THE HISTORY BOYS
UK, 2006, 110 minutes, Colour.
Richard Griffiths, Frances de la Tour, Stephen Campbell Moore, Samuel Barnett, Dominic Cooper, James Corden, Jamie Parker.
Directed by Nicholas Hytner.
The History Boys comes to the screen with extraordinary credentials. It was written by celebrated playwright Alan Bennett who is now something of an English institution (Talking Heads, Lady in the Van, The Madness of King George). It was directed by Nicholas Hytner, artistic director of the National Theatre in London, award-winning director who has also directed some films: The Madness of King George, The Crucible, The Object of My Affection, Center Stage. For The History Boys, he, the writer and the cast won many awards. The play transferred to Broadway and won six 2006 Tony awards including Best Play and Best Actor, Richard Griffiths.
The film seems something of a let-down and something of a puzzle for those who did not see the production on stage – for one thing, the film has become more of an ensemble piece and audiences may wonder why Richard Griffith won the Tony when in the film he is just one of many in the cast.
Bennett has opened up his screenplay for exterior locations but the important things is the dialogue (often clever and witty) and the performances. Article writers have described the film as profound. This is to do the film an injustice. It is not trying to be profound. Ingmar Bergman is profound. Alan Bennet is clever and intelligent. The theatre cast all reprise their roles.
As a reflection on the state of British education in 1983, when the play is set, there are interesting observations on elitism focused on a do or die attitude in teachers and staff to get bright students to succeed in getting into Oxford or Cambridge (with some ironic and/or derogatory comments on other universities and their courses).
There are also interesting dramatisations of old methods of teaching and learning compared with more general and open knowledge. The headmaster, who did not go to Oxbridge, is desperate for success and reputation of his school to have the clever group of ’83, the history boys of the title, to go to Oxford or Cambridge, if possible with scholarships. (He is played in an overly stagey harrumphing style by Clive Merrison.) He wants to boys to have style as well as knowledge.
Mrs Lintott (Frances de la Tour in a very sympathetic performance – and a Tony winner for Best Supporting Actress) teaches more traditionally, dates, facts and issues.
On the other hand, there is Hector, a mountain of a man in Richard Griffith’s presence and interpretation. He stands for alternate learning with a heavy emphasis on the imagination, arts and culture and plenty of quotes – though he is against people lauding a love of words and an extolling of ‘literature’, something which the obtuse headmaster does at the end of the film. He is clearly Bennett’s hero.
On to the scene comes a new teacher (Stephen Campbell Moore), allegedly from Oxford, who is brought in by the headmaster to give the boys that something more. He belittles their essays as correct but boring and is forever trying to get them to think up fresh alternatives and hypotheses.
The boys respect Mrs Lintott and learn from her. They revel in Hector’s classes, whether learning French by suggestive role-play or repeating scenes from films like Brief Encounter.
If that were all there is to The History Boys, it could line up with Dead Poets Society, Mona Lisa Smile and the other alternate methods of learning movies.
But, at the end, The History Boys seems to be a very strong ‘Apologia pro Sexualitate Mea’ by Bennett. (‘Apologia’ being the Latin, not for an apology but rather an explanation and defence of one’s stances and beliefs.) Alan Bennett is homosexual in sexual preference and dramatises this issue in his play asking for understanding and justice. This theme concerns the Campbell Moore teacher and his infatuation with one of the history boys who is up-front heterosexual but is not coy in acting up in sexual matters. It also applies to one of the boys who is infatuated with the same student and brings these issues to the surface with the others. And, of course, this is a valid approach.
However, in a climate of an awareness of sexual abuse of minors by adults, there are a number of problematic issues in the film. Protocols these days require persons in authority to report harassment and molestation to the police. Authorities, like Churches, Schools and Social Welfare institutions have been condemned for cover-up with a great deal of charges for offences by police and huge compensation payouts.
The problem is there with the character of Hector. He does grope the students, especially when giving them lifts on his motorbike. The film treats this fairly lightly – in a way that could not be done were the harassment affecting a female student. Is he a molester and what is required now – although in the 1980s this was probably considered by most people, abusers, victims and their families, authorities, to be something immoral but not a crime. There is a report to the headmaster who is then emotionally blackmailed to cover up with a cover up of his harassing his secretary.
