The History Boys - one for Glaconman

[El Gordo]

Just returned from an afternoon showing of The History Boys at the local Arts Centre.

Quite brilliant.

I've seen so many good films recently, largely from the recommendations found here. It seems my luck hasn't run out yet.

We all have our favourite film environments. For some reason, I seem to particularly like films set in schools, prisons and courtrooms. I don't generally like hospital movies (though I think Coma is great).

The History Boys is set in a school in Sheffield, and concerns a group of boys who are going for Oxford/Cambridge entrance.

Superb cast -- apparently the same as appeared in the original National Theatre stage production. This explains their extraordinary cohesion. If anyone is unsure of the meaning of "ensemble acting", well, see this film.

The writing is wonderful, as you'd expect from Alan Bennett. I have a minor story about Bennett which you can read here: http://www.runningcommentary.net/2004/20...htm#040720

The film is a hybrid of Dead Poets' Society, Goodbye Mister Chips, The Browning Version... and probably other things. It's all about aspiration, frustration and the battle against philistinism and prejudice. And it's about so much more.

It starts off with a sort of Carry On feel. The great Richard Griffiths (Uncle Monty from Withnail And I)and the boys settle into a comfortable slapstick routine, in which aestheticism is everything. Then Stephen Campbell-Moore's Irwin arrives, and tells them they need to push this nonsense out of their heads if they are to succeed. The film becomes a fascinating battleground of ideas, and even the audience is left genuinely wondering which way to think.

All the while, the headmaster (Clive Merrison) and senior teacher Mrs Lintott (Frances de la Tour) keep the humour and insights chugging along.

Like all truly great films, you are constantly shocked. Throughout The History Boys, just as you are settling down into some assumption or other, a great sledgehammer appears from somewhere and smashes it to bits.

I won't give it away but just as I thought I was about to leave the cinema with a grin on my face the size of a non-Fair-Trade banana, a number of neatly-timed dramatic detonations made me think again. In particular, a scene in which the hard-bitten Mrs Lintott suddenly moves around the group of boys, revealing how they all turned out, is a brilliant piece of stagecraft. It's what makes the theatre (and film) different from real life. Honestly, one minute I was laughing my head off, the next I had tears streaming down my chest, trying not to audibly sob.

Great film.

------------

(The reason I said "one for Glaconman" in the title is that it's filmed in Elland and Halifax, and stars Richard Grffiths. He'll understand!)

[Mid Life Crisis Marathon Man]

(Furiously scribbling) ... jeepers, another one on my "must see" list. Regrettably, living at the arse end of the planet has one disadvantage - our cinemas are way behind when it comes to non-Australian movies (ie nearly all of them). We haven't even seen 300 yet (opens next Thursday). History Boys doesn't open for over a month!

Now, what were you recommending 4-5 weks ago? Trouble is, there's so much rubbish being shown that I don't know what is what half the time. Vitya is honestly the best thing I've seen for ages.

It's all too hard. I think I'll go to the pub instead and watch some sport.

[Sweder]

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

[El Gordo]

Oh yes -- finally caught up with Wild At Heart, Sweder. Enjoyed it a lot.

[glaconman]

Andy;

Thanks for the recommendation. Rather dissapointingly we watched The History Boys when we should have turned-in for the night and only got half way in. I will give it a full viewing because the writing was, of course, exceptional.

Having said that it did reek of theatre. Which I don't necessarily think is a good thing. It gets the peice to a wider audience. But, as Kermode rightly points out, why not just put it on telly?

And it's interesting that you talked about ensemble acting. The acting was clearly a step up from most features; but I tend to think of this concept in terms of somebody like Mike Leigh, where the actors/director/writer use rehearsals to figure out the story and each character's role within it.

Anyway, that's not to say that I'm not looking forward to watching again, because I am.

But if you want an exemplary example of what I think ensemble acting really is then you'll find it at the cinema this weekend with 'This Is England'.

