|
Post by Elly on Oct 18, 2006 19:40:08 GMT
I'm surprised nobody has posted about this yet, because it's very gay and quite funny and some of the eponymous boys who do History are a little bit cute.
But it's also the cinematic equivalent of having a really good, stimulating conversation with some hot intellectual type, and thinking throughout, 'I'm gonna get some tonight', only for said hot intellectual type to turn around and say, "Actually, I don't really do sex."
Make of that what you will.
|
|
|
Post by Bungle on Oct 18, 2006 20:43:53 GMT
The boy with the big ears - where do I know him from? I think he did a sitcom when he was a kid.
I remember him being good though.
So there is gayness? But is it entertaining?
|
|
|
Post by Elly on Oct 18, 2006 21:18:26 GMT
So there is gayness? But is it entertaining? The film is very entertaining. As for the gayness... Not so much. It's a lot of talk and speculation and no hot gay sex or even hot gay kissing. Anybody in their right mind will want hot boy to kiss his quite hot professor. But he doesn't, even though there is lots of flirting and talk of a blow job.
|
|
|
Post by pauliepoos on Oct 19, 2006 20:31:02 GMT
But it's also the cinematic equivalent of having a really good, stimulating conversation with some hot intellectual type, and thinking throughout, 'I'm gonna get some tonight', only for said hot intellectual type to turn around and say, "Actually, I don't really do sex." What a perfect description. I did enjoy the film, but it did fail to deliver somewhat. Maybe a new writer or director or actors would have brought a fresh approach from the stage version, but I felt quite unsatisfied, despite shedding a tear at the end. And the hot boy just wasn't hot enough for me, although his confidence did appeal. And as nice as it was to see Toyah Battersby, the whole sexual abuse storyline left a nasty taste in my mouth. And Frances de la Tour reminds me of my mother.
|
|
|
Post by Adrian on Oct 20, 2006 10:37:54 GMT
I really enjoyed this film. It's all in the dialogue, which is very warm and makes the characters quite likeable. But I really can't place what about the film I liked, I just know I did.
A
|
|
|
Post by klee on Oct 20, 2006 13:41:58 GMT
Seeing Toyah Battersby was the best bit of the film - she just needed a few bloody lines.
Frances De La Tour's character was transparently designed to appeal to the gays (what, gays in liking strong outspoken woman shocker?) - it's just a shame that, one or two outbursts aside , she had nothing to do.
If I was an actress complaining about how very few interesting parts there are in the theatre I'd be pointing at this long and hard. It has the two types: the ingenue and the old crone - nothing in between.
Most of the film was only pseudo-intellectual anyway. A cute concept marred by the fact it was much too like a stage play with a film camera in the corner. Most of its meditation on the nature of education and history was rather glib. It would have been better off set in the 1950s.
Not one of Alan Bennett's better works, I'm afraid. Yes, it had the tell-tale quality of his other work, which contrasts each laugh with a moment of utter despair, but the material lacked inspiration or real insight.
|
|
|
Post by Cherubic on Oct 21, 2006 13:52:09 GMT
I think that's a rather unfair indictment of the subject matter. The points made about the modern reduction of education to hoop jumping and exam passing is (in my experience and that of my teacher packed family) a fair one, and it is arguable that the 80s (the decade after all that saw the introdcution of the national curriculum, a document widely considered by teachers to be ridiculously overprescriptive) were an important moment in this continuing trend.
Frances De La Tour was rather underwritten, but it is a play about boys, men and males in general and so to relagate women to the sidelines is not out of keeping with the themes. Her character (and her manner of teaching) seems to echo this spectatorial role fairly consistently, so even if it reduces her potential as a character it isn't demonstrative of poor writing.
With regards to pseudo intellectualism, a kinder critic could point out that the higher tier of a school sixth form is an entirely pseudo intellectual environment, and that therefore the lightweight arguments expressed by the characters is entirely in keeping with the truth of the situation in which they find themselves.
|
|
|
Post by pauliepoos on Nov 16, 2006 18:26:30 GMT
I saw the National Theatre production of this today, which returns to London in December.
Admittedly I was sat in the back row of the upper circle (not too bad for £7) but I couldn't see any of the characters faces clearly enough, thus not realising Irwin was played by Alex from As If, but I was remarkably underwhelmed by the whole experience.
Maybe it was the mass of pensioners laughing at distinctly unfunny lines, and then staying silent at the mention of "cuntstruck", maybe it was not being able to see the screen behind the stage showing footage during stage changes, and having to focus on tv screens in the boxes which was like watching it on a mobile phone, or maybe it was just the acting, which seemed hammy to say the least. Hardly a theatrical sensation. The film was MUCH better.
