Charles played by the magical James Wilby.  Susie Lindeman as Dolly Wilcox his wife is a funny and doting, simpleton for want of a better word.  Charles is covetous of Howard’s End and is the dogsbody in his fathers commercial trading company.  He makes no decisions, is presumably not allowed to and calls father Sir.  He is a for want of a better word, gormless, earlobe tugging, narrow visioned, unambitious man who goes with the tide.  He creates a future for himself based on Howard’s End and maybe this is a simple everyman though limited scope Englishman Forster sees most men’s ambitions.  It’s hard to draw real hard and fixed forms around most of the characters and cast them in either an intentional negative or positive role.  The basic reasoning I make therefore of Forster’s intention is to have us, the reader, (viewer as Ruth/Ismail/James imagined) place our own vision of society on.


Margaret and Tibby

The Schlegel set were limited towards recognition of social conventions, economic trend, efficiency, with no realisation of their own position afforded them. Forster presumably was more extensive and global in his view while seeing the English garden of Eden as a parody of the Liberty he felt absent.

The Wilcox’s are more ambitious as far as weddings are concerned and Margaret Schlegel oddly is an independent not seeing any need to marry or it appears any capacity for sexual desire.  When you see how luminous and intelligent she becomes in company it’s not confidence she lacks, she is ambitious for others and watchful of her siblings. Tibby played by Adrian Ross Magenty, is I think the youngest and he is academic without having a need to turn his knowledge into money.  He sets of to Magdalen College, Oxford with a certainty of obtaining greater wisdom having committed himself to being as clever as Margaret imagines him to be.  Just how Margaret advances you will have to go on recall dial or wait to see again or maybe for the first time have this complexity revealed to you by going to see the film.  It is worth it and Emma Thompson plays it so well and with a light hand.


In encountering Leonard the other side of life in London is brought from the shadows. With the use of the countryside Ruth/Ismail/James see the nature as constant and seasonal and the touches of colour and it’s abundance are from the opening shot which has Ruth in Evening dress stroll through woodland and grassland, lavender and pansies edging the lawns we are hopelessly drawn into a rhapsody on cultivated splendour.  Leonard is conspiratol in this as he takes in the outdoors at twilight going through Bluebell wood.  Bluebell wood is in Surrey a staple of natures wonder.

“The more people one knows, the easier it is to replace them. It is one of the curses of London. I quite expect to end my life caring most for a place.”

Surrey has these famous bluebell woods where people visit annually as spring moves into summer.  Winkworth Arboretum (near Godalming)
Abinger Roughs and Netley Park (between Dorking and Guildford off the A25)
Harewoods (Outwood, Redhill) but the most famous which is where we are disposed to call to mind (given the Kent connections)  of I think is Emmetts Garden, Sevenoaks, Ightham Mote, (Scathes Wood) Sevenoaks.  Others and well known through asccess being very simple are in grander places. Sissinghurst Castle Garden, Cranbrook, where there are a mere 126 million bluebell flowers in these woods virtue of the maintenance of those gardens, habitat by Vita Sackville-West and Harold Nicholson. Then there is Knole, Sevenoaks.  Knole is the perfect place from which to set off to One Tree Hill, where the heady scent of English Bluebells fills the woodland. One Tree Hill consists of a varied mosaic of habitats, with woodland and open glades, providing homes for some rare wildlife species too.  Most of which lies within an SSSI, and motorways, large Tesco apart is in an area of outstanding beauty.

The situation of nature is not a small one and it is very intentional in my view.  As in Forster’s awakening along the lines of George Moore there is much to be drawn here.  In Ruth’s walk for example.  It is a transition and a walk before twilight.  Just as the floor of bluebells, daffodils and lavender growing in woods open and show amazingly their vital existence; the plant is now a protected species in England, they carpet the close habitats to us with a wonderment.  They come to flower just before the crown of leaves fill the trees and darkness is present under the shade of the trees.  How metaphorical can you get. It is where Ruth is.  Another piece of glory is Leonard striding through, presumably treading down plants in flush of colour, in has ungainly walk.   He lacks the stand back and admire need that presents but ploughs on through.  It is also in the shadows of twilight as he heads into the unknown future with a lack of knowledge to accompany him.  Behind him he leaves anxieties and simpler practical domiciliary occupations of the mind.  Dickens is recollected as a storyteller of the juxtapositions and socitetal mores.  Forster is more ingenious and while utopian Shaw; he gets a mention, science is evident to E.M. as an importance discovering natures atomic secrets and stars astronomy come into Leonard’s field of vision. The Milky Way being a corridor we are in and can see while seeming apart from it.


