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

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.

---

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.

"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

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

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

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

---

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.

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.

---

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."

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.