The History Boys
|
List Price: Our Price: $3.64 You Save: $11.34 (76%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $0.93 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
Canada
Movie Reviews of The History Boys
Movie Review: Gets it just about right
Summary: 5 Stars
I did the "Oxbridge term" at exactly the same time as "The History Boys," the fall of 1983. I chose instead to accept a scholarship to an American university that I won halfway through the Oxbridge term. I've lived in America ever since, but my first 19 years was in England, and I can relate to this movie.
Some explanations are in order, because some cultural things are hard on American audiences. Someone once famously observed that we're two nations divided by a common language.
"The History Boys" is not set at a boarding school; it's a grammar school, and it's a second-tier grammar school. In the pecking order back then, you'd have had your British public (but actually private) schools, then your grammar schools led (as the movie mentions) by the likes of Manchester Grammar. Then you'd have the grammar schools like the one in the movie and it would, for these boys, have been a heck of an opportunity (if you buy into the whole Oxford & Cambridge thing, which obviously I didn't) and a bit of a reach. They'd be at a disadvantage for some of the reasons given in the movie (fewer opportunities than kids at more high-falutin' schools) and for the reason of simple English snobbery and the class system at the time.
Second, the class represented here is not, as one reviewer suggested, a mythical place where students care, teachers care and debate thrives. This is an actual place, very much how good English schools were, especially in the last year of 'A'-Levels and the Oxbridge term. It's very well-portrayed here. When I came to the USA, where I attended a fine public university, I never recovered from my disappointment that there wasn't the same level of debate and class discussion. Frankly -- and I love this country, but this was my experience -- no class I took in six years at a good university here ever challenged me as the 'A'-Level and Oxbridge classes had. I think maybe Britain's a little like Japan in having very high standards at the end of high school (and corresponding student stress) that then fades in university.
A clarification on the lives the boys go on to lead. They would end up, for the most part, in fine houses (see reviews below). That's the whole point. Attending either Oxford or Cambridge (while there are no guarantees) did pretty much set people for life if they approached it aiming for that. I've seen that from afar in the lives of my contemporaries who went there. That's why the stakes are so high in the story and success so desirable.
And a final clarification on the aspect of the movie one reviewer called "morally suspect." Maybe so, but the culture of sexuality in Britain is different from the culture of sexuality here in the States. Britain legalized gay marriage, after all, more than a year ago, with minimal fuss, and even The Times of London now lists same-sex unions without fanfare along with the heterosexual ones. The whole issue of homosexuality is different, including the assumption over there that sexual orientation is not necessarily consistent for life. And same-sex experimentation is famous in largely male or all-male British schools. So that aspect of the movie ought to be judged as much as possible in the context of the movie and probably not in an American context which -- no offense intended -- seems more inclined to censure and prudishness.
All that said, and picture quality aside, this is an outstanding movie and a great portrayal of 1983 in England, down to the cars and the music. The only thing I remember that's completely missing here is furious political debate. Britain was four years into Margaret Thatcher in 1983, and politics and social clashes were very much on people's minds, including students like these, and Alan Bennett completely omits that.
But that's my only criticism. Richard Griffiths, who is a veteran British actor whose face would be instantly recognisable to any Brit seeing the movie, is wonderful, on a "Goodbye Mr. Chips" level and better than "Dead Poets Society." Indeed, "History Boys" beats "Dead Poets" simply because it's not Hollywood-ized, it's a much more real movie.
It's got great bullseye detail, too, like the church service at the beginning where the robed priest ministers to a congregation of three, which is the state of the Church of England, Britain almost completely lacking American-style religion at this point, a very secular place despite the lack of division between church and state.
Dominic Cooper as Dakin, Samuel Barnett as Posner and Russell Tovey as Rudge stood out for me, but all the boys are great, and all of the types felt very much familiar to my memories.
The movie is often funny, the dialog wonderful, the way the boys are and the classroom scenes perfectly pitched. The essential scene is the one where Griffiths tutors Barnett one-on-one, and it's essential because it tells us exactly why Griffiths' character is a great teacher, which has to be established.
