The History Boys

1998 through 2007
Post Reply
rudeboy
Adjunct
Posts: 1323
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 8:00 am
Location: Singapore

Post by rudeboy »

Here's Nicholas Hytner writing in The Guardian on the transferring of The History Boys from stage to screen.

The History Boys is the second film that Alan Bennett and I have made together. The first, in 1994, was The Madness of King George. Both started as plays at the National Theatre, though The Madness of King George had its title helpfully changed on the journey from stage to screen, as it was feared that for an audience unversed in the history of the English monarchy, the title of the play - The Madness of George III - might imply it was the sequel to The Madness of George I and The Madness of George II.

Despite the shortcomings of its title, there always seemed to be a film in The Madness of George III. It took us longer to believe that The History Boys, the strengths of which included neither a driving narrative nor any whiff of the picturesque, belonged on screen. As there seemed to be no point in trying to parachute into the material cinematic attributes it had no interest in possessing, the point of a History Boys film would be that it would allow us to intensify what was exciting about the play. Maybe it could bring us closer to the protagonists, get under their skins. Maybe it could capture their speed of thought and the glitter of their intellects. But whatever else it turned out to be, it would be about eight boys and four teachers. So when we finally started to think about making it, we knew it would also be about the 12 actors who had created them.

Alan Bennett is a stylist as recognisable, in his way, as Oscar Wilde. People don't actually talk the way they do in his plays: the "history boys" are often far wittier and more articulate than even the cleverest Oxbridge entrant, and it was a measure of the work we did together over several weeks of rehearsal and many months of performance that the eight actors who played them were able to root Alan's inimitable speech patterns in concrete reality and toss them off without apparent effort. "Lecher though one is, or aspires to be," says Dakin, aged 18, referring to the hapless attempted gropings of his English teacher, "it occurs to me that the lot of woman cannot be easy, who must suffer such inexpert male fumblings virtually on a daily basis." Dominic Cooper delivers this with the aplomb of a latter-day Jack Worthing, but you never doubt that it's part of the daily banter of a Sheffield teenager, falling as naturally from his lips as the cheerful obscenities that pepper all the boys' dialogue on screen, as it would in life.

The casting question surfaced as soon as we began talking with potential financiers, some of whom wanted to make what might be called a contribution to the casting process. As we already had a cast that we thought unimprovable, and whose ownership of their roles after a year on stage was absolute, this got us nowhere. The world we had created together was the world we wanted to film. There was undoubtedly another, and maybe a better, film that could have been made based on the play, but none of us had any interest in it. So we decided to cut loose and make by ourselves all the decisions that would under normal circumstances involve consultation with our paymasters. We'd go looking for someone to pay for the movie only when we were ready to start shooting it.

Delivering the screenplay seemed less of a problem to me than it did to Alan. I'd been full of ideas about turning George III into a screenplay, most of them designed to demonstrate that I was a bona fide film director, my imagination no longer confined by the proscenium arch. If there was half a chance to move the camera, or to cut to a different location, I took it. The best scenes were nevertheless lifted more or less verbatim from the play.

This time, I started out by offering Alan very little beyond a conviction that we shouldn't try too hard to open out something that worked precisely because it was enclosed. Closed worlds can be as eloquent on film as they are on stage. Schools, prisons, hospitals, courtrooms: they all operate according to easily graspable rules and stand as microcosms of the wider world. The Front Page, The Philadelphia Story and A Streetcar Named Desire waste no effort on straying from the centre. Their energy springs from the dynamic exploration of small worlds that are fully inhabited by large spirits. I now reckoned if we could devote seven minutes of film to the teaching of a poem by Thomas Hardy, we'd be doing OK.