Ho hum!
|
|
|
Post by klee on Nov 17, 2006 11:10:11 GMT
With regards to pseudo intellectualism, a kinder critic could point out that the higher tier of a school sixth form is an entirely pseudo intellectual environment, and that therefore the lightweight arguments expressed by the characters is entirely in keeping with the truth of the situation in which they find themselves. Yes, but the most pseudo-intellectual of the points were generally those made by the teachers rather than the pupils. I see your point about the film depicting the education system on the brink of the National Curriculum being introduced. I started school a year or two before its introduction and the difference (and quality) of teaching arguably deteriorated significantly in that period. A great many good teachers went to the wall because of it (in fact you could argue Hector's death is emblematic of this - if the motorbike hadn't finished him off then Kenneth Baker would've). However, the majority of these arguments are theatrically expressed within the film - they are large points intended to be played to the gallery. Thus, translated onto film they become too broad and a bit glib. It's also more difficult to depict a 'Chorus' character like Frances De La Tour's convincingly without making them look slightly irrelevant. A bit odd really as Alan Bennett's screenplay for Madness Of George III was good and he's well known as an exponent of TV drama.
|
|
|
Post by Cherubic on Nov 24, 2006 10:47:15 GMT
Teachers are pseudo intellectuals though. A gentle slope that we can learn to think upon before we attempt the challenging black runs of life.
How were they supposed to transform it into a cinematic work though? MoKGIII had a potential for scale and grandeur (the court, palaces, naked kings clothed by Capability Brown) that THB could never have. It's a play about a few insignificant people living drab provincial lives and talking big to make an impression. It might have been a better film if they'd taken more risks with it, but the subject matter doesn't really suit the medium. People went to see the film of the play, and that is what they were given.
It was good because it entertained and made one think, even if one concluded it was bollocks. However due to the problems inherent in converting intimate stage to screen it was flawed.
|
|
|
Post by pauliepoos on Dec 28, 2007 21:03:32 GMT
TOYAH BATTERSBY ALERT!
And Penelope Wilton.
And Russell Tovey. BBC2. Now.
|
|
|
Post by Rad on Dec 28, 2007 21:21:04 GMT
I don't think I can put myself through this film again, as much as i like nearly all the individual actors in it.
I really, really wanted to like it, and I really, really didn't.
|
|
|
Post by jamiek on Dec 28, 2007 21:26:15 GMT
I am literally only watching it because I can't find the scene where Daikin propositions Irwin on Youtube.
I thought the film was okay: the end will inevitably make me cry and Frances De La Tour brightens up any scene she is in.
|
|
|
Post by LoveMusic on Dec 28, 2007 22:56:44 GMT
I was going to make a comment on the hotness of the actors. However, after reading all the intellectual debate on here i feel silly.
|
|
|
Post by Rad on Dec 28, 2007 23:47:06 GMT
Oh, and just to big up the National Curriculum a bit (although it is flawed). My primary education was pre-curriculum and we learned bugger all about anything in middle school (first school was a bit better).
No history, geography, science, art, technology (except one term of building houses out of 'spills' with glue guns and suchlike, and the odd bit of pottery) - in fact it was mostly just maths, reading, playing rounders and doing 'topic', which involved a term of learning about milk, road safety or the police (for example).
Your timetable was completely at the whim of your teacher - so some teachers would do things like creative writing, and others wouldn't. Some did PE once or twice a week, some every afternoon, every day. For example.
One teacher used to combine RE with 'handwriting' - we had to write about Bible stories (and RE was only learning about Bible stories - and only the famous ones at that: Christmas, Easter, David and Goliath, Creation, Noah etc) in our best handwriting. Another teacher insisted we did several hours of handwriting a week which didn't even involve actual writing, just making squiggles and lines on a page.
When I hit secondary school and the National Curriculum at 11 (and as the NC was new, we got all-new textbooks every year) and started to actually get an education, it was entirely welcome. We even got to meet computers then. Our middle school was always raising funds to buy them (BBC Basics, the most cutting edge of all) but we never actually got to see the fabled things.
Anyway, back to the film, I just thought it was unrealistic (especially the dialogue), over sentimental and a bit creepy in places. And if Grange Hill has taught us anything, it is that school in the 80s was all about just saying no to drugz and nearly catching AIDS off a monkey, and THB covers none of that.
EDIT: well, there may have been some drugs, I can't remember, but certainly not in a Zammo-stylee.
Even though, as I said, I love pretty much all the actors in this film and I really willed it to be good.
|
|
|
Post by jode* on Dec 29, 2007 11:35:25 GMT
I thought it was weird.
It seemed like it would work as a play, but not as a film. One of the last bits especially, where they were discussing what the actors would be doing when they were "grown up" and there was a grey wash over everything was a definite stage-only scene. It just didn't work.
I didn't really get who was gay, curious or winding everyone up.
