The History Boys

Having won six Tony awards, toured countless countries and continents, and received enormous critical acclaim upon its initial opening in 2004, it seemed inevitable that Alan Bennett’s play 'The History Boys' would be developed for the screen. Not only because of the play’s critical reaction and the reputation of its writer, but also because its cosy and nostalgic setting of an early 80’s countryside prep school- seemingly a hundred miles away from the problems of Thatcherism- must have seemed an ideal setting for a partially Hollywood funded film; (The 1980’s setting is immediately exploited from the moment that the often-heard Smiths song ‘This Charming Man’ is played over the opening credit sequence). With the exact same cast who had performed the play on stage and the same director, the film was released in 2006.

The story centres on a group of intellectual 18-year-old boys who, having completed their A-Level exam, have one last term in which to build up their knowledge in preparation for their final entrance level exams to Oxbridge; a target for the whole class. In an attempt to boost their chances and deliver results that will reflect well on the school, the headmaster brings in new recruit Tom Irwin (Stephen Campbell Moore) to join the teaching faculty. His approach to teaching is drastically different to their standard established history lessons conducted by the elderly Hector and the trusted Mrs Lintott (Frances de la Tour). He instils into them the idea that although their ideas and attitudes towards history are factually accurate, the way they view history is “boring” and he seeks to make them understand the exact meaning of history and ultimately to question everything around them. This sparks a new approach to learning that includes passionate discussions on the holocaust and a new approach to understanding the world. Inevitably, the methods work as the entire class make it into Oxbridge by the end of the film.

Initially the primary focus of the film contrary to its namesake appears to be the completely contrasting approaches that different generations take to teaching. Irwin, who is described by the boys as “only looking five minutes older than us” and who behaves not unlike one the of the pupils himself has clearly gone through a similar system of education as the boys and desires to show them that there is more to learning history that just ticking the right boxes. There initially seems to be an air of 'Dead Poet’s Society' (1989) about the film, the way that a young teacher enters the school full of revolutionary ideas and I thought that before too long the pupils would be standing on their desks. Fortunately, the character is played with much more subtlety, his way of getting through to the pupils is not through any sort of radical new idea, it is more about getting them to question how they arrive at what they already know. This new approach is juxtaposed with the boy’s other history teacher Hector (Richard Griffiths), who has been at the school for a number of years. However, although it is made obvious that his teaching methods are more traditional owing to the initial reactions of the pupils to new ideas, very little time is actually spent exploring the precise teaching methods of Hector. Bennett instead spends much more time focusing on the sexual appetite of the character, specifically that he is attracted to his pupils. Bennett seems to spend a great deal of time exploring this relationship and contrary to the standard representation of paedophilia, he is not ultimately condemned or punished for his behaviour. Rather confusingly, the boys themselves are shown to encourage him by taking it in turns to ride home on the back of his motorbike and be groped. This was the point where, for me, the film really started to lose the credibility that the early scenes had built up. Would teenagers ever take it in turns to be groped by their elderly teacher every afternoon at the end of their history lesson? No. Not in 1983, not in Yorkshire, not anytime or anywhere. This scenario also takes much credibility away from the characterisation of the pupils, for us to believe that they would behave in this way makes them significantly difficult to identify with. A deeper insight into Hector’s approach to teaching and a wider exploration into exactly how different he is to his counterpart would have allowed for a more credible story thread and character other than the rather awkward and unlikely paedophilia angle to the storyline and character. Richard Griffiths’s performance gives the character considerably more credibility than the script should allow him. Indeed, his performance is the only one that could be described as higher than average.

Aside from the two male leads, highly unusually for a Bennett piece of work the film is full of one-dimensional characters. It seems incredible that the same writer who wrote the beautifully crafted Talking Heads manages to reduce some characters to rather simple-minded caricatures. The PE teacher Wilkes who cannot stop talking about the salvation of God provides about as much comic relief as a custard pie fight, while the only other teacher we hear from Mrs Linnett is not only very underused in the story but also gives an embarrassing and completely out of place speech about the injustice of women’s place in history which takes any possible credibility away from the character. The headmaster, meanwhile, whose sole function appears to be to complain about finances and discipline the teachers shouts his way through the piece as only a one-dimensional character could. We are not given any kind of insight into his motivations and feelings for running the school the way he does; he is a caricature there to say what needs to be said and then to disappear from the film without trace.

What of the boys themselves? Surely, they are the ones that the film would either rise or fall upon as it is ultimately their journey into adulthood that we are following. In the first place I should point out that the film uses the fatiguing approach of using actors considerably older for the roles than should be intended. The possibility of any of these twenty something’s passing for a teenager is a stretch of even the biggest optimist’s imagination. Secondly, I am forced once again to criticise the characterisation. With the exceptions of the manipulating and controlling Dakin (Dominic Cooper) and the sexually confused and sensitive Posner (Samuel Barnett) who admits, “I’m a Jew, I’m small, I’m homosexual, I live in Sheffield…I’m fucked,” the presence of the other Pupils brings very little to the film. A few brief lines from one of the boys Rudge about not standing a chance of making it into university before he is predictably admitted with the rest of the class is hopelessly uninspiring and could have been made much more effective had we been allowed to understand the character and his true motivations. Bennett’s script really does not explore who these other characters really are, and they may as well have been extras to a storyline just about Dakin and Posner for all the difference it would have made.

The film also undoubtedly suffers from the limitations of converting from stage to screen. Director Nicholas Hytner has won countless theatrical awards and is director of the National Theatre, but he seems to make very little use of the locations available instead seeming reluctant to leave the safe confines of the school grounds. Had we been allowed to see a bit more of what was going on in the north of England in 1983, the film would have been in more of a conceptualised framework. Instead, very little imagination seemed to be used thinking about things the film would have been able to do that the play could not. The disadvantages of using theatre directors for films are only too evident and I cannot help feeling that the experience of watching the stage play would be just like watching a mirror of the film. This also leads me to ponder why the film needs to be set in 1980’s at all. Short of the musical offerings I mentioned at the beginning of the film from the likes of The Smiths and New Order, there appears to be very little to justify this leading to the question why it could not have been set in the present tense.

While there are some moving moments such as seeing Hector reduced to tears as he realises that his teaching generation is dying out and that he has no future left, and the penultimate scene that gives each boy a brief monologue giving an insight into their hopes for the future, the message of the film is ultimately lost because Bennett really seems to lose focus. After a very structured and promising opening, the film descends into underdeveloped explorations of everything from Paedophilia and the generation gap to women’s lib and homosexuality. If we were to feel the emotions Bennett had intended, it would have been key for us to be able to empathise and understand the characters more effectively, but we are given very little chance to understand, or indeed believe in them. By the end of the film, you will be left feeling as if, for its cast and production talent, it really ought to have been significantly better and while Bennett’s works normally stay in my mind for a very long time, I will save the space in my memory for Bennett’s other superior efforts.

Watch

Country: UK
Budget: £2,000,000
Length: 109mins

Filmography:
'Dead Poet’s Society', 1989, Peter Weir, Touchstone Pictures

Pub/2008

More like this:
The Crying Game, 1992, directed by Neil Jordan
The Good Night, 2007, directed by Jake Paltrow
Living In Oblivion, 1995, directed by Tom DiCillo