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!



Love & Friendship : A Film Review


Directed by Whit Stillman, Cast, Kate Beckinsale, Xavier Samuel, Emma Greenwell, Morfydd Clark, Jemma Redgrave, Tom Bennett, James Fleet, Justin Edwards, Jenn Murray, Stephen Fry, Chloë Sevigny.


Funny Sexy Witty

Love & Friendship based on a short Jane Austen novella she wrote before “Pride and Prejudice” is witty, funny and entertaining, just like its heroine Lady Susan Vernon, played with fiendish electrifying linqiustic precision and pace by Kate Beckinsale. She plays a young widow, seemingly for appearance sake in mourning but is requiring to cast her fortunes to others to furnish both a home, her in-laws, and a position to encourage a future which serves both her and her daughter who is at boarding school.cinitially for appearances she is accompanied by a young lady in waiting who is made welcome and uncomfortable in equal measure.  The daughter Frederica, played with authentic youthful coquettish innocence by Morfyyd Clark and has a large part to play in the chess game Lady Susan has to set before us and enact.  The deployment of coy attractive bewitching ‘genius’ is virtually unstoppable and suitably preposterous given her skills.  Her aim is a lover of high marriage and untouchable impeachablility, less her aims become known.  Some things have a strangeway of turning out and Jane Austen was never shy in geometric manouvres to manifest the Mansfield Parks and Pride and Predjudices of this world reliant on the relations of the genders.

The roll call opens with frames of each Kate Beckinsale as Lady Susan Vernon, Chloë Sevigny as Alicia Johnson, Xavier Samuel as Reginald DeCourcy, Stephen Fry as Mr. Johnson, Emma Greenwell as Catherine Vernon, Morfydd Clark as Frederica Vernon, James Fleet as Sir Reginald DeCourcy, Jemma Redgrave as Lady DeCourcy, Tom Bennett as Sir James Martin, Justin Edwards as Charles Vernon, Jenn Murray as Lady Lucy Manwaring.


Bomb proof Kate Beckinsale

There are seldom roles made to conquer for women in the Jane Austen repertoire/cannon given the screen adaptations repeated with routine rapidity leaving few remaining but as this involves a novella and lesser performed piece it is mastered or mistresses by Kate Beckinsale to put down a marker for assured brilliance in the body of work achieved by numerous illustrious British actors; I’m reminded of the feminist need to drop the ‘ess’ Doctoress etc.,  and it merits no small mention being the first of many such superb performances by the entire cast.

The story is a typical lesson in the mores of the Middle and Upper echelons of English society at the mercy of the match making requirements of the period.  1760 thereabouts.  Set in England, filmed entirely it appears in Ireland, Powerscourt, Howth Castle and with a ‘London’ giving identity to Edward Street and (Upper) Seymour Street, -.mentioned a few times previously in my reviews as firstly Turners first abode in London, also the swimming pool used in the ‘vomit’ scene in a Monty Python movie – on an indoor – scaffolded out – five aside pitch I used to frequent in West London – it shapes as the location of the abode Lady Susan ‘retires to for plotting liaisons and conflicts of the heart which reach crescendo in London and disapate just as the designs require as acted by Lady Susan Vernon.


Period gender Portmanteau

It is a portmanteau piece of the highest quality.  A tale of the two sexes in ever alarming relations or misintended liaisons in meaning and practice. Every nuance and detail of speech, setting, period, costumery is superbly realised.  The interiors are so simple understated and unfussybas to distinguish it as exemplary in taste and period refinement.  The smaller furniture designed for the Ladies of the house, and the larger more flamboyant pieces for the Gentlemen of the house are carefully utilised to invoke status. There are hints in a woman to woman relationship with Alicia, Chloe Sevigny, whose husband is the buffoonish Mr Stephen Fry, which is purely a act of conceit and further manipulative guile by Lady Susan. Lady Susan also makes a habit of discarding most decorum regarding furniture and when possible purloins the larger higher status items.


There are other occasions she is conversely suitably demuring to her hosts and as with the widescreen framing throughout of conversations, of which the film compacts into high density attention grabbing eloquence joyous; for the audience, reams of vocabulary and inferences of high restoration comedy demanding your distillation.  Many still scenes of interaction are employed as the customary vignettes the story relies on. She cups her palm in resting a tea cup in reflection of her host, or holds her hands, withdrawing into a closed finger grasp of meaning no ‘grabbing’ or tokenistic intentions. The acting is not short of finer befitting signals as both guide and convincer. Lady Vernon is in scenes often eye catching beautifully dressed, so when she appears, the allure of the whole essence of her style is captivatingly instantaneous.  Some dresses are costumes Alexander McQueen would have been proud to have tailored. The richness of colour and vibrancy is at times visually stunning.  No doubt this is a fully intended contrasting approach once again delighting the audiences expectations of more intense jaw dropping scurility as another twist and orchestration bounces like a diminuendo round a stately gathering between acts.  Morescandalous intrigue to follow. It’s mere seconds away. Keep paying attention to the outpouring of words and the nuances of facial reticence Kate Beckinsale has to offer.  Many opening of scenes are like miniature plays unfolding in another form of the female skillset outwitting and unexpectedly barely believable.  Still they are thoroughly intact by the close of each scene as being pure genius in completing the tableau, for the time being.


Nobody’s Fool De Courcy.

