Why Was "History Boys" So Good?

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 5/1/07 at 12:50am

After watching the movie - my only outlet to the play - I was left a little detached. I didn't really feel anything for the movie. I watched the extras, and watched the video diary. I don't why this show is SO BIG around the world? What made it such a sell-out hit on Broadway? Does it play better on stage? I'm not saying I hated it, because, trust me, I don't. I don't know how I feel towards it. There were some beautiful passages in the movie, but most of the time I was just kind of bored. What made the play such a big hyped up hit? Or what to you, made the show so entertaining?

[B3TA07]

Posted: 5/1/07 at 12:51am

The hot Brits

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 5/1/07 at 12:54am

Brillant input.


And they say we're dumbing down Broadway...ha.

[B3TA07]

Posted: 5/1/07 at 12:55am

I never saw it.

But I read the libretto in bed. :)

[StickToPriest]

Posted: 5/1/07 at 12:55am

I had the same reaction as you when I saw the movie. Though it wasn't bad, it wasn't great. I wish I had seen the play so I knew what made the play apparently so amazing.

[StickToPriest]

Posted: 5/1/07 at 12:55am

...

Updated On: 5/1/07 at 12:55 AM

[juice23]

Posted: 5/1/07 at 12:59am

I kind of agree. I bought the movie after reading all the wonderful things, and just didn't know what to make of it. I feel like there was a lack of character development, bc in the last scene when we find what they all go on to become... I knew I should have cared more about their futures.

I liked most of the movie, and as mentioned- some parts were beautiful, touching, and funny. The cinematography was very nice and the acting was terrific. I just thought SOMETHING was missing...

[bythesword84]

Posted: 5/1/07 at 1:23am

Since I saw the play 24 times I figure I should probably stick my head into this conversation.

First of all, let me say, that if I saw the movie first I would probably be asking a similar question. I love the movie but it cannot even compare to how good the play was. In my opinion the primary reason to watch the movie is because I can't watch the play anymore and I want to see those amazing performances over and over again. To have the film as a way of preserving the performances given by those actors is something I am very thankful to have.

Second, I found (and some people are sure to disagree with me) that the ending of the movie is not as fulfilling as the end of the play, in regards to Posner. I'm not going to go into the differences between the play and the movie here in detail because I recently did explain most of them in another thread you could search for if you'd like.

Moving on, the chemistry between the boys on the stage was so vibrant you could feel it no matter where you were sitting. From the first scene they were in (in which they are giving the French names for the garments Hector is wearing) you were drawn in, they were magnetic. I can honestly say I would have a very difficult time seeing this play with any other cast.

It was engaging in other ways as well, you don't see it in the movie but throughout the play the actors would directly address the audience. This was particularly the case for Scripps, whose narration gave his character much more depth than I think comes across in the movie.

There is not a character in the play/movie which is perfect. They are all flawed in their own way but flawed in a way which does not make them unlikable. The balance between Hector and Irwin in the play is much different from in the film, especially because they have a scene of direct confrontation concerning the "gobbets" Hector teaches the boys.

If you ask me, the thing that is most missing in the movie is that it isn't the play. After seeing the play I could never hear Bye Bye Blackbird without feeling sad. By the time it ended I was so emotionally invested in the boys (more so than the adults although I loved them as well) that if they hadn't told me about their futures I would have been upset.

To go along with this though, I have spent the better part of my academic career studying history, and while I cannot say that I knew people who were exactly like the characters in the play every time I see the scene where they discuss "can you discuss the Holocaust?" I could swear to you that it was taken directly out of classes I have been in. I admit that for me the History Boys concerns everything I love: history, education, and england, but I will always love the play more than the film. I saw every incarnation of the Broadway cast (meaning when Frances, Richard, and Clive were out at various points, I saw their replacements) and nothing touched the original cast.

I doubt that this could help at all, but every time I went there were new layers to the characters and to the play itself which I became more drawn to. I do think the play was more engaging, and that it did play better there. If there'd been a way to include some of the cut scenes for the movie I am sure they would have done it. That said, if the play opened again tomorrow with a cast I liked I am sure I'd be one of the first people there.

