Daily Archives: Friday, September 11, 2015

  • The History Boys

    Nicholas Hytner (2006)

    A filmed performance of Alan Bennett’s lauded play would have had a valid purpose, as an opportunity for a larger audience to see a famously successful stage production.  In the event, the lack of cinematic life in the movie of The History Boys has a more negative explanation:  Nicholas Hytner, for all his huge reputation in theatre, seems to be a primitive film-maker.  At the start of the picture, as the eight title characters crowd round the school notice board to find out their A-level results, there’s a uniform chatter of excited anticipation and nearly uniform boisterous celebration when they see their grades.  Wouldn’t a couple of these academically ambitious – in some cases anxious – boys be quiet with apprehension or relief?  Hytner directs as if noise and activity, however unconvincing, are all that’s needed to turn a stage play into a motion picture.

    Perhaps for a similar reason, he seems wary of retaining extended dialogue between characters in the same place – yet the film’s best scene by far comes when one of the boys, Posner, recites Thomas Hardy’s ‘Drummer Hodge’ and discusses it with the school’s star teacher Hector (a nickname?).  The sequence may be physically static but it has emotional movement:  you realise that, by the end of this exchange, both teacher and pupil have learned from – been changed by – their conversation.  Some of the performances in this adaptation look to be utterly ‘unadapted’ from a different medium.  In the classroom, the boys often look to be reprising physical routines that might have had some snap or rhythm on stage but look artificial on screen.  It’s hard to believe from what they do in this film that one or two of the adults in the cast weren’t overacting in the theatre, even if you were watching from the upper circle.  Clive Merrison’s headmaster is the worst offender.

    The History Boys is about the autumn term following the summer holidays during which the boys get their A-level results – the term in which they are prepared for and take Oxbridge entrance.  It’s supposedly set in a Sheffield grammar school in 1983.   Sheffield seemed to me a surprising choice of location for a Yorkshire grammar school in the eighties:  I’d have expected the city, with its enduringly strong tradition of Labour local government, to have been in the vanguard of the switch to comprehensive education in the second half of the 1960s[1]The History Boys is really all about Alan Bennett and is based on his own late schoolboyhood, preparing for Oxbridge exams at a Leeds grammar school (Leeds Modern) in the early 1950s.  (It may also be about, to a lesser extent, Nicholas Hytner at Manchester Grammar School in the first half of the 1970s.)  It’s a change to see a film set in Yorkshire in the 1980s in which Mrs Thatcher plays such a small part (although she gets a mention) but that’s only because The History Boys isn’t, in any meaningful way, set in the 1980s.  In his diaries, Bennett is disarmingly honest about the play’s historical context being a sham.

    When you read a play or watch it in the theatre, it’s usual to feel that what you’re experiencing primarily is the imaginative world of the playwright.  This can help you suspend various kinds of disbelief about the piece.   It’s obviously possible to experience something analogous in a screen piece.  But in the cinema you’re liable to be more conscious of the techniques and preoccupations of the film’s director rather than its writer, where these are different people.  I suspect the historical unreality of The History Boys would have got in the way of my admiring it even in the theatre but I imagine that Nicholas Hytner, in the stage version, was expressing Alan Bennett in ways that are not true of the screen version.   Bennett may have written the screenplay but the very first sequence, in which we see a couple of the boys making their way to the school on A-level results days, is ‘opening out’ of stage material of the most perfunctory kind – and Hytner isn’t equipped to conceal the perfunctoriness.  The lack of eighties texture is a fundamental problem.  In that prologue, the two boys are wearing Walkmans – for purely time-setting purposes.  There are virtually no subsequent references to contemporary culture; the boys have no life, or shared experience, outside school.

    Perhaps Bennett is making the point (though I doubt it) that being prepared for Oxbridge is all-consuming but, in that case, why don’t he and Hytner make a virtue of the boys’ blinkered world view and restrict the action to the classroom?   We can accept that, as the school’s crème de la crème, the group is isolated from others of their age (who will already have left school).  We can’t accept the history boys don’t talk to each other about books or films or music or sport or politics of the 1980s.   They’re believable as embryo Oxbridge undergraduates only through their shared propensity for sarcastic aphorism, the kind of stuff which has issued from the mouths of young men – never, it seems, young women – in dramatisations of student life at Oxford and Cambridge from generation unto generation.  Is it an intended irony that the boys are at their funniest when at their least literate?  Or that, as conveyed in an epilogue summarising what they went on to do as adults, none of their destinations is surprising or illuminating?

    Each of the three members of staff involved in preparing the boys for Oxbridge entrance is the schematic representative of a particular educational approach.  (As a group, though, they seem to be variations on a those-who-can-do-those-who-can’t-teach theme.)   The boys’ regular history teacher Mrs Lintott (Frances de la Tour) majors on the learning of facts.  A young man called Irwin (Stephen Campbell Moore) encourages the boys to think for themselves; he values original analysis above ‘objective’ truth.   The boys’ favourite is the charismatic Hector (Richard Griffiths).  I didn’t understand what element of Oxbridge entrance Hector was responsible for:  the Wikipedia article on the film says he teaches ‘General Studies’ but that is (or was) an A-level subject.  He’s evidently coaching Posner in English – but he seems chiefly concerned with giving the boys a broader ‘cultural’ education.