Few Irish people will not be aquainted with the origins of the De Courcy family, it’s antecedents lying in our own Carrickfergus Castle circa 1166 (when the first invasion of Ireland by the English – troops and other invasions occured periodically we’re told – Lady Theresa Villiers the latest incumbent) and tradition of folklore has this Hugenouet dynasty come via. Somerset; the films De Courcy’s somehow hail from Kent.  It being where Churchill (Church and hill crop up a lot) after Blenhiem lived.  At Westerham, no Churchill estate per se.  The De Corcy’s of Irish fame and obvious later fortune were indeed quite clever as assets to Ireland, however with the minor oversight of being authors of a policy to monetarise Ireland with its own coinage – the John De Courcy Silver farthings in public view can be seen in a small undistinguished case next to the large photograph of Carrickfergusfergus Castle in the Ulster Museum.  Quite simply the most informative exhibit piece in the Museum informing you of the origins (money) of England’s transgressions into Ireland.  Historical fact unsequestered.

Ross McDonnell

Father Son and Daughter. Country hosts.

Son. Xavier Samuel plays. Reginald De Corcy to his fathers scrutinous oversight, being the only male descendant, brilliantly.  He is the foil for Lady Susan who establishes a bridgehead on this young mans feelings and desire for intelligent intercourse of the non physical kind though it undoubtedly features in his often troubled mind.  His intelligence is almost a match for Lady Susan.  When he is vexed; it’s a frequently occurring theme, he asks the most direct and simply intelligent questions he can afford.    He asks them often. It is treated nearly everytime by Lady Susan like an in her prime Serena Williams as a second serve slam dunk.  His intelligence and own dignity befitting his junior age to his attendee is never lessened as he knows he is in the throes of a contest of like minded – with one or two key exeptions – compatriates.  Her calumny is greatest and with it constructs the greatest hurt.

Father. The father. James Fleet as Sir Reginald De Courcy is something of a half lit lamp.  In contrast their is a very consumate scholarly husband to the De Courcy daughter whose beauty is for appearances miscmatched with her older husband – a common enough occurrence in these tales – and his speed of thought is often incisive when it comes to the linguistic entanglements that arise.  His wisdom is softly delivered without any pretense of affected impress.  It is another quality performance.  With Catherine De Courcy there is an affectionate wish to please and entire while she also is continually using her under utilised intelligence in deciphering the nuances of relationships and movements of those around her.

Daughter. Emma Greenwell as Catherine is herself an unsung beauty. With a friend of some confidence in Lady Susan she, Catherine, with her blond hair and dazzling good looks as counterpoint to the sophisticat, whose dresses and hair style steal the scene in Lady Susan’s favour always and as directorial intended.  While Lady Susan’s tresses cascade in ordered disorder with black curls dancing, Catherine’s appear to just sit and her stack of hair looks provincial as the designer has taken care to pronounce for us.  It is virtually flawless in the making though one or two scenes are edited to the quick. The shortness of some intros misses a beat as for example, a servant has broken into a walk from a standing start without the start visible or with a walk upstairs also too quick off the mark.  These are trivial matters andcitvonly gets a mention as nothing in film making can ever be perfect nor should it be.


Throughout the film crops up a character, Sir James Martin admirably played by Tom Bennett  who is the but of jokes and with directness Reginald De Courcy defines as a blockhead, the non-de-plume of period custom.  His unstoppable nincompoopery is that of a special skill of its own.  He is scarcly believable in overstating, understating, mis remarking and chasing incidents in his head down the stately blind alleys he boldly interjects upon. Such is his reputation the females scatter like the queens corgis when Prince Philip enters a room. His overtures for Frederika are the mainstay of his large fortunes necessary disposal.   His eye for agricultural curation is singularly acute as certain observations he makes testify to.


Interior Piece of England

Observing England through its Downtown Abbey’s its Jane Austen blockbuster books and the Wolf Hall take down, erroneously of Roman Catholisicm is hard core history gone soft.  Like The a Recent Hollow Crown it’s very Stacey and multi-layered skillfully portrayed craftsmanship but it leaves a hollow soul in the heart of the real dark periods England would try to emerge from and post war is still seen as a time for reflection on those two world wars. It’s the kind of foil to the Recent Peaky Blinders view which has some traction. Sunset Song was a recent historical film which stood out in terms of credibility and though this film is obviously a piece on society and morality at a certain time it is seen by some as real time struggle of the gender differences and often seen as reflecting feminism.  It could not be further from that as it puts women in a place where men often are as manipulating and often self seeking in their desires and wishes.  Feminism is about the right to identity whatever form on the spectrum it happens to take and thankfully certain bigotry is being lost to the fresh approach to the hackneyed views, almost 1700’s in perception and are towards a new enlightenment.

Conclusion ####4

From beginning to end this film transports you to an illogical but presenting universe and the formidable manouvres of male and female in search of or retention of status and the rigour of polite society is challenged by the genders compromises and we are entertained with a very particular core group of British acting talent, added to which Chloe Sevigny holds her head high and it constructs the period piece so well known and sometimes well worn delivery of familiar novels.  This of course being the strident workings of Jane Austen reacting to her times and delivering what were held to be unspoken truths or rather little discussed or considered oppressive elements most severely felt by women and then in the working classes which this work avoids. It is a brilliantly beautifully observed piece and should appeal on many levels.


John Graham

25 May 2016


On at QFT from 27 May through to and including the 9 June 2016.