No doubt it will be a limited release and you may have to travel. But it's a terrific film. And an important one.

http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/feat...81,00.html
http://film.guardian.co.uk/interview/int...80,00.html

[El Gordo]

I've seen a few Mike Leigh things, theatre and film, and that isn't quite what I meant by ensemble acting, though he certainly uses a more specialised flavour of it. He's into improvisation and getting a story to emerge from a group of people working closely together over a period of time. (It doesn't always work. I remember booking to see an improvised Mike Leigh play at the RSC back in the late 70s, but it being cancelled at the last minute because nothing of note had emerged from the cast!) But he's certainly had some great successes using this method -- Abigail's Party and Secrets and Lies. And Life is Sweet. What I meant was a more general definition -- the impression you get from a group of people that they have evidently worked together a lot, and who seem ultra-conscious of the team as a whole rather than individual personalities. It's not easy to define but you rarely see it in films, which is perhaps why you said it 'reeks of theatre'. A slightly unkind assessment, in my view. Neither theatre or film is real. It's all down to the viewer how far s/he is willing and able to suspend disbelief. For me, it was a total success in this respect.

The Kermode quote reminds me why I don't always like him and his prejudices. He often praises films for their 'cinematographic' qualities alone, and so perhaps by extension isn't keen on a film that displays 'theatrical' qualities. I have to say, I think that's a silly way of assessing a film. What difference would it have made if I'd seen it on the TV than at the cinema? As it happens I saw it on a pretty small screen at an Arts Centre cinema so I guess it was halfway between. I'm genuinely puzzled by that remark, so I can't have understood the point. It's a piece of filmic art, and whether it's seen at home as part of a continuum of other broadcast programmes, or as a one-off in an external venue, seems neither here nor there.

Anyway, I've always loved the theatre, so perhaps its theatrical quality, if it has one, made it an even more enjoyable experience for me.

I'll look forward to This Is England though the chances of it being shown at a mainstream cinema near me seem pretty remote.

[Sweder]

I've yet to see the History Boys, although I've a funny feeling I'll enjoy it. Not sure why but I like school-based dramas - The Breakfast Club, Deat Poets Society et al - maybe its because I spent so little productive time in my own.

This is England looks like being one of the films of the year.
The revue in today's Times: Screen had me looking to sneak out in search of a multiplex; however I fear East Grinstead is similarly endowed to Andy's locale with quality cinema. My options are likely to be Norbit and Mr Bean

Another film featured in James Christopher's round-up may beat both the above to the top of my personal 'must see next' list. Straightheads promises to be the low-budget Brit-horror I've been waiting for - low on CGI, heavy on the twists, turns and nasty shocks. I'm an unashamed fan of genuinely horrible films, though I prefer them to have a message or at least a script to which the actors - if the piece is blessed with such - conform. Gillian Anderson (X-Files, the excellent BBC adaptation of Bleak House) features heavily - no bad thing in my book - alongside Danny 'All In The Game/ Severence' Dyer, a player with whom Glaconman may be familiar. The film is written and directed by Dan Reed. I've not experienced Mr Reed's work before (documentaries mostly), but if the tag lines that adorn the posters are anything to go by - 'brutal', 'disturbing' - I'm in for a treat. And the whole thing cost no more than three an' six to put together; a sure-fire winner.

[glaconman]

Take your pick lads:

http://www.thisisenglandmovie.co.uk/#/cinemas/

I'll have a think about your post Andy.

[Sweder]

Aha, the Duke of York, Brighton's old-fashioned indie picture house.
Perfect.

[El Gordo]

I'll have a think about your post Andy.

Oh.

I've spent the evening worrying.

Was I too defensive?

I really enjoyed The History Boys, for a variety of reasons. Everyone, please feel free to despise its theatricality. Like Sweder, I have something of a weakness for school movies. And prisons.

GM -- given your recommendations (all of which I've enjoyed so far), is it fair to say that the school of English Realism is your bag? It's a perfectly respectable niche, and I can think of a host of great films and directors that belong there, but I need a bit of feel-good escapism too. Although British, I wouldn't claim that The History Boys fits into the gritty realism slot.

