THE HISTORY BOYS movie

[daspazoo]

Posted: 4/23/07 at 1:17pm

Having missed seeing the stage version, I promptly bought HISTORY BOYS on DVD and watched it last night with a friend.

We both ADORED the film and found ourselves completely enchanted by the story and performances.

My question is: How different is it from the stage version? Opinions welcome as well as what was cut/changed for the screen version.

Again, can't speak for the adaptation, but found the movie a delight on it's own terms, and plan on showing it to many more friends in the near future.

[skingdom]

Posted: 4/23/07 at 1:19pm

... is hot...

skingdom out.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 4/23/07 at 1:23pm

I thought the film adaptation (which I finally got around to watching yesterday) was unwatchable. What worked on stage didn't translate well, at all.

To answer one of your questions, one of the things that made the stage play so unique was the use of music video-like transitions. Whenever there was a scene change, a video would play showing some kind of action that took place during the change. An upbeat 80s song would accompany it.

Posner's singing, which worked very well on stage, was completely out of place in the film, IMO. Updated On: 4/23/07 at 01:23 PM

[Kevinoes]

Posted: 4/23/07 at 1:40pm

I didn't see the stage version, much to my dismay, and I found myself loving the film and the cast. I'll be honest I had some trouble trying to read through it last fall...something to be worked on, I guess. But I still managed to love the film Alan Bennet's ideas about history and education. I first saw it 2 months ago at a film festival and the packed audience LOVED it. I saw it with my mom and I think she especially appreciated it because she is a teacher. Even I came to understand much of what the faculty in the film deals with having seen what my mother has dealt with over the years.

As for what didn't transfer well from stage to screen, I obviously have no comparison. I thought the songs/endings worked well and the way the "Bewitched" sequence was shot and captured each character's reaction was immensely funny. Maybe the "endings" were a bit strange to watch, but that could be part of Hector's character coming through in the lessons.

[KJisgroovy]

Posted: 4/23/07 at 1:45pm

Maybe the film was a little dry... and certainly not theatrical at all... and lacking any visual flair... but "unwatchable"? The script is well adapted and the acting is still top notch... there are a lot of accurate criticisms you could level at the film... but unwatchable does not seem fair.

[Weez]

Posted: 4/23/07 at 1:49pm

The film is nice enough to own, especially as it's the original cast, but it's better to watch it before seeing the stage version (should you get the chance). I was surprised and pleased at how dynamic and engaging the stage version is, and don't know if I really want to see the film again now I've seen it on stage. ^_^

[bythesword84]

Posted: 4/23/07 at 2:29pm

(SPOILER alert for anyone who cares)
Some of what was cut/changed from the play to the film:
-The play did not have an art teacher or a gym teacher so any of those scenes were not in it
-The character of Scripps had a much larger role in the play where he served as more or less a narrator with several asides/explanations to the audience, particularly in between scenes.
-Fiona never appeared on stage, she only appeared in one of the video clips that was shown during a scene change (and set to Alison Moyet's "Weak in the Presence of Beauty") and otherwise she was referred to by Dakin without being an actual present character
-Hector was seen not by the "lollipop lady" as in the movie, he was seen by the Headmaster's wife who was working at a charity shop and saw him through the window.
-As someone already mentioned there was more singing in the play, such as instead of them singing "Wish Me Luck as You Wave Me Goodbye" when they were in the vans driving away, it was done as them performing it for the teachers before they went off. Also done at one point or another was a hymn by Posner and Scripps, and "Sing as We Go".
-There was a scene at the beginning of Act I and then at the beginning of Act II which were flash forward scenes, giving a glimpse of where they were (mostly where Irwin was) years ahead. For example, in the very first scene of the play we see Irwin in a wheelchair discussing politics then there was a scene change and we started with the classroom scene. They never showed the boys getting their A-Level results, it began with their return to the classroom. At the start of Act II, we saw Irwin filming a TV special on one the history of one of his Abbeys, and an encounter he had with Posner.
-That second forward scene was important because its absence resulted in the changing of the ending of the play for the movie. At the end of the play Lockwood becomes a magistrate, in the movie he dies while in the Army. Also, in the play Posner's ending is much sadder. He lives alone in a house he built, has periodic breakdowns, keeps tabs on everyone he went to school with, remembers absolutely everything he was taught, and only has friends on the internet, and none in his right name or gender.
-Also, naturally there's a different soundtrack to the movie. The play had songs like Goody Two Shoes, Weak in the Presence of Beauty, Rio, and Money for Nothing.

I hope that helps. In my opinion the play was far superior to the film but I always favor the play over the movie of things. Still the cast was brilliant either way and I always tell people who didn't see the play to see the movie.

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 4/23/07 at 2:37pm

I was wondering when you were going to show up!

[NJgirl]

Posted: 4/23/07 at 2:52pm

The play was brilliant and I really enjoyed it. I watched the movie this weekend and enjoyed it...but the changes bothered me. I think overall they did a good job on the film, but the broadway version was far superior. I missed the "music video" trasitions alot. I will say I still laughed hard at the headmaster barging in during the "french" section....glad to see that part remained very true to the stage.

