Nicholas Hyntner: The History Boys (2006)

[Chris Knipp]

Nicholas Hytner: The History Boys

Brilliance and heart

Review by Chris Knipp

This is a smooth, lively, and vivid conversion of a play to film, but if it weren't it would still be essential viewing for anyone interested in England, contemporary theater, the study of history, secondary education, or gay experience, about all of which it has insightful, touching observations presented in a fast-moving and highly entertaining context. Posner (Samuel Barnett), the Jewish boy who's a late developer and at 17 or 18 has just achieved puberty, is partly the playwright Alan Bennett, but also Bennett's longtime collaborator Nicholas Hytner, who grew up Jewish but sang Christian songs, as Posner does. In his shyness Posner's contrasted with Dakin (Dominic Cooper), the good-looking boy, who through straight is willing to try gay with the young teacher he admires so much, Irwin (Stephen Campbell Moore), who's brought in to sharpen up the history class so they can get into Oxbridge colleges. Posner says, "I'm Jewish. I'm small. I'm homosexual. And I'm from Sheffield. I'm fucked," a speech that brings down the house on stage.

Hector, the magnificent and splendidly large Richard Griffiths, who fills the boys with poetry with no other purpose than to enhance their lives, is in contrast to the clever young Irwin. Irwin is a bit of a poseur who, in the play, later goes on to become a TV history commentator and then a government spin doctor, developments omitted in the film (as is Posner's sad outcome as an unemployed neurotic: in the film Posner's a repressed but successful teacher).

The History Boys' most charming and inimitable moments are those in which the boys speak as a kind of jagged chorus, both flirting with Irwin and "taking the piss" -- teasing him with the doctrines they've imbibed from Hector, or chiding Hector for breaking the rules but going right ahead with breaking them (Hector's hilarious "French lesson" is a brilliant set piece in this vein).

When, later on, Hector gets in trouble for "fiddling" with the boys on his motor bike it's suggested to the class that he's a fool. But we know the truth is far different, and more complex. We know that though Mrs. Lintott (the splendid Frances de la Tour) has grounded them in facts and Irwin has shown them how to turn ideas on their heads to charm bored Oxtridge exam readers, it's Hector who's given them a tool to deal with life. It's Hector, who breaks the rules and doesn't care, who's given the boys a love of learning for its own sake -- and for fun, not the "love of literature" or respect for the beauty of "words," but the mystery of art named in E.M. Foster's remark, "only what's seen sideways sinks deep." The boorish, homophobic headmaster (Clive Merrison) represents for Bennett modern educational bureaucrats who insist on "quantifying" learning, which in essence can't be, not in any of the bits that truly matter.

Apart from the smartness and wit everybody notices, this clear-sightedly polemical play/film is also intensely specific, touching, and human. But it's got none of the Dead Poets/Mr. Chips sentimentality about it.

The terrific cast of the film is precisely that of the London and New York play productions -- a cast Bennett as well as Hynter worked with -- who forged an esprit de corps and had the time of their lives. Griffiths, who won the Best Actor Tony during its triumphant Broadway run (while the play got Best Play), has acknowledged his as the role of a lifetime: the eight young actors who're so spirited and such a good ensemble may go on to other important things in their acting lives, one certainly hopes, but they won't forget this experience.

Nor after seeing the play three times and the film so far twice, will I.

The wise and witty Alan Bennett, whom a London friend called "a national treasure now," has put a lot of himself into the splendid play, both heart and mind, bummers and pains; it's a triumph, and it's great to have this fine, touching record of it on film. There's a little bit of Bennett in most of the boys, except perhaps for Dakin, who's more to be idolized.

Nothing could be better than the way the wit and repartee work on the stage, but the more emotional parts, Dakin's seduction of Irwin, Posner's confession to Irwin, Posner's private lesson on a Hardy poem with Hector, are even stronger in the film's close-ups. And by the way, seeing Dominic Cooper up close, we can tell he really is as good-looking as the play tells us he is, which from the last row one maybe didn't know for sure. The cast have got the right looks as well as the right lines.

Opens US November 21, 2006.