The ending doesn't bother me. This is Alan Bennett: This is about ideas. The ending furthers the ideas.
This is the same playwright who brought us "40 Years On," yet a much different play and a much different view of a much changed Britain -- and that's why Bennett has endured, because he's changed with the culture.
This is a great movie if you're not offended by frank discussion (and ambiguity) about late-teen and adult sexuality, if you're a bit of an Anglophile, and if you're willing to sit back for something that's really a long conversation rather than an action movie. All of which is why it'll have limited success this side of the big pond.
Movie Review: Good Movie to Raise Issues of Education (SPOILER!)
Summary: 5 Stars
The movie ,The History Boys, raises many issues that surround education: power issues, political issues, societal pressures, fallible students and instructors, questions of pedagogy, school as fulfillment center vs. societal inculcator, as well as the overall goal of education.
The power relations, rarely discussed in formal schooling, are evident between the students and teachers and the politics of administration. The movie questions the notion of school as a harmonious community. Each part of the school feels different pressures. There is pressure on the Headmaster to produce students who go to prestigious schools. Teachers have pressures navigating the appropriate "professional distance" with their students especially when confided in by their students with very real and personal problems, This is wonderfully shown in the scene where Mrs. Linott explains the process of nicknaming to Irwin after Posner has confided in him. There is pressure on the students to succeed in the adult world, the world outside of school evidenced by the pressure Dakin and the gang feels to get into Cambridge or Oxford.
In the movie, social status and material success can be attributed to going to one of these schools. "Happiness" is achievable going to other schools but is the Headmaster does not give priority to this attainment. Hector reminisces about the happiness he had at the college he went too though he it wasn't extremely reputable. Similarly, his foil, Irwin was also happy at his school though does not reveal this to his students because he achieved his job on false pretenses. The film presents happiness and social status as dichotomous opposites in English society, though it is applicable to our own.
The political nature of schooling is commented on by both Irwin and Mrs. Linott ,the history teacher. In a powerful scene, Irwin takes the students to the WWI memorial to reveal to the students how little truth plays a part in education. By claiming something to the effect that commemorating something in history is to hide the truth. This is an extension of the theory that history is written by the conquerors. This philosophy dictates that schools are not places of self-exploration, self-fulfillment, or truth seeking but rather as a way to inculcate students to "play the game" or submit to societal conventions to succeed over personal happiness, justice or truth. There are numerous references between "pretending" as a means of living, lying as a lifestyle versus telling the truth. This debate is symbolized in the different teaching styles between Hector and Irwin culminated in the discussion where Irwin and Hector teach the same class. Hector places great value on what students hold to be important and true while Irwin holds great value on what you can prove.
The notion of efficiency and utility regarding what is taught in school is an issue to this day because different factors are competing to accomplish their own agendas. Two of these agendas are personified in the characters of Headmaster and Hector. The Headmaster's teaching philosophy is that of the machine. He does not want to teach anything that he can't qualify, that can't be measured. This he spells out clearly in the scene where he fires Hector: "...all your crushed violets". Hector's teaching style counteracts this philosophy which he calls "controlled silliness". A notable point about the film is that all the faculty, except the delusional headmaster, are self-aware, vulnerable and imperfect characters. The instability of what it means to teach is emphasized by this vulnerability.
Education's ultimate result is to produce a student like Rudge who is self-directed in a positive way. Rudge is not concerned with achieving greatness or truth but is concerned with doing what he likes. It is sad because he was the student that the faculty placed the least value on, as the Headmaster says, You can't polish a turd", but he was the one student who could have taught them all something. Even Mrs. Linott who is aware of the shortsightedness, political bias, and sexism of her profession evidenced by her outburst of "history being a record of man's mistakes" does not realize till the end how well Rudge has succeeded.
The film offers a realistic view education. Education does not take place in a vacuum removed from the social and political problems of the students, teachers and the greater society. It also reveals that learning is a process that never stops evidenced by the teachers not having all the answers. It reveals through Hector's teaching style and Rudge's self-direction that, in the process of "educating our children" , it is important that we do not lose track of appreciating the capacity to express and experience joy as essential criteria to a good life.