[bythesword84]

Posted: 4/23/07 at 3:31pm

DJ if I didn't show up on this topic, the world would be in shock.


I do agree with NJgirl, I missed the music video transitions as well but some things just don't translate. I also missed Scripps being a bigger role but the transition of those narrations would have been awkward at best and from what I understand they filmed it with the narrations as directly addressing the camera but decided it didn't work.

[muscle23ftl]

Posted: 5/26/07 at 10:28am

Ok, it seems odd the scene when the gay boy sings a love song to the "hot" guy in the class and he seems to be out to all his male-classmates and openly in love with another student, and pretends to be a femme fatal-type cabaret singer.
Yet, the film seems to work better than the play. Well, I must admit I couldn't hear very well the dialogues at the theatre, so between that and the British accent, I missed a lot.

[EverythingIsRENT]

Posted: 5/26/07 at 11:22am

I tried watching this and couldnt get into it at all. It felt about an hour too long.

[muscle23ftl]

Posted: 5/26/07 at 7:30pm

So boring!
I liked the movie better than the live version, but I disliked both, that teacher molesting these little boys, and the headmaster molesting the girl, ugh.
All these guys so open minded about sleeping with other boys, just not very realistic.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 5/26/07 at 8:09pm

It has nothing to do with sex. It has nothing to do with molestation. It has nothing to do with boys sleeping with boys.

Unfortunately, it went RIGHT over your head. You just don't get it.

[SDav 10495]

Posted: 5/26/07 at 8:10pm

All these guys so open minded about sleeping with other boys, just not very realistic.

I remember reading some discussions on IMDb (I know, sorry) around the time of the film's release, and I recall some interesting posts by Britons who made the point that homoeroticism has traditionally been a somewhat more accepted aspect of the culture over there, particularly in boys' schools, than it has been here...something to the effect that "phases" of homosexuality, as Posner puts it, are more common or open among English boys. (I also recall some discussion about friendly Hector-esque gropes being more common as well...) I personally can't attest to how true any of that is--to be honest, the groping bit makes me raise an eyebrow--but it seems to make sense, at least given this country's fervently religious population compared to England's.

ETA: And, what munk said.

As for the film itself, I own it and enjoy it immensely, though I never had the good fortune of getting to the stage production. I can see how it works better on stage though, having read the text and listened to the BBC broadcast (which is terrific aside from the robotic Irwin in place of Stephen Campbell Moore). Still, it's a movie I would recommend--no matter how flawed its translation to the screen, the material is as thought-provoking as ever and the performances are fantastic across the board.

Updated On: 5/26/07 at 08:10 PM

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 5/26/07 at 8:12pm

It has nothing to do with sex!

The boys loved Hector so damn much that they were willing to sort of deal with the issue because he changed all of their lives, in one way or another.

[SDav 10495]

Posted: 5/26/07 at 8:16pm

Ha, trust me, I know that. I was just addressing muscle's comment that it wasn't "realistic" because apparently, it is.

[bythesword84]

Posted: 5/26/07 at 8:40pm

The amount of times I've tried to explain the "its not about sex" notion to people is absurd, and they never seem to get it. I find it disappointing how many people get hung up on it without actually understanding whats going on.

[Sondheim Geek]

Posted: 5/26/07 at 8:48pm

I liked the movie... I didn't think it was fantastic by any means, but I thought it worked well enough. The stage play, on the other hand, was AMAZING. You can not express my love for that play well enough. However, the movie didn't translate as well the correct emotions, and, although the original cast was fabulous, I couldn't stand this Irwin..

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 5/26/07 at 9:04pm

[HeyMrMusic]

Posted: 5/26/07 at 10:52pm

I did enjoy the movie, but it felt a little light-hearted to me. I remember the play being much more serious. There was so much tension in that theatre. I didn't feel that at all while watching the movie. I think the movie's easier to swallow, but the play was much richer. The sap in me liked the happier ending, but the purist in me didn't really like it. It's an internal battle with me. But I'd recommend the movie, especially if one didn't get around to seeing the stage production.

~Steven

[simon_wilkie]

Posted: 5/27/07 at 6:05pm

I didn't get to see the stage production, even though it's toured near me and I've been in London a couple of times whilst the revival has been playing- just a poor student's life!

However, I couldn't wait for the film to come out, especially since Alan Bennett is the best British writer alive today (IMO). His observations about life, philosophy, love, education, behavior etc. are so accurate and disturbing in their frankness in everything that he writes. The History Boys is not exception. The film is not good as a film in a typical sense- I felt it more like an experience, or a lecture. It took my breath away from start to finish.

The acting was second to none- especially Richard Griffiths (who should have been nominated for an Oscar IMO and won the BAFTA!) and Frances de la Tour. I felt a lump in my throat in the Drummer Hodge scene and the memorial service; which is very rare for me in a film.

I can see how people may not like it if they had seen the stage production (from the reviews and clips it seems remarkable); and I can also see if people are not interested in the more intellectual ideas that it deals with and see it simply as about sex then I also accept that it is not your cup of tea. However, the comedy is second to none, as only Bennett knows how and I have watched it numerous times since it was released on DVD and still don't tire of watching it.

S.