Why Was "History Boys" So Good?- Page 2

[blaxx]

Posted: 5/1/07 at 2:06pm

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?!?!

Don't read too much into it. It comes from the same person who thinks Bombay Dreams is God's gift to musical theatre.

[bythesword84]

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

As much as I think the original cast was perfect, there has been a UK tour and a newer UK production and people love it just as much. The play can stand on its own very well.

[jochang621]

Posted: 5/1/07 at 2:12pm

It's interesting - I know of some people who enjoyed the movie better than the play. For myself, I haven't seen the movie yet so I can't say. But I thoroughly enjoyed the play - it was one of those plays that really stayed with me for a long time, and I couldn't get it out of my head for weeks afterwards. Only one other show has done that to me as well: Company.

Evidence that to each their own, I suppose.

[uncageg]

Posted: 5/1/07 at 2:22pm

The play was wonderful. I think what the movie lacked, at least for me, was what the play was really about. The two styles of teaching the boys. That was the big discussion when we left the theatre. It was addressed in the movie but just didn't seem to come across as well on screen as it did on the stage. Plus, the characters addressing the audience was missing, of course. Especially Ms. De la tour's hysterical line about her inner voice. It brought the house down the day I saw it. Still great perfomances in the movie, but it was lacking. And the ending was not as good. JMO

[muscle23ftl]

Posted: 5/1/07 at 2:31pm

"Don't read too much into it. It comes from the same person who thinks Bombay Dreams is God's gift to musical theatre"

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said that. Anyways, can you get over "me"? Everytime I say anything, you post the exact same thing. I have enjoyed other shows that lasted a lot less than Bombay Dreams, get a new line, loser.

Updated On: 5/1/07 at 02:31 PM

[little_fall_of_rain]

Posted: 5/1/07 at 2:31pm

I saw History Boys this past December in London and I didn't care for it either, for me I personally couldn't find anything to personally connect with. It just left me feeling empty at the end.

[Roscoe]

Posted: 5/1/07 at 3:34pm

Actually, yeah, I think we are supposed to feel a good deal of pity for Hector.

And it isn't a matter of not "getting" the play. Sure, I got it. What's not to get? It's perfectly clear and straightforward, and I just didn't give a damn about anyone or anything in it.

And that little dig about my being in some kind of extreme minority is just plain silly. As if being in the majority is supposed to be so great, as if popularity alone is some kind of criterion of success. By that standard, PHANTOM OF THE OPERA is the greatest work of theatre ever.

Updated On: 5/1/07 at 03:34 PM

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 5/1/07 at 3:41pm

Roscoe: You misunderstood me.

I didn't mean to imply that you didn't understand the play or had difficulty following it...I simply meant that some plays click or some people, and not others. There are PLENTY or works that mean something special to some people. The poignancy of the tale struck a real chord with me. I didn't mean to imply that you were lacking in brains...I just meant that it obviously didn't hit you in the gut like it hit me.

Not everyone will like everything.

And the "dig" about being in a minority wasn't a dig at all. I didn't attempt to sell the merits of the play off as "Well, everyone else liked it." You misunderstood me again. It wasn't a dig. I meant, basically, that just because it didn't make an impression on you doesn't mean that it didn't make a great impression on many, many other people. I didn't equate success with majority at all.

[Roscoe]

Posted: 5/1/07 at 4:06pm

Munk: if I misunderstood you it is because you didn't say what you meant. I stated clearly my problems with the play. There was no statement of "it's not everybody's cup of tea" in your response, there's just a statement that I'm in an "extreme minority." It is right there, go back and look.

If, as you claim, you actually meant to say that just because it didn't make an impression on me doesn't mean that it didn't make an impression on "many, many people" then you should have said so.

And of course, not everything is going to be to everybody's taste. People whose opinions I respect liked HISTORY BOYS very much.

Updated On: 5/1/07 at 04:06 PM

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 5/1/07 at 5:48pm

How did they handle the scene changes in the play? Did the set move on its own? or did they have the cast change it?