Set pieces and Interludes.  

The film is set in chapters of indeterminate length and within one or two of those the error of a fade to black then reintroduction to the same scene at a later point hangs heavy and when initially encountered this appears to be a film reel failure.  It is shown digitally though and is in upscale 4K projection.  So it jars but is only the choice made in the early nineties.


In Tunbridge Wells this vision itself which the original book evokes things changed dramatically ten years after it was written.  I can’t help adding a reflection on the resurgence needed in this part of England and after again in the later War suffering  very badly, it is worth adding more comment.  In TW’s after the War one of the first problems to be faced was the shortage of dwellings. The old houses occupied as billets were gradually reinstated and sold or turned into flats: new houses of moderate size were being put up here and there: there was a desperate need for working class houses. The Corporation had many years before purchased land for the purpose of building small houses, but the opposition to the scheme was such that the land was sold. In 1920, 30 houses of the Hawkenbury Estate were built by the Corporation, but so very high was the price of materials (mostly Government controlled) at the time that the cost was enormous and nothing like an economic rent could be asked. In 1920 an estate was laid out at Rusthall, and in subsequent years additional groups of dwellings have been built to the number of over three hundred houses.


The late Joseph Bennett who played Paul Wilcox R.I.P.

Conclusion ####4

This is a vision for those unaware that before Downton Abbey there were much better constructs of period drama with a vice like grip on change and changes inherent in people as circumstances alter.  Place is fundamentally symbolic and at the heart of the drama.  The aforementioned stole this too, and feveriously a clash of European idealism itself portending to a future Forster would have had known little or nothing of kept as contrast with the island a petrel blue carpeted idil framed in Forster’s mind, is challenged and is seen to be changing.  Pragmatism is laid out.  Misfortune is experienced.  Love knots are forged and inescapable truths revealed or misread.  Several interweaving strands are for the sake of the book and latterly film are advanced using pardonable device and carry on the story in a wide view.  The alternations are not great leaps and we leave the story for long periods and revisit it in different places and circumstances to see how events have played out.  The characterisations, the celebration of lace and sense of place are at times chocolate box but they are devices with an underplaying part which I describe above.

When I first saw this film I lived in Surrey, was able to take advantage of yearly visits to Bluebell woods and walks in, on Boxhill and visit Knole and Sissnghurst, the Georgian Tunbridge Wells with its beautiful now properly restored, Pantiles.  There is the headless horse rider in Hurst Wood to the 20 ghosts it is said to haunt The Pantiles.  The words and vision is haunting us from ancient times again.


John Graham

28 July 2017


From 28 July to 3 August 2017 at Queens Film Theatre Belfast and general release.

cant believe its 25 years since it’s made.

IMG_2438 This is not a widget!

Donations welcome!



Suffragette : A Film Review

Directed by Sarah Gavron Written by Ali Morgan, Cast. Carey Mulligan, Helena Bonham Carter, Brendan Glesson, Anna Marie Duff, Ben Whishaw, Meryl Streep, Sam West, Romola Garai, Finbar Lynch and as the son of Maud and Sonny, Adam Michael Dodd.
Cert. 12a. General release, 106 mins.

It took a long time for the struggle of the Suffragettes to make any inroads on equality and the right to vote. It was as Emily Pankhurst played by Meryl Streep in little more than a cameo role, says at on point in the film 50 years to the period the film is set. Gone is Queen Victoria and in comes with the new century 1901-1910 – Edward VII House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and 1910-1936 George V House of Windsor. Even then it spans the two monarchs before full rights are obtained in 1925.
The struggle therefore of women was immense and when equality remains an issue across the world along with conditions of employment and minimum wage manipulation for the workforce we can say the struggle continues.

Film making and performance.
This is a film constructed around a principal focus. A family backdrop.
The employment in the East end of Maud Watts played by the very youthful looking Carey Mulligan.
She takes the role exceptionally well with dry cynicism, stoic resolution and calm reflection on her own experiences while married to fellow laundry worker Ben Whishaw whose role is a pit of vagueness and ignorance compared to Mauds. She short life has been little else other than servitude and the awakening is in the beginning full of concern for her boy and her fragile position as basically slave to the working environment.