Movie Review: Another brilliant adaptation from a brilliant play
Summary: 5 Stars
Sometimes you just wonder why some adaptations from some plays are great and some are not. The History Boys is a very good example of a brilliant adaptation. Similar to Proof, The History Boys moved a single location play (sort of, although in the original play there are video footages projected to expand the space for imagination) to a multiple location film production but kept all the essence of the play.
The story is about a group of Oxbridge (Oxford & Cambridge) hopefuls at their last and extra term at their ordinary high school / secondary school after their A Level success. The play brilliantly talks about the validity and truth of history and the comparative and relative aspect of looking at history through a bunch of students and their three very distinct and different teachers. The teachers are the eccentric, free thinking, and completely fluid teaching approach Hector, facts-facts-facts Dorothy and "want anything but dull essays" Irwin. These teachers represent different approaches to their students and central ideas of how we should look at things. And they naturally provide a whole wealth of stimuli to prepare the boys for their Oxbridge dreams.
The teachers were played by three excellent actors - Richard Griffiths as Hector, Frances de la Tour as Dorothy (you can see them both in Harry Potter :) ) and Stephen Campell Moore as Irwin. This dynamic trio provided the much needed weight for the production as compared to the light heart side provided by the boys themselves. Richard Griffiths' performance was brilliant and so were the other two. The monologue by Dorothy about the role of women in history was brilliantly done. Also the double personality of Irwin (outward and articulate in classroom and retreating in personal life) was well portrayed by Stephen.
For the boys, none of them were particularly standing out except for Dominic Cooper who played Dakin. It is not because all the others were badly played or done but because all the parts were so well and balanced that you really feel that they are one group (which is important and central to the production). Dakin as a character stands out more because his beauty was the subject of various sexual tensions weaving in and out of the whole story. The History Boys did show us that how well a production could be if you got the ensemble right. All the boys show a different facet of humanity e.g. Posner's late coming of age and sexuality issues, Scripps' unconditional devotion to this faith while itching inside for sex, Rudge's black sheep role in the group etc. were all portrayal of humanity in one big group.
The dialogues in the movie were well written and there were a lot of quotations (or gobbets as Irwin put in the movie / play) of classic text but they were brilliantly mastered and articulated. Scripps and Posner got good chances of showing their performance range as they were the "performing duo" for the group during classes.
The History Boys is a clear demonstration of a good play with a good adaptation. The thing is all the main characters in the movie were played by the same actors on the stage that made the play a phenomenal success in the theatrical circle. So they really did live the characters' lives when they were shooting it. Alan Bennett brilliant writing once again proved that good writings will win over the audience.
One last thing though, if you do not like anything with same sex innuendos, this might not be your type of film as there are references to same sex issues from time to time. There are no sex scenes or such, but the references and connotations in the dialogues may put you off if you really dislike this kind of material. Otherwise, it is definitely a not to miss movie.
Movie Review: A Brilliant Play Transforms Magically into a Brilliant Film
Summary: 5 Stars
Anyone who can watch the rolling credits at the end of THE HISTORY BOYS without tearful eyes simply hasn't been paying attention to this intelligent, richly comic, philosophical and tender tale of eight boys ostensibly preparing for exams but also preparing for life. The writing by Alan Bennett closely adapted from his prize winning play that was on the boards of theaters around the globe before being captured for posterity on film is 'rich and strange' and so full of those values of achieving a true education that it serves not only the audience well but presents a gold standard for educators pondering how to transform their pupils into thinking, creative members of society.
