Or...we could just hit him repeatedly with these big spiky maces!

[alexsarll]

Did anybody see The History Boys on stage *and* film? Because I saw the latter last night, and having already read the director's commentary, I'm interested as to whether there are any differences between the two beyond the obvious. Certainly it felt as though many of the lines and performances would have been quite powerful on stage where they were a little unsubtle for the screen; the ending might even have been moving rather than mawkish. The only scene which felt even vaguely *filmic* was the montage of Oxbridge scenes set brilliantly, counterintuitively to The Cure's 'A Forest', reminding us that our protagonists are but innocents abroad. Beyond that, it's passably entertaining - but even as a play, I can't see how it would have been great rather than good. Its argument is confused - by which I don't mean any failure to take sides, rather, unlike Stoppard it fails even to throw light on the terms of the conflict. Why does neither side of the Holocaust argument scene have any decent points to make? Why would a headmaster who talks about creating "Renaissance men" object to Hector's classes which seem to do just that? What the blazes does the PE teacher have to do with *anything*? And at the risk of coming across a bit Tatchell, I'm uncomfortable with the implication that any good teacher is necessarily "a homosexual and a sad fvck". In terms of plays with heavy Housman references, this is maybe fit to kiss the shoes of The Invention of Love. Maybe.
And Richard Griffiths...I feel a bit sad for Richard Griffiths sometimes, and I do mean him not his characters. I picture him longing to lose a little weight, but mournfully shovelling those pies down his gullet, always aware that if he ever stops looking like a hippopotamus with a splinter in its foot, his career will be over.

Jon Savage's England's Dreaming is one of the music books I see most frequently on my friends' shelves, and yet if any of them knew his follow-up proper was imminent, they've not mentioned it to me. For the record: Teenage: the Creation of Youth Culture is out next month, but there's a wider question to be asked, about why with a few exceptions (mostly boy wizard-shaped), people are generally so unaware of imminent book launches, even when they're exactly the sort of people who know which albums of interest are hitting over the next few months.

The Disability Rights Commission objects to the continued use of Routemasters on *two* central London routes, even though both routes also have accessible buses running. What selfish, joyless pricks they must be.
Meanwhile, McDonalds is campaigning against the dictionary definition of 'McJob', apparently failing to grasp, as these campaigns always do, that dictionaries record WHAT THE BLOODY WORDS MEAN and cannot be amended at any monomaniac's whim, unless said monomaniac somehow convinces the language to do its bidding first.
In summary: a pox on all special interest groups.

Comments

[dickon-edwards.livejournal.com]

History Boys stage and screen differences:

In the play, Irwin is shown in flash-forward scenes as a popular wheelchair-bound TV history presenter in the 90s (receiving a pathetic attempted blackmail about his schoolboy-fancying by a desperate, bedsit-bound, Internet-dwelling older Posner). Irwin also becomes a sinister Government advisor a la A. Campbell in the near future. Alan Bennett is clearly saying something about his teaching techniques - all soundbites and attention-grabbing spin - appearing in other aspects of modern society. Although this keeps you waiting to find out how he ended up in a wheelchair (the traffic accident at the end), I did think that AB was trying to say too much at once. This was all cut out partly to keep the film shorter, but also to focus more on the boys. Stephen C Moore's more filmic style of acting (all in the eyes!) coupled with the omission of these flash-forward scenes made the film a lot kinder to Irwin - he's less the villain of the piece. Posner, without his flash-forward scene as the blackmailer, also gets a kinder ending in the film. According to the DVD audio commentary, Hector's end felt more than enough in the film (where everything is brought into a harsher light), so all the more reason to give Irwin and Posner happier endings.

The play is a lot more moving, not least the Bye Bye Blackbird song and all the other musical bits, because the young actors are really there singing in front of you (and the Scripps actor is a brilliant pianist).

So I'm a fan of both, as both formats have their own pros and cons. Read the play!

[barrysarll.livejournal.com]

Thank you.

Was Irwin played by someone else on stage, then? Looking at the Hytner article again I suppose there is one line which can be read that way, but I didn't register it at first, and had thought the whole cast the same.
The idea of having Irwin become a spin doctor does seem to be a rather heavy-handed way of clarifying the point; I wanted a little more focus, sure, but that just sounds like polemic. Whereas leaving it at TV historian, especially with Frances de la Tour's comment as to what *sort* of TV historian, seems a subtler and also more general way of making the same connection. From what you say, the piece is better without that stuff - and I'm definitely glad Posner got a (slightly) happier ending.

I can very much picture 'Bye Bye Blackbird' working a lot better in the theatre, though.

[dickon-edwards.livejournal.com]

>Was Irwin played by someone else on stage, then?

No, it was SCM onstage too, but I meant his very eye-orientated (and indeed eyebrows!) style of acting works better on the screen than onstage. He really comes alive in the film version, and when the boys ask him what his private life is like, you really feel for him.