The History Boys (Nicholas Hytner, 2006)

[John Cope]

I'm surprised there hasn't been more speculation here about this one (if there's been any I've missed it).

A couple early reviews: BBC / Jigsaw Lounge

Those of you in England (and probably elsewhere) will get the chance to see this before we in the States do. Please share your thoughts. I have high hopes.

[John Cope]

A contrary view here.

Not good, but does include this observation which is hardly anathema to me:

In the end, they nearly all sound like Alan Bennett characters -- and ones who would be more comfortable in the 1950s than the 1980s -- rather than real people. Essentially, they're vehicles to air competing ideas about education, homoerotic desire, and how history is written.

[David Ehrenstein]

Me neither!

[tavernier]

It'll be interesting to see how Hytner (who directed the play in London and on Broadway) makes it cinematic....there is a lot of filmed footage as part of the stage production, and none of these reviews comment on it.

[Antoine Doinel]

Here's the trailer

[John Cope]

A terrific interview with Alan Bennett

[David Ehrenstein]

Quite enjoyed this. Was expecting something more stagebound, but Hytner finds all sorts of ways of opening it up. Griffiths is terrific, but in many ways Frances de la Tour is even more impressive.

The use of "Bewitched Bothered and Bewildered" is a high point, but I'm an absolute sucker for musical comedy especially when it involves declarations of same-sex love. It took half a century for Sondheim to get around to writing a real love song in Bounce. But Larry Hart (as usual) was there first with the goods: "And worship the trousers that cling to him."
Sing Out Louise!

[John Cope]

An interview with Hytner, courtesy the IFC

and fascinating reviews from Scott Foundas and Carina Chocano

I particularly like this comment from Chocano's piece:

A lively and entertaining disquisition on the purpose and uses of knowledge in a world that cares less about scholarship than quantifiable results, "The History Boys" asks us to ponder the moral consequences of reducing education to a tool for personal advancement, positing history as the infinitely malleable interpretation of recent events.

[MichaelB]

There's a wonderful example of auteurism gone mad in the current Cahiers du Cinéma.

Granted, you'd expect them to call it "un film de Nicholas Hytner", but the review then proceeds to credit him with everything. It's riddled with similar attributions - "Nicholas Hytner tient un scénario", "son histoire", "selon Hytner", you name it.

I know Cahiers is the fount of auteurism, so you wouldn't expect anything else - but not mentioning Alan Bennett's rather massive contribution at all is just absurd.

Not least because I suspect Hytner would be just as horrified at the implication that the whole film sprang fully-formed from his head. In fact, glancing over it again, I see the reviewer didn't even bother mentioning the performances, though unlike poor Bennett the actors did at least get a nod in the attached credits.

(Mind you, I suspect Bennett is all but unknown outside English-speaking countries - P.G.Wodehouse may be harder to translate, but Bennett can't be far behind.)

[Antoine Doinel]

Rented this tonight and not being familiar Bennett's stage plays I found the film to be absolutely wonderful. It's absolutely refreshing to see characters that are sexually "complex", yet written without cliche. This is subject matter that could've quickly become another Dead Poets Society, but Bennett's work skirts all conventions.

Great stuff.

[Belmondo]

"Clever but contrived" says the reviewer, thus providing more evidence (not that any were needed) of the fact that we need to choose our movie critics with the same care that we choose our movies. I found "The History Boys" to be sheer joy from start to finish. Smart kids, smart theme, dialogue that is alternately hilarious and sort of profound, and all so nicely done that words are beginning to fail me....guess I'll watch it again.

[colinr0380]

"Clever but contrived" says the reviewer, thus providing more evidence (not that any were needed) of the fact that we need to choose our movie critics with the same care that we choose our movies.

That doesn't seem too strange an opinion, as that was an impression I got from some of the 'lesser' Talking Heads episodes. I don't mean they were poor, just that some of the characters were too obviously there to point up the themes (i.e. being a paedophile, finding out your husband is a serial killer) rather than the themes developing out of the characters. This only became apparent to me when watching a number of the episodes close together especially Patricia Routledge in A Lady of Letters where the major situation springs beautifully out of the character rather than feeling an imposition of the writer, or Thora Hird's Cracker Under The Setee episode (also the real life Telling Tales episodes showed the kind of 'real life' that Bennett seemed to be trying to capture and succeeded in with his best episodes of the series).

However if that reviewer's quote was meant only as a dismissal rather than as an observation I wouldn't agree. Even in the 'weaker' episodes of Talking Heads there is still much pleasure to be found from the language and the writing, perhaps best shown in Julie Walter's episode Her Big Chance which is much more comic and a little less realistic, but still as great and as heartbreaking in a few beautiful moments where the tragedy masked by the bimbo's bright exterior shows through. It is also extremely funny, which is always welcome!

For me the disappointment I felt with a couple of the Talking Heads episodes should more be seen as my judging it against the very best of his work, and who reaches their very best all the time? Perhaps the disappointment that reviewer felt with The History Boys was as a result of the same comparisons? I read reviews that suggested that the film was not quite as good as the theatrical version.

Either way, I mainly posted to point everyone towards checking Talking Heads out again!