This film had such great potential and reminded me in many ways of my own schooldays, and did have some very funny and touching scenes (Brief Encounter!), but also failed on so many levels: 1. Wrongly marketed. Not a criticism of the film as such, but it was marketed in the trailers as a knock-about comedy, along the lines of an English 'American Pie'. I suspect this is the reason why so many dimwits walked out in horror when confronted instead by 'long words'.
2. Little or no analysis of the social and class implications of a bunch of middle/lower middle class state school boys going to Oxbridge. It was just taken as read. To be fair, Alan Bennett does say in 'Untold Stories' that an analysis of the Oxbridge experience is the subject for another film, but it would have made a better one, in my opinion. It was also extremely unrealistic in that all the boys got places - In my school only about half did.
3. The unrealistic treatment of homosexuality. I hesitate to use the term 'gay agenda' as it is generally the preserve of American fundamentalists, but the whole Dakin/Posner/Hector/etc love triangle (or should that be love square) did not ring true.
I went to an almost identical school at around the same time and I can assure you that there was NEVER any overt talk of same sex relationships, and boys I have know from other grammar and minor public schools have confirmed this. You simply would have been ostracised or beaten up if you had.
Yes of course there were boys who we knew or suspected were gay, and masters too, but the scene where Dakin hugs Posner and Posner says 'is that it' would just not have happened. Also, Dakin revealing himself as a predatory bisexual was a bit unlikely for someone of his age and experience - he hadn't even got to 'second base' with the school secretary so why would he have the confidence to attempt the seduction of a male teacher? Much as I admire Alan Bennett, this all seems to me purely the fantasy of an elderly homosexual playwright, which brings me onto my next point:
4. The unrealistic dialogue. The boys were simply TOO precocious. 17 and 18 year olds, even Oxbridge candidate geniuses, in my experience just don't talk like that or have that depth of interest in history and literature, or universal knowledge of films like 'Now, Voyager' and 'Brief Encounter'. Again, this was the dialogue of a 72 year old playwright being put into the mouths of the boys.
5. I got the impression that the black and Asian boy were put in as a gesture, and this is confirmed by the fact that they have little dialogue or character development, in fact pretty much the only lines they got were racially charged ones. This strikes me as the somewhat heavy-handed stamp of liberal/left guilt and tokenism.
I think Mr Bennett was basing the characters on his memories of grammar school boys in the early fifties, who probably were more erudite, but since the cultural revolution of the sixties (of which Mr Bennett no doubt heartily approves) adolescents mainly don't think or act like that any more, as popular culture has dumbed down immensely. The boys all spoke and acted far more like third year undergraduates than sixth formers. How many 18 year olds have a wry, sarcastic take on Christianity like the religious boy? How many 18 year old boys, however good looking, would act like Dakin?
I think the main problem is that The History Boys is a somewhat expressionist play ('a poem, not an essay' as Pinter would put it) which has been rather clumsily translated into a naturalist film and given a populist gloss. Whilst it has a lot of great scenes, overall it just doesn't work as well as it could. Sign me up for the Dead Poets' Society instead!
2. Little or no analysis of the social and class implications of a bunch of middle/lower middle class state school boys going to Oxbridge. It was just taken as read. To be fair, Alan Bennett does say in 'Untold Stories' that an analysis of the Oxbridge experience is the subject for another film, but it would have made a better one, in my opinion. It was also extremely unrealistic in that all the boys got places - In my school only about half did.
3. The unrealistic treatment of homosexuality. I hesitate to use the term 'gay agenda' as it is generally the preserve of American fundamentalists, but the whole Dakin/Posner/Hector/etc love triangle (or should that be love square) did not ring true.
I went to an almost identical school at around the same time and I can assure you that there was NEVER any overt talk of same sex relationships, and boys I have know from other grammar and minor public schools have confirmed this. You simply would have been ostracised or beaten up if you had.
Yes of course there were boys who we knew or suspected were gay, and masters too, but the scene where Dakin hugs Posner and Posner says 'is that it' would just not have happened. Also, Dakin revealing himself as a predatory bisexual was a bit unlikely for someone of his age and experience - he hadn't even got to 'second base' with the school secretary so why would he have the confidence to attempt the seduction of a male teacher? Much as I admire Alan Bennett, this all seems to me purely the fantasy of an elderly homosexual playwright, which brings me onto my next point:
4. The unrealistic dialogue. The boys were simply TOO precocious. 17 and 18 year olds, even Oxbridge candidate geniuses, in my experience just don't talk like that or have that depth of interest in history and literature, or universal knowledge of films like 'Now, Voyager' and 'Brief Encounter'. Again, this was the dialogue of a 72 year old playwright being put into the mouths of the boys.
5. I got the impression that the black and Asian boy were put in as a gesture, and this is confirmed by the fact that they have little dialogue or character development, in fact pretty much the only lines they got were racially charged ones. This strikes me as the somewhat heavy-handed stamp of liberal/left guilt and tokenism.
I think Mr Bennett was basing the characters on his memories of grammar school boys in the early fifties, who probably were more erudite, but since the cultural revolution of the sixties (of which Mr Bennett no doubt heartily approves) adolescents mainly don't think or act like that any more, as popular culture has dumbed down immensely. The boys all spoke and acted far more like third year undergraduates than sixth formers. How many 18 year olds have a wry, sarcastic take on Christianity like the religious boy? How many 18 year old boys, however good looking, would act like Dakin?
I think the main problem is that The History Boys is a somewhat expressionist play ('a poem, not an essay' as Pinter would put it) which has been rather clumsily translated into a naturalist film and given a populist gloss. Whilst it has a lot of great scenes, overall it just doesn't work as well as it could. Sign me up for the Dead Poets' Society instead!