Quickly the range of the film is established as the surveillance of Suffragettes enters under the Home Office Minister Benedict Haughton played superbly by Sam West; his wife Alice played by Romola Garai is one of the key agitators and is in my opinion one of the best performances of the film alongside Mr Ellen played by Fingal Lynch giving a contrast of actorial and character representation which sadly was lacking in spades in the rest of the parts. Helen Bonham-Carter is represented by whatever her eyebrows, cheekbones, feel like at the time. Her likeness to David Cameron is striking. Chief of the Special branch Brendan Glesson as Inspector Arthur Steed is neither one thing or the other and under performs as only he can do. Hardly an emotion other than ‘what did you expect’ passes his static facial grimace.
Grim times
The grime of London is clear and there is a contrast of the formal dignified appearance of the better off locations well captured by the cinematography around the town but the ‘action’ scenes are frenetically choppy including the rawness of the denouement of the chosen climax.
It is difficult to represent the period with large numbers but it is only a minor flaw and wisely there is use of Pathe footage of the milestone moment at the end. For certain tastes this film is not sufficiently graphic but when no one has tackled the themes or come close to depicting the reality of the times, only some individual dramas have the essence of the period on film, it is very useful in bringing attention to this milestone for women’s equality. Vera Brittain’s Testament of Youth recently seen on film, partly told of political participation in life and the intervention of War which itself represented undemocratic choice, told possibly the power of newspaper as public propaganda over a considerable time. Nothing changes in that regard despite the volume of social media.
Voting with your feet
Uprisings begin from the bottom up and this dramatic account of the Suffragette movements mobilisation to attain Votes for Women is a laudable attempt at filling in an otherwise neglected period of societal change.

Wars and economics along with politics dominated almost exclusively by males are the hegemony of the battle accounts we are familiar with.

This film nevertheless is a staid and stiff whalebone corset of a movie given no features of women of other races who were also prominent East end activists of the cause are portrayed. Even references to slavery are set aside or dampened for the American viewer when it plays to those audiences in pursuit of Academy recognition.

Centrally we have a great performance from the cast however with principal protagonist Maud Watts played blazingly by Carey Mulligan. For fire is everywhere in the energy of driven intent. Nothing will be done to stop this uprising. Hence the name highlighting sufferage.
When this period was alive the campaign related to a working class population of some 70% working class.
The Proli
From another source very recently I discovered the meaning of proletarian arises from the word proli which refers to women.

I think it relates to proliferation. The production fecundity of women as able to miraculously bear children! I am petrified in case I offend! So elucidate any observations you have please!

In essence the women were regarded in the definition as the source of the working population. In order for a state of capital to survive it had to have produced the proletariate. Eager to place a class upon the enterprise they then centrally became a middle class bourgeoise which is French in its classification or origin. The imposition of middle class values was a mechanism for the well of to maintain separation and control over the masses despite their obviously being in the minority.

the bourgeois class.
(in Marxist theory) the class that, in contrast to the proletariat or wage-earning class, is primarily concerned with property values.
Into this arena again ignored by the film was one Keir Hardie, the founder of the Labour movement and because he was such a bad parliamentarian and was much better out on the stump and traveling all over the United Kingdom explaining Socialist Labour he naturally became conscious of the women’s movement.

Again little is said in this film of Keir Hardies relationship, because in essence it was alive, with Emmiline Pankhursts sister Sylvia that he was a central agitator and strategist for her and their campaign. Along with The other sister Christabel was a less physical protagonist depending on her brain and intellect perhaps of a wider problem. Class.

Instead of the wider contexts I explain above the film depends largely on a narrow band and triumvirate of women in the three cast members of Carey Mulligan, Helena Bonham Carter and Anne Marie Duff.

The middle class connotations are explicit in the foreground of the central characters but Maud is the one who is cast to convey the apparatus under which working class women endure work as a means to live.

Shop floors are not exactly the sole place of women’s employment as service and subservience, exploitation existed on many fronts and collectively greater than any shop floor, factory etc.
2015 you will notice is a time when the global phenomenon of Secular Stagnation is evident as a factor of numerous economies as the failures of capital to produce a stability in living conditions as growth is sporadic and incalculable. Forecasting economics and using industry is as in the early twentieth century was a contest of ideology.