[mouton]

THE HISTORY BOYS
Written by Allan Bennett
Directed by Nicolas Hytner


These boys are tight. They would have to be after the amount of time and dedication they’ve given to Allan Bennett’s play, THE HISTORY BOYS, just recently released as a feature film, directed by Nicolas Hytner. This group of eight young actors originated their roles on the London stage and stayed with the success through the year long run. They then found themselves on stage together again in the Broadway production, which ran for almost another year. And now, these talented fellas find themselves on screen together, some two years after they first formed their gang. Theirs is a gang built on brilliance and banter. These young men have all performed so well that they are all within reach of admission to Oxford, an educational pinnacle that they all believe will set them up for life. They are on the edge of completing their studies; they are on the verge of discovering their true selves; they are on the cusp of their very own lives. The energy these boys feel pushing them forward is infectious and it makes for an exhilarating film experience. All they need to do now is put aside their confusions about sex, class and identity long enough to master their field of concentration, history. For mastering history ensures these boys a bright future.

The boys are not the only ones being schooled either. THE HISTORY BOYS offers the audience its own insights that make it a rich and provocative film. As the school these boys attend also has its own interests in seeing these boys make it into Oxford, they hire a coach of sorts to give them an edge. Irwin (Stephen Campbell Moore) must show these boys that understanding history is not just memorizing facts but rather exploring the era to see what these facts are covering for. They must then take these more rounded views and learn to spin them in a fashion that grabs the readers’ attention. In other words, they must learn the art of show. What they end up learning along the way is that, while sprinkling your arguments with little known nuggets of information might make for a more colorful debate, nothing speaks louder than an effective formulation of your own original thoughts. This is quite the challenge for these boys as speaking for themselves does not fall in line with always saying exactly what everyone wants to hear.

Pleasing other people and pleasing yourself is a difficult line to tow for the “history boys.” This is especially relevant when there are students and teachers on either side of the line. The boys pit new boy, Irwin, directly against their “general studies” teacher, Hector (Richard Griffiths, a Tony Award winner for this role). Between both supposed role models, the boys take turns trying to capture their teacher’s attention, and in some cases, affection. It is as though their existence and opinions are somewhat more valid if they are applauded by their authority figures. As we rarely see any of the boys’ parents, these two teachers are the closest things they’ve got. As the boys play their games with the teachers though, it is the teachers that unknowingly and unexpectedly end up addicted to the attention feigned upon them, as though being the central figure in these boys’ lives somehow means they have the same boundless futures ahead of them. Like their parents, the boys must come to terms with the humanity of their teachers. However, unlike the boys’ parents, the teachers must conceal these vulnerable sides of themselves in order to maintain authority and protect their own emotional investments. After all, when these boys graduate, they will leave their teachers behind them.

Aside from an obsession with fondling his students, Hector also has an obsession with the subjunctive. The theme runs throughout and forces the boys, the teachers and the audience to question the fragility of fact. History is most often summed up with facts but all of these could have been entirely different if there had been a slight alteration in the circumstances in which they took place. As these boys decide whether they will be the ones to make history or to react to it, THE HISTORY BOYS affirms that their futures, no matter how bright they might seem in the present, can give way to any number of possibilities caused by circumstance. And despite all the life the boys naturally exude, despite all of their seemingly boundless opportunities, one day in the not-so-distant-future, their lives will also be the subject of history.

[Chris Knipp]

i hope you enjoy it as much as I do. i think they're shooting for either Oxford or Cambridge--that's why I said Oxbridge--and Alan Bennett himself was at both, though his First in History was from Exeter College, Oxford. I wish you'd mentioned some of the boys specifrically, at least Dakin and Posner--I happen to like Rudge, the unpromising boy, who gets in anyway--a triumph of the common man. And of course as has been said many times before, everybody is so good it's hard to single out a few of the actors. When they say "one of the best things Bennett has done" I totally believe it,, though in this country unfortunately we haven't seen everything he's done. I hope everybody sees this.

[oscar jubis]

I've seen it. I have questions for you.

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
Irwin is a bit of a poseur who, in the play, later goes on to become a TV history commentator and then a government spin doctor, developments omitted in the film (as is Posner's sad outcome as an unemployed neurotic: in the film Posner's a repressed but successful teacher).

