The History Boys - one for Glaconman

[El Gordo]

GM - Some films are undoubtedly best seen on a big screen (Lawrence of Arabia, Paris Texas, Touching The Void spring to mind, and I'm sure there are tons more), but the sad fact is that 95% of movies I watch are on the small screen. There are huge swathes of the country where it's impossible to see a non-mainstream movie in your local cinema. So while it may be ideal to see films in the cinema, I have to put up with DVD/TV pretty much as standard.

Regarding The History Boys, it has to be said that I wouldn't have seen it if it hadn't been filmed, so I'm very glad it was. If my situation is a representave microcosm then I guess that's one answer to your question -- that it brings the work to a wider audience. I wouldn't take seriously the pursuit of awards as a reason to turn a play into a film, but commercial reasons? Yes, definitely. Why not? Unless a film maker is wealthy enough to amuse himself with vanity projects, I guess there has to be a commercial impetus behind film-making, even if this means just trying to avoid making a loss (rather than expecting to make a big profit).

The thing is, seeing it in the theatre would have been a quite different artistic experience from the film, and I just don't see what's wrong with that. I could also pick up the screenplay in book form and read that with enjoyment too. Supposing it had never been a play, but had been written for the cinema (and I don't know that it wasn't), then we wouldn't have been having this discussion.

I hesitate before saying this, but I just wonder if (given your recent excellent recommendations) you're currently in an English working class groove, and the History Boys represented a kind of irrelevant bourgeois decadence?

Maybe I'm not critical enough, but I think its absolutely possible to be enriched and entertained by Shane Meadows and by the writing of Alan Bennett, just as I can enjoy beer and wine -- even though I may well use different criteria to judge them by.

If I'm honest, sometimes I just want to be entertained and not particularly challenged. I suspect This Is England will be quite uncomfortable viewing, even though I'm sure it will be 'a good film', and I'll be glad to have seen it.

[Sweder]

When they all sat down to eat chinese food in the mess I was waiting for the coughing to start

Don't tease . . . it's not fair.

[El Gordo]

Glaconman, sorry to intrude on what has until now been a pas des deux, but I have a view on the need for screening theatrical work in cinemas.

I don't know how wide the theatrical release of History Boys was, but in general I think theatric pieces deserve to be viewed in cinemas because of the shared experience pheonomenon and the atmospheric similarities between a packed picture house and a packed theatre. Certain works translate well from stage to screen - I'm thinking of Zeffirelli's 1968 Romeo and Juliet as a good example. Others plainly do not, or do not gain from the transition; however the mass-audience argument works well for me.

I guess the best theatrical/ cinematic cross-overs are where the interactivity makes the same journey. Rocky Horror is the ultimate case in point, so much so that without recourse to google I can't remember which came first, the movie or the stage show. Screenings of RHPS turn into live performances and the two mediums meld painlessly, something that must make Richard O'Brien a very happy bunny indeed.

I do agree that certain pictures demand the big screen treatment. I happen to think Alien* loses a great deal of it's power on TV because even with HD and all that some of the darkest corners of the vehicle - and there are many - are completely lost, whereas in the movie theatre you detect subtle flickering movements and gentle changes in tone (or should I say 'micro-changes in air density') which in turn add to the overall tension.

[SIZE="1"]* See? I can get a mention in just about anywhere [/SIZE]

Ah, a slight cross-over there, though you've probably articulated some of my thoughts better than I did, you bastard.

[glaconman]

I'm not in any kind of groove.

I'm very glad THB was filmed. It was a great play. And it's a great film.

I just wouldn't watch it in a cinema.

It would have made a wonderful TV drama. And it would have gained a huge audience. And we could all of sat at home and watched it for free.

But, like The Queen, they wanted Oscars and Baftas.

[glaconman]

btw Andy Tone of Voice doesn't come across on these posts. I'm alittle worked up but still essentially enjoying this.

[El Gordo]

btw Andy Tone of Voice doesn't come across on these posts. I'm alittle worked up but still essentially enjoying this.

No problem, old chap. I'm sure I'll continue to learn from your views.

Anyway, enough for the moment. I'm off for a run before the sun vanishes.

[glaconman]

Running? You're not still running are you?

[El Gordo]

Running? You're not still running are you?

Mate, I'm on fire.

Which is why I'm off for a run....

[Mid Life Crisis Marathon Man]

Caution: don't expect too much in the way of 'deep culture' from 300. It's a visually stunning romp, goodies and baddies, comic-book dialogue (obviously), 2D female characters, spectacular violence and macho posturing in extremis. In short, it's a no-brainer. Fabulously so

Yep. A better review couldn't be given. A bit like Troy meets Lord of the Rings I thought, but with much better characters, although the (very) few females are rather 2D, as you say. Still, I really liked Queen Gorgo's little twist in there, which I didn't see coming. I can see why women everywhere seem to have taken a liking to the flick.

Overall, rather to my surprise (I only saw this on the strength of Sweder's review) I liked this one a lot.

[Mid Life Crisis Marathon Man]

Boy, I wish I could write as well as Alan Bennett has written this one. Very clever. Entertaining, very well-made and thought-provoking. Can't ask for much more.