The issue of the distinction between orientation and behaviour comes up and the consequences of boundaries in what is appropriate and what is inappropriate. The homosexual student eventually becomes a teacher, admits his orientation and his inclinations to act out but stays within his boundaries – and that is one of the final statements of the film.
The reviewer of The History Boys in Sight and Sound, Tony Rayns, notes this difficulty with the film. He points out that this is more of a subtext in the play but, with its differing emphases and spotlighting of characters, it becomes the text of the film.
The History Boys certainly raises methods of education questions. But it also raises issues of sexuality and behaviour which need far more exploration and nuance.
1.The success of the play? Critical acclaim? British and American awards? The director’s background, theatre, film? The transition to the cinema, the adaptation by Bennett of his screenplay, the retaining of Bennett’s language, precision, wit? The opening out of the film – the streets, the universities, the visit to Oxford? Homes? The musical score?
2.The work and status of Alan Bennett, his interests: education, different ways of learning, the history of education in the UK, the high schools, the private schools, the public schools, universities, entrance exams and scholarships? Competitiveness? Pressures from schools, families? The students themselves, their age, experience, interest? The irony of the postscript – and the subsequent careers of the boys and whether their learning and their scholarships and their Oxford education had actually helped them?
3.The issues of sexuality, homosexuality, sexual orientation, relationships, behaviour? The prevalence of homosexuality in the characters, the themes, discussions? Becoming text rather than subtext of the play?
4.Richard Griffiths as Hector, his screen presence, size, manner, behaviour, his attitude to the boys, the advances, groping them on the bike, his being seen, being reported to the police? The reaction of the headmaster? Audience attitude towards his behaviour, benevolent or critical, the law and issues of crime? Acceptance in this situation – while audiences critical in other professions as caring professions, clergy?
5.The portrait of the boys in themselves, Posner and his homosexuality, his family, his camp style, his imitation of films, Brief Encounter, his finally singing ‘Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered’? His relationship with Dakin, his longing? Dakin and his straight attitudes, his relationship with Fiona? Using information from her? His being the object of Posner’s desire, Irwin’s desire, the boys discussing this, his final offering of himself to Irwin? The cover-up of Hector’s behaviour? Posner and his later life teaching, his own urges, his staying within the bounds of propriety? Audience response to the issue, the characters?
6.The school, its reputation, the headmaster and his manner, over-theatrical in his performance? His harassment of his secretary? His decisions about Hector, the interviews with Mrs Linnot, with Irwin? Dakin and the information, his being open to blackmail? His words at Hector’s memorial service? His ambition, bringing in Irwin, desperate for success?
7.Mrs Linnot, a sympathetic character, her old-style teaching, history and the facts, her tolerance of Hector, discussions with him, her wisdom for Irwin, discussions in the common room, going out, talk?
8.Hector in himself, his style, married background, sexual orientation and behaviour, his behaviour in classes, the knowledge, the setting up of the French brothel for them to practise their French, the imitation of films, popular culture and popular knowledge? Camp style, the response of the boys? Giving the boys a lift home, groping them? The discussions with the headmaster? The discussions with Irwin, the different aspects of education? In the end, giving Irwin a lift – did he make advances or not, the reason for the crash? His funeral and memorial – the way that he didn’t want to be remembered as a cliché and the headmaster saying the clichés? Audience ambivalent attitudes towards Hector, kindly, critical, judgmental?
9.Irwin, his age, his lies about his background and Dakin discovering this at Oxford? His approach to learning, unorthodox methods, wanting gimmicks, different and unorthodox perspectives? Discussions about the war, Hitler? His interactions with the boys? In the staff room, Hector, the headmaster, Mrs Linnot? The issue of sexuality, Dakin and his confrontation and offering himself? The success of the boys and Irwin’s achievement? The aftermath and his becoming a TV host?
10.The different characters of the boys, Posner and his being centre stage, his abilities, his problems, the open discussion? The other boys and their conventional approach, their intelligence, Rudge, his interest in sport, their all getting scholarships, Rudge because of his ancestor working for the professors? The amount of study, their arguments about the methods, especially with Irwin? The visit to Oxford, the interviews, their acceptance?
11.The aftermath, twenty years later, the comments on all their careers, the many interested in business, teaching, television – and the fact that their education and Hector’s instructing of them had less effect than one might have thought? The comment by Bennett on British education?