Are these changes necessary? beneficial? detrimental?
Here's J.R. Jones' (Chicago Reader) discussing changes in the screen adaptation:
The movie version of The History Boys closely follows the play, but for some reason Bennett has toned down Irwin's cynicism and deleted a narrative frame, set five years after the main action, that spells out the more sinister implications of his teaching. By then Irwin is confined to a wheelchair, but he's also a TV personality who hosts historical programs. Commenting on the toilet arrangements of a 12th-century monastery and tourists' disproportionate interest in them, he declares, "God is dead. Shit lives." In the play's opening scene he's shown coaching a group of British MPs on how to sell a new crime bill that will limit the right to trial by jury and eliminate the presumption of innocence. Just as he did with the boys, Irwin urges them to turn the popular argument on its head, to redefine freedom as the ability to walk the streets safely: "Paradox works well and mists up the windows, which is handy. `The loss of liberty is the price we pay for freedom' type thing. School. That's all it is." His lesson has been learned all too well.

Comments?

[Chris Knipp]

Sorry, Oscar--I wrote a reply to this but somehnow lost it. The answer is: Jones is right and more specific than I in his description of the things cut out specifically about Irwin. Why were they cut out? You would have to ask Hytner and Bennett to explain. But here are some possible reasons:

1. The shifts in time are easier to convey clearly on stage than in a film.

2. H and B felt they didn't work entirely onj stage, so cut them out.

3. They sought to simplify the play for the film version, and this was an obvious complication. They had to cut the running time and this was an obious place to cut.

4. Why simplify? Perhaps to reach a wider audience. I'd say the Broadway audience of The History Boys was a quite sophisticated one--they didn't miss a thing--not the tourists in for The Lion King--a movie audience is more mainstream.

I do not think the changes are in any way detrimental. But the fuller version conveys more of Bennett's criticisms of TV history commentators, sound bite queens, and political spin doctors, which Irwin comes to represent.

The change in Posner's future can only be an effort to sweeten the story. Since Bennett is in part Posner, this is a complicated issue. Bennett certainly has had a glittering career, and he was blessed in late middle age with finding a life partner. Why should he make Posner a lonely neurotic on putlic assistance? But then again, why not? These are choices artists make--it's a plastic art.

I look forward to seeing the movie again. Since I saw the play three times and read the play, the movie isn't as clearly in my head. My impression was, that this film works very well the way it is.

From the trailers, the less talented boy (I forget his name at the moment) is asked what history is and he replies "IT'S JUST ONE BLOODY THING AFTER ANOTHER."

In the play, I distinctly remember that he says, 'IT'S JUST ONE FUCKING THING AFTER ANOTHER.." That makes sense out of his preceding line, "May I speak frankly, Miss?" So the movie tones down the play, as well as simplyfiying it. To my mind, this is pretty smart, quick talk, all through, and it makes sence that a movie version had to be streamlined and simplified to reach a more mainstream audience. And since the movie has been showing at the big cineplex of the Regal Union Square in NYC, certainly no art house, it is being directed to a more mainstream audience, even if not in the widest possible range of markets.

[oscar jubis]

Thanks very much for your response.

That "Bennett is in part Posner" resonates with me in that he's the one boy I got to care about. As a matter of fact, I can say that I found the characters who are gay (or are probably gay) more interesting than the characters who are not gay (or probably not gay).

One issue I'm pondering is whether the play (and the film) has to be set in 1983. I know the play opened in London in 2004, so it's recent. The content does not appear to be intimately related to the early 80s. It seems to me like it could have easily been adapted to the present. That'd be one way to make it more accessible, hence more mainstream. I'm just thinking aloud, so to speak. Some of Irwin's lines made me think of the protagonist of Thank You For Smoking discussing "truth" and "spin". The argument of learning for its own sake vs. quantifiable education was perhaps fresher in 1983 since now it can be said that the latter "won". There are significantly fewer Hectors and more Irwins around than 23 years ago. So maybe The History Boys must take place in 1983.

In this day and age, any semblance of literacy, high culture and wit must be appreciated. The film delivers those goods and I enjoyed it. But I'd be lying if I said I cared whether these boys get into Oxbridge or not. I didn't care if Dakin has sex with the secretary or with Irwin or with both. And those group scenes in which a teacher asks or says something and the boys take turns delivering rapid, perfectly-timed witticisms belong on-stage. Or perhaps, as one critic says, several of the boys' performances are "over-rehearsed". By the way, I thought it was very interesting how several boys appeared more psychologically mature than Hector and Irwin. Nothing wrong with that though. Overall, I found the film well worth-seeing but not nearly as accomplished or remarkable as you did.

