History Boys - disappointing play, a must-see anyway — Page 2

I was so disappointed with History Boys that I went out and bought the script the next day and I am taking my mom to see it in a few weeks. Grrr. :-P

I dunno, I find it even harder to believe that the man who lost the presidency is the one who became the president...

The only aspect of the play that I found to be questionable was that a man of Hector's size could physically ride a motorcycle. Don't those things have weight limits?



But serious, in all fairness to the original poster, I can absolutely see why someone might be disappointed in this play. It's not as clear cut as something like DOUBT or THE PILLOWMAN, or even ANGELS IN AMERICA, TAKE ME OUT, I AM MY OWN WIFE, PROOF, or any other more contemporary, critically-acclaimed plays. When you hear so much about a given work (rave reviews, a handfull of awards), it raises your level of expectation to an almost unnatural level, which almost always leaves room for disappointment.

I disagree, of course, but I can see where you're coming from.

---

I saw The History Boys this evening, and to me it was just OK. I liked the fact that both of the main characters made good points. And as someone who taught English to high-schoolers and younger university students for a few years, I thought the impromptu French role-playing scene was quite accurate (based on my own experiences).

Still, I didn't really care what happened to any of the kids -- there were too many of them and they were too sketchily drawn, despite the many talented actors. Their success or failure at getting into Oxford/Cambridge never mattered to me. Their being truly moved by poetry, becoming good test-takers, bull****ters, whatever -- it all left me indifferent.

Also, I felt like the female teacher's brief attack on the male's role in history was pandering to those who, despite great evidence to the contrary, actually think there's a significant difference in morality based on sex. Her speech seemed designed to get the cheap applause it in fact received, and it struck me as especially unconvincing given that Maggie Thatcher's name came up at least once in the play, if I'm remembering correctly.

Finally, it seems very poor stagecraft when, throughout at least 4 or 5 scenes, many audience members can see the prop guys standing just behind the on-stage walls, poised to move them when the lights dim.

Now that a few day have gone by, the play seems even less worthy of praise.
One thing that I am curious about - why do you think that so many of the audience members applauded after Posner sang Bewitched?

History Boys is not a musical. This is the equivalent of applauding the actress who plays Ophelia in Hamlet after she sings in character. How easily distracted from the play which is supposed to be so engrossing.

For my money, you can't mention History Boys and The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie in the same breath. Brodie was so memorable on stage and screen because the main character was truly complex and her relationships with students and other staff members was so believable. Unlike the Boys.

I know that it's somewhat pointless on this board to keep finding flaws with this play - the mention of Hector's wife, the bit about the alleged anti-Semitism in Irwin's remark - things that could have become interesting if they were actually examined with any depth.

I would appreciate it if someone who liked this play would let me know if you think this is a perfect work or one that you admired but could have been better in some way. Thanks.

You seem to want to remain inflexible in your opinion, so I'm not sure what you hope to get out of further discussion. But nevertheless...

What I got out of the performance of "Bewitched" is this. It begins as a bit of teasing. Scripps is having fun with Posner's crush on Dakin, and launches into the song, goading Posner. Posner then joins in, seeming to have some fun with it himself. It turns comic when Posner locks eyes with Dakin, which is a particularly gleeful moment. But the end of Samuel Barnett's delivery of the number is completely committed, and touching, illustrating Posner's loneliness and confusion, which marks what he is to become in the future. Ben Brantley talks a bit about the number today, in his piece in the Arts & Leisure about the lonely undercurrent running through the British and Irish imports on Broadway this season. I believe the audience applauds it, because the number runs a gamut of moods and emotions, and what starts as a camp moment, becomes utterly sincere.

I'm not sure how the mention of Hector's wife is a "flaw". Early on, Mrs. Lintott refers to Hector's "unexpected" wife, a covert mention of Hector's latent homosexuality. It's not a flaw, it's a bit of illuminating detail.

The section about Irwin's teaching about the Holocaust is one of Bennett's points. At what point do recent events move from being too recent to the point where the causes and reasons for that event can be talked about abstractly, as "history". It strikes too close for Posner and his family, and Irwin concludes perhaps it's still too soon to talk about the Holocaust in abstract terms, but some day, it won't be. It's not necessarily something that occupies a lot of stage time, but it's a point that Bennett leaves you to consider...and substitute the Holocaust with 9/11 and you have the same thing going on right now between the City of New York and the victims' families.

As to whether The History Boys is a "perfect" work... very few things qualify to my mind as perfect. The History Boys probably spills out all over the place too much to be a "perfect" play. But I think it's one of the finest plays the modern theatre has produced in my years of theatergoing.

---

Updated On: 6/4/06 at 07:17 AM

oldfashionedboy,

I completely agree with your opinion. And the sexual intention between teachers and students not only disgusts me but also confuses me because I cannot figure out what this is related to the theme.

Everyone has his own moral bottom line.