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 5/1/07 at 1:25am

I only liked the Dakin/Posner stuff and the Dakin/Irwin scenes. Everything else I could have done without. I was bored to tears by most of the film. I don't know what made it so brilliant on stage... the transitions apparently, from what I've read. Sure, the performances were great, but the material was just all foreplay with no payoff. I hope it was better on stage.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 5/1/07 at 1:29am

You had to be there.

[DRSisLove]

Posted: 5/1/07 at 1:37am

The acting.
The book.
The set.
The music.

It was pure bliss.

[bythesword84]

Posted: 5/1/07 at 1:40am

Well the transitions in the play were amazing, as was the music and the video clips used during them. It made it flow incredibly well. I do prefer the songs used in the play to the film's soundtrack, and I miss the added musical bits sung by the boys in the play.

[StickToPriest]

Posted: 5/1/07 at 1:42am

Well, I guess the film really should just be viewed as a supplement to the play. Because, having not seen the play, I left the movie thinking, "That's it? That's what all the fuss was about?"

[muscle23ftl]

Posted: 5/1/07 at 1:49am

The History Boys was terrible. That play put me to sleep, and my best friend from the board had the exact same reaction. Snooze fest. The guys were hot though.

[bythesword84]

Posted: 5/1/07 at 2:10am

Priest, you're pretty correct there. On the DVD extras at one point Richard Giffiths says (Im paraphrasing) 'If you see the play and you see the movie you're seeing two different creatures.' and that is 100% true.

[Effie]

Posted: 5/1/07 at 6:11am

The most important reason the movie didn't work is because they didn't film the play. They filmed a truncated, dumbed down version of the play.

Plus, we should know by now that what works on stage doesn't necessarily work on film.

[Wanna Be A Foster]

Posted: 5/1/07 at 6:25am

THE HISTORY BOYS was so good because it was smart and honest. The acting, the writing, the direction, the transitions; every aspect was completely real.

There is a reason why plays are performed live on a stage and movies are filmed for the screen. If they were one and the same, a lot of time and money would be saved and there would be no reason for one over the other.

[FOAnatic]

Posted: 5/1/07 at 7:23am

The History Boys was terrible. That play put me to sleep, and my best friend from the board had the exact same reaction. Snooze fest. The guys were hot though.

Ummm...WHAT?!?!

[Roscoe]

Posted: 5/1/07 at 7:29am

I'm not convinced that HISTORY BOYS was any good at all really. I sat through the play, deeply disappointed by it. I'd been expecting a serious thoughtful comedy and instead got a vaguely interesting series of conversations that were interrupted by moving pieces of scenery and projected video clips intended to cover up the scene changes. I thought the movie might be less of an annoyance, and rented the DVD, but found it if anything even more of a pain to watch than the play. Nicholas Hytner seems to have mastered the art of Putting The Camera In Exactly The Wrong Place, evidently after having watched CHICAGO several times.

I didn't give a damn about any of the characters, including the saintly student-groper Hector. I said it then, I'll say it now: I'm not going to feel too much pity for a guy who gropes students, of either sex, on a motorcycle, every day, in broad daylight, on public streets, and then loses his job.

[StickToPriest]

Posted: 5/1/07 at 8:28am

I completely agree with your last sentence, Roscoe. I felt the same way.

[MasterLcZ]

Posted: 5/1/07 at 8:53am

I had a hard time imagining Richard Griffiths being able to get his arm around his back far enough to fondle anybody (and on a motorbike no less).

And there were moments when I kept expecting the wheezing actor to have an on-stage coronary.

Updated On: 5/1/07 at 08:53 AM

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 5/1/07 at 11:56am

You're not supposed to necessarily feel pity for Hector.

Clearly you just don't get the play - but you must realize that you're in the extreme minority.

[Magdalene]

Posted: 5/1/07 at 12:45pm

I'm sorry you feel that way about the movie, but the play was excellent---it's apples and oranges comparing live theater to a movie.

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 5/1/07 at 1:57pm

Well, I guess my question now is, was it a great play or a great production? It doesn't seem like the script itself would hold up as well without this cast, or maybe it's because this cast has put such a gigantic stamp on the play? It seems to me that a lot of plays are called "great" "brillant" because of a single production, but then you actually go and read them, and they're not so great. (I.E. Dinner With Friends).

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 5/1/07 at 2:00pm

It was a perfect marriage of all aspects.

Sure, the fantastic production didn't hurt - but I read the play before I ever saw it and I was just blown away.

Brilliant, brilliant play.