    Hector’s frame of reference has strong, often venerable, gay inflections – Noel Coward, Bette Davis films, references to writers known to have been homosexual (A E Housman, for example).  Hard as it is to believe, Hytner and Bennett seem not to realise how the time-warped quality of the piece shifts the emphasis of Hector’s tutelage:  he’s inculcating the boys with a set of gay cultural reference points that’s largely anachronistic and seems likely to turn them into misfits in the world they’re about to enter.  We also learn that Hector, when he gives the boys lifts home on his motorcycle, surreptitiously fondles them:  here too, Bennett and Hytner ignore the implications of a teacher doing this in the 1980s compared with the 1950s.

    One of the supposed high points of the story occurs when, in one of Hector’s classes, Posner sings Rodgers and Hart’s ‘Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered’ in the pointed  direction of one of the other boys, Dakin.  This is perhaps the moment when the confusion at the heart of the material comes to full bloom.  As Posner, Samuel Barnett is good at suggesting an inchoate, developing intelligence but his overt crush on Dakin isn’t convincing.   (It’s all the more unconvincing because Dominic Cooper, who plays the supposedly irresistible Daklin – in their different ways, Posner, Hector and Irwin all fancy him – is remarkably unappealing.)   Alan Bennett famously came out as gay late in life.  There’s more of him in the light-haired, humorously self-deprecating Posner than in any of the other boys (although teenage religiosity and an interest in the ruins of ancient cathedrals are Bennett traits assigned to other characters).  It’s as if Bennett wishes that, as a teenager in Leeds, he’d been able to express openly his sexual feelings for more glamorous contemporaries – Posner singing a Rodgers and Hart love song is, in other words, a what-might-have-been fantasy on the part of the writer.

    Bennett may think the moment gains credibility from the story being set thirty years on from his own experience – in a decade when he might have been less shy about being gay.  But he hasn’t updated Posner to the extent that the boy is thoroughly comfortable with his sexuality; and the anachronism of the song is excruciating.  The type of gay sensibility that Alan Bennett can represent with empathy is so essentially a love that dare not speak its name that if it’s made overt (and, as it seems here, is accepted by the peer group), the character doesn’t fully make sense.  (Bennett is quite limited in dramatising more extrovert homosexuality:  his screenplay for Prick Up Your Ears, for example, didn’t really bring Joe Orton or Kenneth Halliwell to life.)

    Some of the boys’ parts are much more thinly written than the fluent, witty dialogue would suggest.   A boy called Scripps, for example, is largely featureless apart from his churchgoing:  fortunately, Jamie Parker, who plays him, has a warm, easy presence that draws the camera and you sense a good young screen actor in the making.   Some of the others in the class – especially James Corden and Russell Tovey – have already gone on to better things.  Richard Griffiths and Frances de la Tour, who also played their respective roles on stage, are expert, and Penelope Wilton is funny in a cameo as an art history teacher.  Yet there’s something phony and self-pleasuring about the whole enterprise.  At one point, someone – probably Hector, possibly in French – comes out with, ‘To understand all is to forgive all’.  I’ve admired a lot of what Alan Bennett has written for television and as a prose memoirist.  My problem with The History Boys was that I felt I understood him too well and found his self-indulgence unforgivable.

    19 October 2006

    [1] Afternote: Some years after seeing the film, I did a quick Google search, which brought up the following piece from the Sheffield Star, dated October 2009 and entitled ‘Do you remember when Sheffield went fully comprehensive?’:  ‘Forty years ago this term, Sheffield schools underwent the greatest upheaval seen in modern times with the introduction of the comprehensive system.  … In June 1968 Sheffield pupils sat their 11 plus exams for the very last time. …’  Of course, some of Sheffield’s grammar schools (according to the Star article, there were ten in the late 1960s) may have retained the ‘grammar’ in their names but it’s misleading to suggest that the group of eight in The History Boys are ‘grammar school boys’, according to the cultural-historical meaning of the term.