And I agree, I think you're suppose to feel for Hector.

[bythesword84]

Posted: 5/1/07 at 8:06pm

The cast rearranged the scenery while video clips and music played for the most part. Occasionally a narration or Posner's singing also was worked in as scene changing was happening

[uncageg]

Posted: 5/1/07 at 8:17pm

Maybe I wasn't paying full attention but I thought those wall moved on their own on tracks in the play.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 5/1/07 at 8:17pm

There was an energy on the stage that was not evident on film. Many of the scenes, especially the French hooker one, didn't translate well. The lack of subtitles worked in the show but didn't in the film.

The film also destroyed many of the brilliant elements of the show - the ones that were only talked about. We see Dakin trying to have sex with the secretary in the film, we see Hector trying to grope the students. Using our imagination made the show that much better.

Other awkwardness of the film: Posner's singing. A musical interlude for 5 minutes in a non-musical film?

PS - "I have not hitherto been allotted an inner voice" brought down the house when I saw it.

PPS - What made the play more interesting? Wondering if Richard Griffiths would be able to make it around the stage without collapsing. Wondering whether or not he'd snap (and yell at the audience for, say, letting their cell phones go off over and over) was a great element, as well.

[bythesword84]

Posted: 5/1/07 at 8:22pm

No, crew members pushed the walls and the boys moved all the desks/tables things like that. I promise you.

[mabel]

Posted: 5/1/07 at 8:52pm

A few things...

-Echoing bythesword, I saw the show several times and from different vantage points (the last row of the mezz and extreme side orchestra) you could definitely see people moving the flats.

-While I saw the play quite a few times (though nowhere near as many as bts!) I saw the movie once without much desire to go back, and while I did get the DVD, it was more for the bonus material. While it will be a nice souvenir to revisit occasionally, there's no way it'll be a favorite/go-to video as I would have expected.

-The movie lost SO much for me in the translation. I was given the screenplay from a friend who was vacationing in England well before the movie opened and I new it was going to be a huge disappointment before I even saw it. Not even taking into any consideration questionable directorial decisions that Roscoe suggested, I felt like the screenplay hacked the play to bits in a lot of places. I don't understand why they would add scenes/characters for the gym and art teachers, while having to sacrifice character development for the boys. I feel like if a scene wasn't removed entirely, in many cases, it was severely truncated (I feel like Scripps and Rudge suffered the most from the cuts).

-Definitely agree Yankeefan about the movie showing us Dakin with Fiona and the boys on the bike was a mistake. And de la Tour's "inner voice" line continually brought the house down. I know that the movie would inherently lose moments like that, but I feel like it also lost moments that didn't need to be sacrificed or missed.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 5/1/07 at 10:28pm

Roscoe: You should know well enough by now that I have absolutely always say what I mean and don't take it back.

So why would you say "as I CLAIM?" I'm not claiming anything. I'm TELLING you what I meant.

I don't care what you think of me, and I don't care if your annoyed at what I said. I wasn't changing my story. I'm telling you what I meant.

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 5/1/07 at 10:45pm

I wish they hadn't rushed this to film. Oh well. "Angels in America" is proof that plays can translate to film. I still have yet to see "Proof."

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 5/1/07 at 10:49pm

Plays can always translate to film.

Depends on the director, screenwriter, and the cast.

It's not that THE HISTORY BOYS can't translate well to film - the problem is, it starred a buch of stage actors and was directed by a stage director. It's bound to appear stagey.

[newsgoil]

Posted: 6/4/07 at 5:13pm

In response to whether it was the production that worked as opposed to the play, I saw the play in London back in April and was blown away. I'd read the play and screenplay many a time before, and I was actually prepared to find it mediocre, as all the reviews for the OBC seemed to favor that cast. But the production was amazing, especially Steven Webb as Posner...brilliantly, achingly well acted on his part. I actually became reluctant to see the movie becaue I didn't want that magic ruined. While the movie is a good way to revisit the play, it is certainly not of the same gut-wrenching calibre.