Astonishingly, the multiscreen in Reading is advertising This Is England, but when I try to book, it tells me that it isn't showing. Hmm. Sounds about par for the course. I'll get to see it though.

[glaconman]

Don't be daft Andy. I think you've opened up a very interesting line of debate.

[El Gordo]

There's an interesting interview with Shaun Meadows on this evening's Front Row (Radio Four). It's available on the 'Listen again' service if you pop along there.

[Sweder]

I was intrigued at a point raised by Meadows in an earlier piece along the lines of the paradox of an inherently racist group (such as the 80's skinheads in the movie) living to the beat of Jamaican Ska. I can remember really enjoying Ska at that time - it was great to dance to if, like me, dancing for you was to imitate a giant spider on acid - but I don't recall knowing then that its roots were in the Caribbean. Perhaps I was more naive in my youth - race didn't ever seem to be an issue. There again I was raised in Sarf Lardan (Kingston, ironically) - there was a good mix of peoples even in the mid 70's and we all seemed to get along pretty well.

I'm really looking forward to this now.

[glaconman]

Sweder;

The soundtrack is a gem.

What he does so well in the film is set the record straight about how the early skinhead movement adopted Jamaican reggae and ska. This was down to the multi-racial friendships working class blokes made in the factories and docks etc. And this started in the late 60's.

It wasn't until the 80's that skinheads were targeted by the NF and they began to schism.

This kind of cultural nuance fascinates me and is very enlightening.

I was obsessed with Madness and Bad Manners for a time in my youth and considered myself abit of a 'nutty boy'; but was soon dragged off to rock (or should I say Heavy Metal) before vanity struck I topped my teens out as a New Romantic. Very embarrasing.

Anyway, time for bed.

[El Gordo]

It wasn't until the 80's that skinheads were targeted by the NF and they began to schism.

Yes, that's true. I hovered on the fringes of skinheadism in the early/mid-70s and there were plenty of black kids hanging around. That said, the biggest gangs in Willesden were the Willesden Blacks and the Willesden Whites though (strange as it might sound) I don't remember them fighting or even disliking each other. I was pretty scared of them all though.

[Sweder]

I was obsessed with Madness and Bad Manners for a time

Lip op fatty

[glaconman]

Andy;

It's not really a criticism of the film itself; that would be ridiculous given the amount of dross that's turned out.

My point is with the decision to turn a successful play into a film with a cinematic release. What motivates producers and distributors to do this?

Is it because they think it will translate into a great peice of cinema? Is it for commercial reasons? Or is it because cinematic releases are the only way to gain critical kudos via awards.

I suspect the last 2.

When you say "What difference would it have made if I'd seen it on the TV than at the cinema?" you just prove my point.

What makes cinema special is the size of the image, the encompassing nature of the sound and the shared experience.

Shouldn't a film be produced to take advantage of this?

I saw Sunshine the other week. With it's huge cosmic landscape it needed to be watched at the cinema.

Did you watch The Warrior? A film set in the deserts and mountains of India. There were about 4 lines of dialogue in this film, but it was captivating because it relied on visual language.

What about more drama/character based films? This Is England perhaps? Well, I guess this film deals with iconic images of youth culture and social landscapes that gain impact on the big screen. And because the drama is both comic and provocative you want to see it in the presense of others and then go for a pint and talk about it. And then there's the soundtrack.

Blurring the distincts and calling it all 'filmic art' is one way of looking at it; but then I think you blunt your critical senses by doing so.

Great theatre is like a waking dream and I'm sure Mr Griffiths et al inspired their audiences to enter that state. I'd even invite them into my living room via a dvd. But is it great cinema?

You're unlikely to agree with this as I'm just aping what Kermode has already said in a recent article.

[Sweder]

I saw Sunshine the other week. With it's huge cosmic landscape it needed to be watched at the cinema.

Apart from the impressive scale what did you think of Sunshine? I'm planning to catch it this weekend (the movie, obvioulsy; I live in England).

[Sweder]

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]

[glaconman]

I really enjoyed it Sweder.

Raises some really interesting questions about man and the universe etc and realises a challenging plot well.

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