Howards End vs. Howards End

Yes, there are no apostrophes in the title of Howards End.

Both the 1992 movie and 2017 TV mini-series are based on the book of the same name by E. M. Forster. Written in 1910, the story follows three families in the wake of Mrs. Wilcox's death: the wealthy Wilcox family, the upper middle-class Schlegels and the lower-middle class Basts. The plot is full of lies, secrets, unconventional couples, revealed pasts, lovers, love-children, the class-divide, social appearances, and murder most foul! (It's actually manslaughter, but murder fits more with my list.) And to find out what happens to whom, you'll just have to watch one of them.

I've had my eye on doing a comparison piece of the two adaptations since the mini-series was announced last year. There is a 25-year gap between them and with that brings a bunch of differences to each directors take on the story, atmosphere, casting, etc.

Casting, for example in the 90s adaptation, had main characters Margaret and Helen Schlegel and Henry and Ruth Wilcox played by Emma Thompson, Helena Bonham-Carter, Anthony Hopkins and Vanessa Redgrave respectively. All big names back then, and even still now. Whereas the new mini-series had only two major actors, Hayley Atwell and Matthew Mcfadyen as Margret and Henry. Helen was played by a lesser known TV actress, and one of the Wilcox sons was played by another actor I only recognized because he was in the newest adaptation of Little Women from this year. The biggest difference with casting more established actors back when the movie came out could be the fact that the 90s version was movie compared to the new TV mini-series.

The plot of both versions covers all the same main topics, and there is little variation between them. I liked that because there was a semblance of continuity that way and neither one was really thrown off from the other. In the 2017 adaptation I found there was better and more development in areas that the movie lacked. You can't really blame the movie, its two hours versus four in length. However, one thing in particular I liked: there was more development of the characters' characters. You learned more about each family's history and members, which in turn helped with some of the plot points that were a bit lacking in the movie.

Other noteworthy differences that are in the new version: more development of Helen's time at Howards End (yes, it's a location), Tibby Schlegel is more frail and weird, Jackie is of colour and a lot less annoying than the 90s actress, Margaret and Henry butt heads more, and I feel like Macfadyen had way more emotional range as Henry than Hopkins. In fact, I think Atwell and Macfadyen were much better as Margaret and Henry than Thompson and Hopkins. I've also concluded that Bonham-Carter's flighty, passionate and little bit crazy 1992 Helen was better.

Both versions are very good, don't get me wrong. But everyone is biased as to which one they like more when given two options. I prefer the newer one. Some people hate remakes, but when you think about it, the 1992 movie is an adaptation of a book, so technically the book is the original. It's like when people try to compare the 1995 Pride and Prejudice mini-series to the 2005 movie. There is an argument to be made on the merits of both, but some forget the novel is the source and truest version.

I've also decided that I don't like Macfadyen with a beard, and he talks to much in the series. I want him to go back to the quiet and brooding Mr. Darcy from Pride & Prejudice (2005). Hayley Atwell is adorable. Period. The character of Charles Wilcox is a douche-canoe and both actors do him justice in this aspect. Even more-so in the 1992 version. And, lastly, I did not notice the overpowering background music problem that everyone claimed the mini-series had.

In conclusion, I recommend watching both. Like one or the other more, or like them equally, or like neither at all. Just give'em a watch.