Watching Sam Barnett and Richard Griffiths slowly recognise "a sense of not sharing, of being out of it ... a holding back, not being in the swim", I know why we made the movie. Freed from the necessity of including 900 people nightly into their conversation, these two marvellous actors played only for each other and allowed the camera the most intimate imaginable access to a profoundly felt loneliness.
My key partner was the director of photography, Andrew Dunn, who had shot The Madness of King George. To meet the budget, we needed to shoot The History Boys in six weeks - a lightning-quick schedule for a film, but one that I thought we could make because the actors could not have been more in command of their material. King George involved the animation of a world familiar from the paintings of Zoffany and Reynolds; it was about people whose lives and identities were bound up in lavish displays of power and wealth. The world of The History Boys - a modest Yorkshire grammar school in the 1980s - was remote from the court of George III not just for the obvious reasons. The spirit of the boys who populate it is immediate and spontaneous, and though they often think and speak with theatrical elegance, the concrete reality of their lives is rough and ready. Andrew responded with the same invention that he had brought to the regal splendour of George III's Windsor, but where he had then conjured up a folk memory of monarchy, he now photographed a real memory of school. I've seen films set in schools that look the way films look; The History Boys looks the way schools look. It was useful that this was cheaper than the glossier alternative; it also seemed right.

I hope the result is a film that, even when it follows the same script as the play, often seems to be saying something more. On stage, the central argument can seem unfairly weighted in favour of Richard Griffiths' character, Hector. The truth is that much of what Hector teaches is entirely self-indulgent. Most parents would be uneasy with his insistence on following to the letter Housman's dictum that "all knowledge is precious whether or not it serves the slightest human use", and his insistence on inflicting on his class the culture, high and low, of his own youth is at least as questionable as his wandering hands. In performance, however, Hector's stuff is irresistible. In the film, Stephen Campbell Moore's Irwin provides Hector with formidable opposition, seductive enough to allay the suspicion that there is a thin line between a sparkling intellect and a flashy one.

There is a scene that didn't make it beyond the first draft of the screenplay, and was even cut eventually from the play - though only in the interests of brevity and with a heavy heart, because, like so much of Alan's discarded material, it was better than most writers' highlights. In it, Rudge challenged Hector to recognise a song by the Pet Shop Boys; Hector, ignorant of all popular culture after about 1950, was completely floored. "You can't expect him to know that," said Timms. "And anyway, it's crap." "So is Gracie Fields," said Rudge, "only that's his crap. This is our crap." I feel something similar about The History Boys: I have no idea yet whether it's a good film, but it's our film.

• The History Boys opens on October 13. The screenplay by Alan Bennett is published by Faber & Faber on October 5 at pounds 12.99
Penelope
Site Admin
Posts: 5663
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2004 11:47 am
Location: Tampa, FL, USA

Post by Penelope »

Obviously, I should be packing and whatnot, but here I am scouring the internet, when I come across this examination of Alan Bennett's interpretation of "history" by historian David Greenberg in Slate. Appears to have some spoilers, so read with caution:

Class Warfare
Why the villain of The History Boys is the better teacher.

By David Greenberg
Posted Monday, July 24, 2006, at 3:32 PM ET


The opening scene of The History Boys—the Alan Bennett drama that, against the odds, has been enjoying Broadway success—shows a clever but cynical young historian advising British members of Parliament on how to sell a nasty bill that would restrict trial by jury. Irwin (no first name is given) suggests to the MPs that if they reassure their citizens that all crimes will meet with swift punishment, they can portray the bill as bolstering, not diminishing, civil rights. "Paradox works well and mists up the windows, which is handy," Irwin, drawing on his experience as a television historian, condescendingly explains. " 'The loss of liberty is the price we pay for freedom' type thing."

Even on this side of Atlantic, the punch line draws a sure laugh from viewers wise to the Bush administration's war-on-terrorism sophistry. But the scene also stacks the deck against Irwin, who, we learn, was once a schoolteacher hired to help a class of promising young pupils forge beyond potted interpretations of the past to advance original arguments—ones that (on entrance exams) might get them into Oxford or Cambridge. In the story of these students, Bennett makes Irwin into his villain—shallow and facile, a liar, and a repressed or perhaps closeted homosexual, to boot. But Bennett shortchanges Irwin's view of history by putting it in the mouth of such an amoral cynic—thus making History Boys something less than the rich meditation on teaching and intellectual commitment that it seeks to be.

