"The History Boys" has garnered some acclaim as a stage play. Perhaps the creators and performers of the play are better suited for the stage. Each work of art is deserving of its own medium, "The History Boys" is clearly proof. As a film, it simply falls flat.
First, the film really has a problem figuring out its center. All quality films depend on a center, or, with complex films, multiple centers. "The History Boys" lacks a true center, a theme or character upon which the center revolves. Is it Richard Griffith's character, Hector? He would be worthy, as Hector is an interesting character. But no, the film makes you think the students are the center. Or are they? For the students don't get much attention, or character development, either. The film can't make up its mind: is it about Hector, the closeted homosexual teacher with a penchant for his students; or the school boys, all vying for spots at Cambridge or Oxford? The filmmakers really needed to pick a center of the story and focus on that (my choice would have been on the students with Hector's issues as an obstacle and/or emotional core).
Next, the film has another key problem: it fails to connect with much of the audience. There are huge swaths of the play/film where the characters speak French/debate philosophy/quote poetry/discuss literature. The problem is, at least in America, is most people are simply not that well read. So you've abandoned large populations of your prospective audience. Perhaps the filmmakers wanted to show off their literary prowess and higher learning. Frankly, it's a large turn-off. You can tell an intelligent story without thumbing your noses at the poor, middle-class schlubs who haven't read Walden or Kierkegaard or whatever else you're quoting. Clearly this film has comparisons to "Dead Poet's Society", but that film was never condescending to the audience, unlike "History Boys". I found it maddening, as if the writers were rubbing our noses in our "poor learning".
The funny thing is, even with their "higher learning", at least one of the actors was simply awful in his role. I'm speaking of Stephen Campbell Moore as Irwin. He is a key figure in the film, the embodiment of falsehood, educating the boys in fabrication as a means of advancement. Anyone who works in Corporate America knows of fabrication as a means of advancement, but Moore is so lifeless, so wooden in this pivotal role, it makes the film fall flat. There is a great point to this character, (that fraudulence begets fraudulence, both in results and in character), but the acting is so poor there is no punctuation to the point. It's like watching a drone from Office Cubicle 17 talk about his life. Banal and lifeless, a terrible job.
Finally, I have to mention the overreaching homo erotic theme of this film. Ya know, I'm sick and tire of stereotypical gay playwrights/screenwriters throwing their sexual preferences on the screen. Get over yourselves, already. Yes, a key element of the plot is Hector's slightly uncontrolled preference for teen-aged boys. But then you have to throw in the overly gay student. Then you have to make the new teacher gay. Then you have to make the charming, handsome student "bi-coastal". You've lost me, and I suspect much of the non-gay audience. Not because we're homophobic, but because you've lost the core, central theme of this film. This film has two cores: the indiscretion of the outstanding teacher, Hector; and the notion that advancement comes through fraudulence (in this case, making up fancy essays to ensure one enters Oxford). With all this gay innuendo (which actually isn't accurate, for homosexually is anything but covert here), you're overwhelming the true story that "The History Boys" should be telling.
I give this 6 out of 10. Some horrible acting by Moore, and a script that fails to find its center.
Barky
First, the film really has a problem figuring out its center. All quality films depend on a center, or, with complex films, multiple centers. "The History Boys" lacks a true center, a theme or character upon which the center revolves. Is it Richard Griffith's character, Hector? He would be worthy, as Hector is an interesting character. But no, the film makes you think the students are the center. Or are they? For the students don't get much attention, or character development, either. The film can't make up its mind: is it about Hector, the closeted homosexual teacher with a penchant for his students; or the school boys, all vying for spots at Cambridge or Oxford? The filmmakers really needed to pick a center of the story and focus on that (my choice would have been on the students with Hector's issues as an obstacle and/or emotional core).
Next, the film has another key problem: it fails to connect with much of the audience. There are huge swaths of the play/film where the characters speak French/debate philosophy/quote poetry/discuss literature. The problem is, at least in America, is most people are simply not that well read. So you've abandoned large populations of your prospective audience. Perhaps the filmmakers wanted to show off their literary prowess and higher learning. Frankly, it's a large turn-off. You can tell an intelligent story without thumbing your noses at the poor, middle-class schlubs who haven't read Walden or Kierkegaard or whatever else you're quoting. Clearly this film has comparisons to "Dead Poet's Society", but that film was never condescending to the audience, unlike "History Boys". I found it maddening, as if the writers were rubbing our noses in our "poor learning".
The funny thing is, even with their "higher learning", at least one of the actors was simply awful in his role. I'm speaking of Stephen Campbell Moore as Irwin. He is a key figure in the film, the embodiment of falsehood, educating the boys in fabrication as a means of advancement. Anyone who works in Corporate America knows of fabrication as a means of advancement, but Moore is so lifeless, so wooden in this pivotal role, it makes the film fall flat. There is a great point to this character, (that fraudulence begets fraudulence, both in results and in character), but the acting is so poor there is no punctuation to the point. It's like watching a drone from Office Cubicle 17 talk about his life. Banal and lifeless, a terrible job.
Finally, I have to mention the overreaching homo erotic theme of this film. Ya know, I'm sick and tire of stereotypical gay playwrights/screenwriters throwing their sexual preferences on the screen. Get over yourselves, already. Yes, a key element of the plot is Hector's slightly uncontrolled preference for teen-aged boys. But then you have to throw in the overly gay student. Then you have to make the new teacher gay. Then you have to make the charming, handsome student "bi-coastal". You've lost me, and I suspect much of the non-gay audience. Not because we're homophobic, but because you've lost the core, central theme of this film. This film has two cores: the indiscretion of the outstanding teacher, Hector; and the notion that advancement comes through fraudulence (in this case, making up fancy essays to ensure one enters Oxford). With all this gay innuendo (which actually isn't accurate, for homosexually is anything but covert here), you're overwhelming the true story that "The History Boys" should be telling.
I give this 6 out of 10. Some horrible acting by Moore, and a script that fails to find its center.
Barky