I think Richard Griffiths was really creepy so I didn't care at all when he died either.
|
|
|
Post by LoveMusic on Dec 29, 2007 12:26:58 GMT
I didn't like the bit at the end either. The boy who 'went to war' was barely mentioned throughout and it all seemed a bit bleak.
I liked the teacher, till he fell for the stupid dark haired one.
|
|
|
Post by SBaholic on Dec 29, 2007 15:47:21 GMT
I thought it was all a bit meh. They were too faithful to the stage production of it, and it felt a bit stifled and needed to flow better. Plus Irwin looked too much like Jude Law for me to even believe in his character.
I liked Dead Poet's Society much better, with the pretty pretty Ethan Hawke.
|
|
|
Post by jetsetwilly on Dec 29, 2007 22:58:51 GMT
I didn't like the play and have so far resisted seeing the film. This is in the face of a boyfriend who saw the original three times at the National and twice on UK tour. Even Russell Tovey's jug handle ears couldn't persuade me to see the film (though the BF keeps thrusting the DVD under my nose hopefully). I thought the play was artificial and forced and really quite predictable; the delight of some great one-liners in the mouths of an undeniably talented cast was spoiled by the fact that I pretty much knew what was going to happen before I sat down.
On the plus side John Inman was about three rows in front of us, and he laughed like a big camp drain throughout while wearing a bow tie.
|
|
|
Post by Cherubic on Dec 30, 2007 16:26:58 GMT
I saw it again the other night.
I would like to alter my opinion to:
Cheer up Alan Bennet you grumpy old bastard.
|
|
|
Post by Starfury on Dec 30, 2007 23:02:45 GMT
I finally saw the film this evening. I thought it was thoroughly amazing; I'm going to be a proper 'intellectual' and go and see it at the theatre and everything.
|
|
|
Post by sultenfuss on Dec 31, 2007 0:49:38 GMT
I saw both the play and this film and disliked them both. I remember the film being ripped to shreds on newsnight review (germaine greer was particularly agressive)..i am almost cheered as all the "rave reviews", "tranatlatic stage hit", "tony awards" etc etc stuff had really confused me.
I don't doubt that Bennett is a sharp comic writer when he gets away from the whole northern, downtrodden, cole mine, kitchen sink, text that has that same annoying rhythm every time schtick but please...school boys that accept ze gayz in an 80s boarding school very realistic..a pervy teacher that gropes his pupils on a bike but you'know it all fine cos he got chubby chops and a big santa claus belly and its richard griffiths. no thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Cherubic on Dec 31, 2007 9:59:16 GMT
I don't doubt that Bennett is a sharp comic writer when he gets away from the whole northern, downtrodden, cole mine, kitchen sink, text that has that same annoying rhythm every time schtick but please...school boys that accept ze gayz in an 80s boarding school very realistic..a pervy teacher that gropes his pupils on a bike but you'know it all fine cos he got chubby chops and a big santa claus belly and its richard griffiths. no thanks. I don't think you could ever accuse Alan Bennet of being kitchen sink, at least not in the sense it is traditionally meant, as a hyper-real grim up North projection of the bleakness of working class life. He's always been a comic writer, only coming from a very understated and maudlin position. And as far as I know he's never written about a coal mine in his life. Having said that the history boys is a bit whingey, but that's what happens when we get old.
|
|
|
Post by pauliepoos on Dec 31, 2007 10:33:09 GMT
I've a feeling Scott might be gay. Usually I like them only I think he's one of the one's that's turned bitter.
|
|
|
Post by Starfury on Dec 31, 2007 17:40:13 GMT
I saw both the play and this film and disliked them both. I remember the film being ripped to shreds on newsnight review (germaine greer was particularly agressive)..i am almost cheered as all the "rave reviews", "tranatlatic stage hit", "tony awards" etc etc stuff had really confused me. I don't doubt that Bennett is a sharp comic writer when he gets away from the whole northern, downtrodden, cole mine, kitchen sink, text that has that same annoying rhythm every time schtick but please...school boys that accept ze gayz in an 80s boarding school very realistic..a pervy teacher that gropes his pupils on a bike but you'know it all fine cos he got chubby chops and a big santa claus belly and its richard griffiths. no thanks. I'd avoided the film until yesterday, mostly due to similar comments from friends regarding the "justification" of paedophilia. Having seen it, however, I don't think I could disagree more, and didn't come away with any particular message on paedophilia. Indeed, I think that all the various elements came together to create something really quite special and (to me) it really felt like it captured the '80s. On a more personal level, having come from a boys' day grammar (the same as the school in the film - I've definitely missed something if it was a boarding school), it was strikingly accurate in the core elements of the school. Regarding accepting "ze gayz", while it perhaps wasn't the most accurate of representations, I found the boys' honesty refreshing, and was one of the reasons I really liked it. Anyway, I'll step down off the soapbox now (which, as it happens, is quite handy, as my flatmate needs it to put a wash on).
|
|