[Chris Knipp]

Funny what you say about the characters who are not gay--but I don't agree with you, and if I did, it wouldn't be a very successful play. In the play, a lot of people are gay or almost gay, even the heterosexual seducer Dakin; this is Bennett's strong bias as a gay writer. But the straight characters have a lot to say for themselves too; I don't see your distinction or think it's necessary. Homosexuality is obviously a strong theme in the movie and play, but not the only important one.
One issue I'm pondering is whether the play (and the film) has to be set in 1983. I know the play opened in London in 2004, so it's recent. The content does not appear to be intimately related to the early 80s. It seems to me like it could have easily been adapted to the present.Your best bet would be to read Bennett's introduction to the play, which goes into this in detail. He really doesn't mean the play to be strictly grounded in any moment, but he couldn't set it in the present day because the way boys took exams at the college they wanted to go to is no longer a practice, and back in the early Eighties it was.
The argument of learning for its own sake vs. quantifiable education was perhaps fresher in 1983 since now it can be said that the latter "won". A grim but if you'll forgire me for saying so also rather glib generalization. This is an eternal issue, not something that is going to be decided or "won." I'm sorry you don't feel that you can appreciate wit and intelligent conversation as much as I do; that's just something about how we differ, I guess -- it's also more a British thing (not that I'm British; but I have strong ties with British culture). I'm not alone, or this play would not have been such a big success not only with the Tony Award jury but with the playgoing public in New York during a successful run. Intelligence and wit are not going out of style, and neither is a sense of the value of learning for its own sake -- which, again, is an issue that has always gone on; in the post-medieval period, it was the "Battle of the Ancients and the Moderns." It never dies, and is never "won."


--
www.chrisknipp.com

[Chris Knipp]

Witty repartee is more of a theatrical device than a filmic one. But I've tried already to explain why I think this movie is worthwhile regardless of the ways in which more than anything else it's simply the record of a good play.

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
But the straight characters have a lot to say for themselves too; I don't see your distinction or think it's necessary.

The straight characters have their lines, but the three characters I found compelling and worth caring about were Posner, Hector and Irwin. That's not by design; that's not an analysis; that's my own reaction to this dramatic material. The distinction is necessary in that it describes my experience with the material.

A grim but if you'll forgire me for saying so also rather glib generalization. This is an eternal issue, not something that is going to be decided or "won."

A number of policies at both the national and state level require measuring learning and the capacity to teach via tests. Most of these policies were passed and implemented during the 90s and the current decade. Like I said before, there are significantly more Irwins and significantly less Hectors now than back in 1983. Polls show that kids entering higher education now are significantly more concerned with increasing their earning potential than gaining knowledge or being intellectually stimulated. I understand that this debate isn't over, it's perhaps eternal, but the trend towards "quantifiable education" over the past 20 years or so is undeniable.

I'm sorry you don't feel that you can appreciate wit and intelligent conversation as much as I do; that's just something about how we differ, I guess -- it's also more a British thing

My post reads as follows:
In this day and age, any semblance of literacy, high culture and wit must be appreciated. The film delivers those goods and I enjoyed it.
If you think I "don't appreciate wit and intelligent conversation as much as" you do, I think it's honest of you to say so. As for myself, I don't have a way to measure your appreciation of these things.

[Chris Knipp]

Okay but the young man who is planning to become a wrier and who sings duos with Posner is also quite important, and obviously represents a part of Alan Bennett, and is straight. He is one of the important boys.

There may be more Irwins and fewer Hectors, as you put it, but as you acknowledge this time, that hardly makes this a dead issue. Events do not determine what the issues are, and some issues are pretty much eternal, as, again, you acknowledge this time. This is one of them. As I said, "The Ancients and the Moderns." What you are saying has happened only makes Bennett's discussion of the issues more relevant and important.

Sorry I misread you on high culture and wit, if you do love them. Somehow the feeling you left me with was that thw presence in abundance of those things in The History Boys wasn't quite enough to make the movie seem really important to you. For me it's unquestionably one of the year's best, because this content seems almost as important to me as Brokeback Mountain did last year. So that's what led me to interpret your feelings that way. If I'm wrong, so much the better.