In the introduction to the book version of History Boys, Bennett describes the play as being "about two sorts of teaching—or two teachers anyway (characters always more important than themes)." One is Irwin, who faults the students for being not wrong but dull and predictable—and therefore unlikely to grab the attention of an Oxford exam-reader sifting the brilliant from the merely bright. "Its sheer competence was staggering," he playfully scoffs of one schoolboy's paper. "Interest nil. Oddity nil. Singularity nowhere."

Irwin's foil, Hector, is an obese older man and a romantic traditionalist (and a somewhat less-closeted homosexual—in fact an unrepentant molester). He teaches the boys to revere "the truth" (never defined) and to respond to events of the past with hot-blooded feeling—something he accomplishes by making them memorize poetry and quoting them aphoristic snippets of Auden or Hardy.

The opening scene make Bennett's dislike of Irwin's methods clear enough. But they become clearer still if you know (as a few, mainly British, journalists have pointed out) that one inspiration for the character was the Oxford, and, as of 2004, Harvard historian Niall Ferguson. A familiar television presence in the United Kingdom, Ferguson has become known to Americans since the invasion of Iraq for his chillingly contrarian contention that empire is a good thing and the United States should embrace it cheerfully. The arguments about World War I that Irwin hails as exemplary against-the-grain creativity—that Britain was as much at fault as Germany; that soldiers took pleasure in the trench-warfare slaughter—actually come from Ferguson's 1998 book The Pity of War. And Bennett's introduction to History Boys approvingly quotes an acid review of The Pity of War by the longtime Oxford don R.W. Johnson:

"Anyone who has been a victim, let alone a perpetrator, of the Oxbridge system will recognize Niall Ferguson's book for what it is: an extended and argumentative tutorial from a self-consciously clever, confrontational young don, determined to stand everything on its head and argue with vehemence against what he sees as the conventional wisdom—or worse still, the fashion—of the time. The idea is to teach the young to think and argue, and the real past masters at it … were those who first argued undergraduates out of their received opinions, then turned around after a time and argued them out of their newfound radicalism, leaving them mystified as to what they believed and suspended in a free-floating state of suspended cleverness."

Bennett goes on to disparage this style, particularly as it has characterized the new wave of TV historians in Britain—not just Ferguson but also Andrew Roberts, David Starkey, and Norman Stone. (Bennett rightly exempts from his opprobrium Simon Schama, Britain's "doyen of TV historians," who the playwright says lacks the political agenda and "persistently jeering" tone of the others.) And tellingly, in History Boys, when Hector angrily confronts what Irwin has taught the students, he stammers: "It's … flip. It's … glib. It's journalism." The italics are Bennett's.

Despite Hector's fondness for fondling, he's easy to root for (especially as played by Richard Griffiths). Literate audiences can be counted on to share Bennett's scorn for the superficial journalist-historians who value cleverness more than depth. (In the United States, however, the popular style tends to be different than in Britain: less the contrarian polemic than the stentorian pose of Olympian authority exemplified by David McCullough or Ken Burns' documentaries.) But as I've argued in Slate, there's good and bad popular history, and the good kind, far from dumbing down, raises up, making scholarly ideas intelligible and interesting to a general audience. Yet Bennett doesn't allow for such history. Instead he has Irwin mouth the simplistic proposition that "History nowadays is not a matter of conviction. It's a performance. It's entertainment."

No historian would defend such views, and none would promulgate them, either—which is why Irwin's character is ultimately unpersuasive. Had Bennett shown more restraint and empathy in creating Irwin, he could have given us two equally compelling ways of thinking about history—or, better still, two equally compelling lead characters, characters always more important than themes.

