Reading vs Watching: The History Boys

[theatahguy]

Reading vs Watching: The History Boys#0

Posted: 6/2/06 at 4:20pm

Hoping someone can help me understand. I bought, read & re-read the script for The History Boys. While I thought it was a good read, there was nothing I found outstanding about it, certainly not worthy of the praise it's been getting around here and everywhere else.

Which makes me wonder, what is gained in the translation from page to stage?

Same thing happened to me with Doubt. Wasnt ever able to see it, but i didnt think it was terribly special just reading it. But I've read many others (for instance, Virginia Woolf, The Crucible, Wit, everything by David Lindsay-Abaire, just to name a few) that I was totally immersed in just by reading them, without having to have seen a production.

What makes History Boys (and/or Doubt) so special that I'm not getting?

Thanks!!

[Yankeefan007]

re: Reading vs Watching: The History Boys#1

Posted: 6/2/06 at 4:21pm

They're better on stage. Much.

[Caroline-Q-or-TBoo]

re: Reading vs Watching: The History Boys#2

Posted: 6/2/06 at 4:27pm

On the page, it's a great read but very muddled and wordy.

i can only imagine how awesome it is onstage!

"Picture "The View," with the wisecracking, sympathetic sweethearts of that ABC television show replaced by a panel of embittered, suffering or enraged Arab women" -the Times review of Black Eyed

[theatahguy]

re: Reading vs Watching: The History Boys#3

Posted: 6/2/06 at 4:27pm

LOL I figured that, but why/how?

[Caroline-Q-or-TBoo]

re: Reading vs Watching: The History Boys#4

Posted: 6/2/06 at 4:30pm

i assume it's that hearing actors speak the words, with context makes things clearer. not to mention there are sets, lighting, accents, situations, you get a MUCH more clear picture of everything when you see it, i think.

bottom line- i don't really know. I disagreed with your point. I loved it in book form and found it entirely moving and powerful and funny. I'm just blabbering

"Picture "The View," with the wisecracking, sympathetic sweethearts of that ABC television show replaced by a panel of embittered, suffering or enraged Arab women" -the Times review of Black Eyed

[little_sally]

re: Reading vs Watching: The History Boys#5

Posted: 6/2/06 at 5:09pm

I feel the same exact way, especially with Doubt. I read Doubt this winter and thought, "Eh, whatever. It's okay. I don't see what the hype is all about." but I bet watching it adds to the experience.

A little swash, a bit of buckle - you'll love it more than bread.

[Caroline-Q-or-TBoo]

re: Reading vs Watching: The History Boys#6

Posted: 6/2/06 at 5:11pm

Did you see Defiance, Sally?

that's a flipped example. I read the play and thought it was deep and interesting et al, and than I went to see the play and was totally underwhelmed. it was sorta funny, though.

"Picture "The View," with the wisecracking, sympathetic sweethearts of that ABC television show replaced by a panel of embittered, suffering or enraged Arab women" -the Times review of Black Eyed

[little_sally]

re: Reading vs Watching: The History Boys#7

Posted: 6/2/06 at 5:15pm

No, I didn't see Defiance. But I thought reading Take Me Out was a better experience (for me anyway) than seeing it.

A little swash, a bit of buckle - you'll love it more than bread.

[Caroline-Q-or-TBoo]

re: Reading vs Watching: The History Boys#8

Posted: 6/2/06 at 5:18pm

I'm the other way on Take Me Out.

But usually, Richard Greenburgs play's are like that for me. They are great on paper, but seem stiff and weird onstage. Take Me Out excluded

"Picture "The View," with the wisecracking, sympathetic sweethearts of that ABC television show replaced by a panel of embittered, suffering or enraged Arab women" -the Times review of Black Eyed