‘Howards End’ and the Representation of British History, Heritage and Traditions

The critical reception of the British heritage movies of the 1980’s and 1990’s has changed and adjusted many times over the years. Critical debate of these works has reached somewhat of a crescendo in recent years, and has become somewhat sharp and impassioned on both sides of the argument. The recent debate has also focused on much fewer films from the heritage cycle than was previously the case. One half of the debate on these films, given from a leftist perspective, is highly dismissive and critical of them, claiming that the films are conservative rhetoric for middle class audiences. The other side of the argument, the side of the conservatives, is that these films are charming, because of the very traditionalistic and conservative depictions of class and culture within them. In this close evaluation of Howards End (1992) I aim to investigate how the film fits into the notion of heritage and tradition.
Howards End is seen as one of the most successful films of the heritage cycle. Its mixture of sumptuous landscapes featuring classic British countryside scenes, and traditionalistic costume. As Andrew Higson points out; “The film clearly plays on the idea of national tradition in various ways. Thus it involves familiar discourses and images of landscape, architecture and place.”1 This notion is exemplified in the sequence when Henry Wilcox (Anthony Hopkins) proposes to Margaret (Emma Thompson) in the beautiful, traditional and decadent surroundings of a manor house he intends to buy, and in a manner befitting of the ‘stiff upper lip’ British ideal. To which Margaret’s response is equally prim and restrained, as she tells Henry that in response to his proposal he shall “receive a letter” from her in response. It is fair to say that the film is dominated by its attention to period detail, with the films mise-en-scene brimming with properties of the heritage cycle. The presence of these properties is extenuated further by the visual style which James Ivory has adopted, which is best described as picture postcard British landscapes, as James Pallot describes: “There are times when it feels as though the major literary influence at work is not E.M Forster, but ‘House and garden’ magazine.”2 These landscapes are best represented by the establishing shots of Howards end itself, which Ivory introduces with all the romanticised visuals the audience have come to expect from heritage cinema.
One aspect of the heritage movement which I feel that Howards End paid particular attention to was the issue of national identity, the discussion of which the film appears to be somewhat liberal in its promotion of feminist principles and its somewhat understated celebration of British multiculturalism. Which was explored in the films narrative in the form of Margaret and Helen, both of German descent, who are a representation of a rising ‘new England’, an England which “has been Europeanised and feminised by the promotion of the Schlegel sisters and their modified values.”3 This notion of a New England is made most explicit at the films close, which depicts a single mother of German descent inhabiting Howards End and therefore inhabiting middle class England. This image clearly resonates as clearly in terms of 1992 Britain as in the time of the films setting with regard to Britain’s growing Europeanization with the fall of Thatcher and the continued expansion of the European Union.
Howards End, like many of its counterparts within the heritage genre have been constantly attacked by leftist writers for their representations of the upper classes as protagonists and often of the working classes as an antagonistic element who endeavour to damage the upper classes. This criticism has been particularly sharp with regard to Howards End however due to the nature of the source material, as Robert Murphy points out: “This palpable pleasure in parading the visual splendour of the past undermines the social criticism of Forster’s novel.”4 However, I feel that the film does deliver a fair amount of criticism of unchecked capitalistic greed which is represented by Henry, and also of the deeply flawed class system which is most savagely attacked in the marriage party of Evie and Paul Wilcox, when Helen brings a starving Leonard and Jackie Bast along. Jackie then becomes extremely drunk and attracts Margaret’s attention, who then approaches her with Henry in tow in order to find out who she is. At that point Jackie recognises Henry and it then becomes clear that some years earlier the two had embarked on some type of affair which ultimately leads to her prostituting herself to Henry. This revelation, coupled with his disdain for Helen when she becomes pregnant is an excellent representation of the upper classes double standards and routine exploitation and abuse of the working classes. Unfortunately however, the film does not follow up this moment of shame for Henry with a fall from grace, which would almost certainly have delivered a much sharper critique of the upper classes.
Howards End and the heritage movement has, over the years, come in for heavy criticism over its depiction of British history from a number of film scholars such as Raphael Samuel, who describes British heritage cinema as “A Disneyfied version of history in place of the real thing”5. Samuel is correct in this assertion to a degree in that the film, outwardly at least, is a conservative and nostalgic look at the elites of early twentieth century Britain. A vision which glosses over the plight of the films working class characters with romanticised visuals, manicured lawns, sumptuous costumes and locations, far removed from the gritty, harsh daily life in Britain’s cities at that time. This notion of Howards End as something akin to filmmaking by Laura Ashley is supported by the way which James Ivory treats the Bast’s; by the end of the film they have not improved their position, as a matter of fact it has worsened. Jackie is still shackled by her lurid past transgression with Henry, and her husband has fathered a child with another woman and Leonard paid the ultimate price for his transgression and was killed by Charles Wilcox in a fit of rage in the film’s climactic scene. This kind of depiction of the working class makes it difficult to see the film as anything other than conservative rhetoric rather than a serious, historically grounded study of the period.
Howard’s End is in many ways the quintessential example of British heritage cinema, cast with British stage actors of high standing such as Anthony Hopkins, furnished with the traditional scenic beauty of the British countryside landscape and dripping with the Laura Ashley style of splendid costume and set design. The film also chooses to focus much more closely on the troubles of the upper middle classes rather than the working class struggle. However, the film is also peppered with moments of sharp critique of the capitalistic and exploitatory nature of the upper middle classes represented by Henry. This being said, the film’s occasional moments of social criticism are not enough to lift it from the realm of traditional, conservative and factually dubious realm of heritage cinema.