One place he might have done so is in the scene where the teachers joust over how to present the Holocaust in the classroom. Hector, whose cathexis in the past we're meant to admire, is so overwhelmed by the enormity of the Holocaust that he favors silence; his mind reels at the thought of field trips to Dachau, with schoolchildren eating sandwiches at a visitors' center and snapping pictures. Thinking of his students' entrance exams, he wonders, "How can the boys scribble down an answer, however well put, that doesn't demean the suffering involved?"

Irwin, for his part, encourages the boys to "distance yourselves," to get an analytic purchase on the Holocaust—but then flounders about in trying to guide them through any kind of enlightening discussion. Utterly cynical, he encourages one student to "surprise" his examiners with his outlandish comments about the Holocaust because, "You're Jewish. You can get away with a lot more than the other candidates."

Irwin's efforts lead to an angry letter from the boy's father, intimating that the teacher had questioned the Holocaust's actual existence. But he didn't, and it's this crippling fear that any effort to think about the Holocaust historically will lead inexorably to denial that represents the real obstacle to understanding the past—not Irwin's pleas for "perspective," however shallow or daft they may be.

Contrarian impulses, counterintuitive thinking, dissent from established interpretations—in the wrong hands, these propensities can be offensively slick, but in the right hands they're the stuff of scholarship. Historians, after all, don't toil in the archives to adduce more evidence confirming everything we always knew.

One nice example of this comes from a third character in History Boys, a female teacher named Lintott. Impatient with both Hector's quotation of poetry and Irwin's intellectual acrobatics, she ventures "that there are no women historians on TV" because "history's not such a frolic for women as it is for men. … History is a commentary on the various and continuing incapabilities of men. … History is women following behind with the bucket."

Though Lintott can't be said to represent all feminist historians, her soliloquy accomplishes something like what feminist scholarship has done: upending received wisdom, resulting in a more expansive view of how things work. Yet her character, though important, is underdeveloped; and in consigning her worthy viewpoint to a cameo role and framing history instead as the black-and-white drama of Hector vs. Irwin, it is Alan Bennett who succumbs to glibness—flashing his cleverness to dazzle his audience.

Does Bennett realize this? Writing about his own days at Oxford, he ascribes his success there to having figured out the "journalistic side to answering an examination question: … in brisk generalities flavored with sufficient facts and quotations to engage the examiner's interest and disguise my basic ignorance." After taking his degree, Bennett says, he "did some college teaching," in which he imparted these techniques of passing exams to his pupils. Niall Ferguson, it turns out, wasn't the only inspiration for the meretricious Irwin.

David Greenberg writes the "History Lesson" column and teaches at Rutgers University. He is the author of Nixon's Shadow: The History of an Image.
"...it is the weak who are cruel, and...gentleness is only to be expected from the strong." - Leo Reston

"Cruelty might be very human, and it might be cultural, but it's not acceptable." - Jodie Foster
Movielover
Graduate
Posts: 142
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 12:24 pm
Location: New York, NY

Post by Movielover »

Someone commented about Rent's failure at the box office. That was because Rent was an awful show. I know I am in the minority in thinking this, but Rent would not make for a good movie - it doesn't even make for a good musical aside from the entertaining soundtrack. And that Adam Pascal or however you spell his name - what a screeching, annoying voice! How teenyboppers swoon over him I'll never know.