Very briefly, THE HISTORY BOYS are eight brilliant but 'crass' young men in Cutler's Grammar School, each coming from backgrounds not considered 'quality' by the British class standards. These boys are rowdy but committed to gaining admission to Oxford - a step toward erasing their class standing and proving their worth. The headmaster (Clive Merrison), himself not too well educated, is bound to get these eight bright boys into the best schools and in that light he hires a new teacher Irwin (Stephen Campbell Moore) to buff the boys into a classy group who will be able to pass their essays and oral examinations. The existing teachers are the testy, frank Mrs. Lintott (a fine Frances de la Tour) and the massively obese Hector (Richard Griffiths in a stunning performance) who teaches 'general studies', a time when he lovingly coaxes the boys to embrace poetry, music, sentimentality, drama, art, and in general everything that allows them to take the moment and live it fully. The boys are torn between Irwin's pragmatic 'teach them how to take exams' approach Hector's teach them how to embrace intelligence and life. Hector is known among the boys for fondling and the knowledge is accepted by the lads until Hector is seen fondling one of the boys on his motorbike and reported. This opens all manner of avenues of introspection, one of the boys confides to Irwin that he is homosexual, another of the lads declares that Irwin is gay and attempts a physical liaison with him, and the permutations move an down the line. But the exams come and the joy of accomplishing goals puts a different twist on matters and the ending is a touching as any on film.
The entire cast is the original group that started the play and in addition to the fine performances by the adults, the boys are extraordinarily fine: Dominic Cooper (Dakin), Jamie Parker (Scripps), Samuel Barnett (Posner), James Corden (Timms), Sacha Dhawan (Akhtar), Samuel Anderson (Crowther), Russell Tovey (Rudge), and Andrew Knott (Lockwood). There is an obvious camaraderie among the actors that obviously grew from their long association with the roles. But the most impressive performance is the polished veteran actor Richard Griffiths who has created a role that will long remain in everyone's heart long after the movie has passed playing. For this viewer this is one of the very finest films of the past year! Highly Recommended. Grady Harp, April 07
Movie Review: A class in itself
Summary: 5 Stars
I will not summarise the plot of the movie, since most reviewers seem to have done a good job of it. I watched the movie with absolutely no preconceptions since I had never seen nor heard of the play. What a revelation it was to watch a movie about teenagers and their rite of passage which did not involve drugs, sex and foul language. What pleasure, indeed, to hear high school students who knew how to quote poetry, and debate history and who were enthused about scoring straight A's in their A-level examinations. They are not afraid of being called nerds, not they. Their exam results pave the way for their admission into two of England's most prestigious universities. For people who felt that the students seemed unreal, may I point out that we, who laboured under the British system of education, were also expected to read poetry and literature, and history? As for the homosexual theme criss-crossing the plot, I have yet to see such an understated yet powerful depiction of homosexuality, which indeed is more openly talked about in a same-sex environment as the English Grammar school. Many of the reviewers here felt that the film condoned homosexuality - I beg to differ. The boys accepted it as a part of their teacher's life - and no, they did not enjoy being groped. In fact, if you follow the dialogues closely, you will realise that the boys know exactly what Hector is up to, and take their own precautions AGAINST being groped. As Dakin so succinctly puts it "All you have to do is to say 'And where is that hand going,Hector?' for him to take his hand back." On another occasion, one of the boys moves his 'Economy in Tudor times' into place. To them it is a game they play, mocking Hector even while they appreciate his craft.
Even Irwin, who it seems has homosexual tendencies, is shown struggling with himself and his attraction for his student. In a telling comment by Posner (about Irwin's attraction) "He looks at Dakin and I look at him looking at Dakin. Our eyes meet over Dakin". It was a film that was superbly crafted and extremely well acted - a couple of the scenes stand out - one where Irwin takes the boys to the war memorial and ends a scathing lecture on history by saying "If you want to forget something, commemorate it." The other one is where Hector tutors Posner alone - it shows why the boys respect Hector. His homosexuality is an open secret. Until it is brought to the headmaster's notice by someone totally unconnected with the school, he prefers to avoid any mention of it. This may seem morally ambiguous, but isn't that what happens most times?
The ending did not bother me; for most people who felt that it smacked too much of good university = good positions, well, why not? Isn't it true? A degree from MIT or Stanford or Harvard or any other great university this side of the Atlantic is nothing to shake a stick at. Doesn't it automatically set up better career opportunities? The boys came from blue-collar backgrounds. Working their way up into Oxford and Cambridge was their way out.
They succeeded. So does the movie.