Economic credibility
Secular stagnation was a spur to growth and exploitation in the early twenties and the conditions for labour and wages was intense.
Remarkably the class system was rooted in the United Kingdom by an failing alliance with Victorian values as assigned by the monolith of Monarchy.
It is extraordinary that this was overlooked by the suffragettes but due to its lack of political nous. Instead it faced off masculinity instead of monarchy. The ruling class having no disposition for sex or predication for leaderships as long as they maintained the separator ion of wealth accumulation and control over costs prices and taxation.

This film is like a cleansed BBC Series introduction aligned with the apatite for Downton Abbey. Similarly extrordinary. It avoids most concerningly the absolute dismal and short lived ordinary lives of the vast majority of people under the severe oppression of their existence.
Education, Church and Political controls all mitigated to underpin the State and afflict it’s burden on people. The immorality of this is starkly and naively absent from the true depiction of this struggle. It was as Kier Hardy was aware tied into companion journeys of workers rights and conditions.

The Victorian era had died in 1901.
Here was a time of seismic change.

The record
From Brittanica this reference comes.
In 1908–09 Pankhurst was jailed three times, once for issuing a leaflet calling on the people to “rush the House of Commons.” A truce that she declared in 1910 was broken when the government blocked a “conciliation” bill on woman suffrage.
From July 1912 the WSPU turned to extreme militancy, mainly in the form of arson directed by Christabel from Paris, where she had gone to avoid arrest for conspiracy. Pankhurst herself was imprisoned, and, under the Prisoners (Temporary Discharge for Ill-Health) Act of 1913 (the “Cat and Mouse Act”), by which hunger-striking prisoners could be freed for a time and then reincarcerated upon regaining their health to some extent, she was released and rearrested 12 times within a year, serving a total of about 30 days. With the outbreak of World War I in 1914, she and Christabel called off the suffrage campaign, and the government released all suffragist prisoners.

It was not until much later her goal would be achieved. In 1918, women over the age of 30 finally won the vote.

It should have been a moment of triumph for the Pankhursts – but it was tainted by the estrangement between Christabel, who was becoming increasingly right-wing and Sylvia, who remained true to her father’s ideals of pacifism and socialism.
The Representation of the People Act of 1928, establishing voting equality for men and women, was passed a few weeks before her death.

The Liberal Pankhursts had five children – three daughters, Christabel, Sylvia and Adela, and two sons – Frank, who died young, and Harry, the youngest, born in 1889. Though Sylvia adored her father, both her parents were preoccupied with politics and family life was distinctly austere.

Political agitation was Emmeline’s real love. ‘This is what I call life!’ she remarked to Sylvia in 1905, planning her retaliation as the first women’s Franchise Bill was talked out in Parliament.
Sylvia was characteristically shocked. In her mind, social reform wasn’t supposed to be enjoyable. As the struggle for women’s suffrage began to involve more violent and extreme demonstrations, a rift opened between Sylvia and her mother and elder sister.

Emmeline, and particularly Christabel, were keen on showy violence. Christabel was seldom in the thick of the action herself.
She argued that she couldn’t be an effective leader from prison, and at one stage fled to Paris in a series of dramatic disguises, which delighted the Press.
But she saw violence as an effective campaigning method, and was particularly keen on arson – she once sent Sylvia a note demanding that she burn down Nottingham Castle.
Perhaps this story is next because the Sylvia story is also an account of Socialist warfare and she corresponds with Lenin and removes herself to assist the Ethiopian dilemma of self governance when she provided support for the Ethiopian Emperor, Haile Selassie, who was forced to seek refuge in Britain after his country was invaded by Italian Fascist troops in 1936.
Conclusion. ### 3
This is a good introduction to the Suffragette struggle an though confined to delivering a very important movements milestones through a small family micro narrative is sufficiently broad to see the extremities of the opposition, the protagonists for the vote and the upsurge of labour consciousness as to be believable and therefore worthy conveyance as a film, it only is a soft sanitized version.

Nevertheless it holds up for being no more than a dramatic account and shapes as a general aperture to many unfamiliar with certain aspects of the Suffragettes and the conditionsrevailing in this recently industrialised country before the onset of war.

John Graham

14 October 2015


On at QFT Belfast from Friday 16th October until 29th October and on general release from 12th