Not only is The History Boys this short of brilliance, but it has a cinematic feel to it. The scenes are quick and smart. And the cast in The History Boys is a far greater lot of actors than that of Rent. I think even the greatest Rent fan will acknowledge that. I don't know if the actors from The History Boys will win Oscars, but Richard Griffiths, Samuel Barnett, and Frances de la Tour will all be really, really talked about and I assume that at least two of the three will get in. I know that sounds strange because people in the movie business couldn't possibly care less about this no-names in LaLa Land, but it is IMPOSSIBLE to deny their talents. Bring tissues to the movie theatre in November/December people. You are going to be moved way out of your seats. You never heard "Bewitched, Bothered, and Bewildered" sung more beautifully. If you're not moved by this movie, you're dead inside.
kaytodd
Assistant
Posts: 847
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2003 10:16 pm
Location: New Orleans

Post by kaytodd »

History Boys was, as expected, nominated today for a boatload of Tonys: Best Play, Director, Leading Actor, Featured Actor, Featured Actress, Scenic Design and Lighting Design.

This will help it when it is released this fall.
The great thing in the world is not so much where we stand, as in what direction we are moving. It's faith in something and enthusiasm for something that makes a life worth living. Oliver Wendell Holmes
kaytodd
Assistant
Posts: 847
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2003 10:16 pm
Location: New Orleans

Post by kaytodd »

Sonic Youth wrote:I had a feeling this came from across the pond. When did the work premiere at West End?

kaytodd, I don't think the Tony noms have been announced yet.

You are right Sonic. The will not be announced until Tuesday morning.

However, I did a little research and found out it is nominated for several Drama Desk Awards: Outstanding Play, Director Of A Play (Hytner), Best Actor In A Play (Richard Griffiths), Outstanding Featured Actress In A Play (Frances de la Tour) and Outstanding Featured Actor In A Play (Samuel Barnett, Dominic Cooper, and Stephen Campbell Moore). I would not be surprised if the people involved in this production got a lot more good news Tuesday.

I think it premiered in London sometime in 2004.
The great thing in the world is not so much where we stand, as in what direction we are moving. It's faith in something and enthusiasm for something that makes a life worth living. Oliver Wendell Holmes
User avatar
Sonic Youth
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8003
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
Location: USA

Post by Sonic Youth »

I had a feeling this came from across the pond. When did the work premiere at West End?

kaytodd, I don't think the Tony noms have been announced yet.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
kaytodd
Assistant
Posts: 847
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2003 10:16 pm
Location: New Orleans

Post by kaytodd »

I wasn't aware this had been done before. It is an interesting idea. The film was made with the stage cast and by the stage director, Nicholas Hytner, before it began its Broadway run at the Broadhurst on April 23. The play is nominated for Tonys which will be handed out next month. I understand the play was successful and widely discussed during its London stage run. I suspect it will be the same in New York. It will be an anticipated film when the trailer start running before films released during the late summer ("Tony Nominated..." or "Tony Award Winning..."), for people will still be talking about the play. I like this idea. Sounds like smart marketing. And there will always be an audience in New York who will want to see the stage version even if they have seen the film.
The great thing in the world is not so much where we stand, as in what direction we are moving. It's faith in something and enthusiasm for something that makes a life worth living. Oliver Wendell Holmes
Okri
Tenured
Posts: 3345
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:28 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB

Post by Okri »

Sonic, the same thing was done with Alan Bennet's last New York success - The Madness of King George.

I've read the play, and it's really quite good.
Penelope
Site Admin
Posts: 5663
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2004 11:47 am
Location: Tampa, FL, USA

Post by Penelope »

The movie has already been filmed; apparently, Fox Searchlight is debating how and when to release.
"...it is the weak who are cruel, and...gentleness is only to be expected from the strong." - Leo Reston

"Cruelty might be very human, and it might be cultural, but it's not acceptable." - Jodie Foster
User avatar
Sonic Youth
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8003
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
Location: USA

Post by Sonic Youth »

You mean, like Rent? :p

I'm hearing quite a bit about this play. Is the plan really to release a film adaptation by the end of the year?
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Movielover
Graduate
Posts: 142
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 12:24 pm
Location: New York, NY

Post by Movielover »

Saw this on May 9 on Broadway and I can tell you now - this is going to be a BIG hit as a movie and at the Academy Awards.
Post Reply

Return to “The 8th Decade”