  • The Thin Blue Line

    Errol Morris (1988)

    On Thanksgiving weekend in 1976, a Dallas police officer called Robert Wood was working on night patrol with a female colleague (one of the first women officers in the city to be assigned to patrol).  Shortly after midnight, Wood stopped a car because its headlights were not on.  He approached the car on foot.  As he did so, someone in the car fired two shots, the second of which killed Wood.  Twenty-eight-year-old Randall Dale Adams and his brother arrived in Dallas, from their native Ohio, on Thursday 25 November 1976, the night of Thanksgiving.  The brothers were en route to California but on Friday 26 November Randall was offered and accepted a job in Dallas.  He turned up for his first day of work on Saturday 27 November but found the premises closed for the weekend.  On the way back to the motel where he and his brother were staying, Adams’s car ran out of fuel.   Another driver, sixteen-year-old David Ray Harris, stopped and offered Adams a lift.  The two spent the rest of the day together; in the evening, they went to a drive-in movie before going their separate ways.  David Harris had stolen the car he was driving, from a neighbour in Vidor, Texas.  Harris also had in the car with him a pistol and a shotgun belonging to his father.

    The police investigation into Robert Wood’s killing led them to David Harris who, though still a juvenile, already had a criminal record.  Harris accused Randall Adams, who had no criminal record, of the police officer’s murder.  Adams was charged; at his trial in 1977, Harris was the chief prosecution witness and was granted immunity for his testimony.  The jury found Adams guilty and he was sentenced to death.  In 1980, the US Supreme Court overturned the sentence, which was commuted to life imprisonment by the Governor of Texas.  By the time Errol Morris completed The Thin Blue Line, Randall Adams had spent more than a decade in prison and David Harris had been sentenced to death for the murder of a man called Mark Mays, in Beaumont, Texas in 1985.  The release of Morris’s film was followed, in less than seven months, by the release of Randall Adams.  His case was referred to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, which overturned his conviction, and returned to Dallas County for a retrial.  The district attorney’s office declined to prosecute the case again and Adams, following a habeas corpus hearing, left prison on 21 March 1989.  The Thin Blue Line had turned Adams’s conviction into a cause célèbre:  it’s hard to believe the film didn’t play a major part in bringing to light a miscarriage of justice and freeing an innocent man.  This would make it an important film even if it was otherwise undistinguished.

    In fact, undistinguished is not a word that naturally comes to mind in relation to The Thin Blue Line, which placed fifth in Sight and Sound’s greatest documentaries poll in 2014 and so qualified for screening in the BFI’s valuable season that has followed up that poll.  There’s an irony, though, in the film’s inclusion in S&S‘s all-time-top-ten of documentaries:  Morris was anxious for the promotion of The Thin Blue Line to avoid the label ‘documentary’.  The strapline on the theatrical poster described it as ‘a new kind of murder mystery’:  although the film won several documentary prizes in the late 1980s, the Academy deemed it ineligible for the Best Documentary Feature Oscar because it had been marketed as ‘non-fiction’ rather than as a documentary.  The ‘murder mystery’ tag connotes a drama and the piece is a highly effective piece of dramatisation in several ways.   The reconstruction of Officer Wood’s killing is frightening and, through repetition of excerpts from it, increasingly upsetting.  Philip Glass’s score, written for the film, is compelling.  Errol Morris includes quite extended clips from both parts of the soft-porn double-bill (The Student Body and Swinging Cheerleaders) that Adams and Harris watched at the drive-in on the evening of the murder.  Morris conducts interviews with Adams and Harris; men in Vidor whom Harris knew (and to whom he boasted of his killing of Wood); police and legal representatives; and other witnesses that the prosecution rustled up to tell lies to substantiate the case against Adams.  Morris doesn’t identify any of his remarkable collection of talking heads through explanatory text on screen:  we can immediately read Randall Adams’s surname on the pocket of his prison shirt but we get to understand who others are more gradually, rather as we would develop an understanding of the significance of characters in a fictional crime story.

    It’s hard to understand why the Texas police moved heaven and earth to pin the crime on Adams rather than Harris – hard, that is, until the likeable Edith James, one of Adams’s defence team, voices her simple and credible theory:  the police felt the murder of one of their own deserved capital punishment and Harris, unlike Adams, was too young to receive a death sentence.  When the Supreme Court overturns Adams’s death sentence, the story turns into something approaching appalling black comedy:  the police’s perverted determination to get justice for their colleague has proved entirely counterproductive – so that no one’s happy with the outcome.  Errol Morris doesn’t give his interviewees much opportunity to say whether their views about the crime, and their role in its aftermath, have changed with the years.  Those views may not have changed at all but Morris’s omission is as striking as it’s unsurprising.  He is not impartial; he wants to stress how pompous, complacent or outrageous certain contributors are.   The interview with Don Metcalfe, the judge at Adams’s trial, supplies the film’s title:  Metcalfe acknowledges how moved he was by the description, in the prosecution’s closing address to the jury, of the police as ‘the thin blue line separating society from anarchy’.  The prosecution’s three eleventh-hour, trumped-up ‘eye witnesses’ to the killing of Officer Wood are hard to beat in the outrageousness stakes:  Morris’s subsequent description of them as ‘evil clowns’ seems exactly right.

    There are elements of the strong-arming direction that you want to resist (Morris’s relentless use of the Philip Glass music, from the very start, is highly manipulative) but The Thin Blue Line is an example of tendentious film-making where the end justified the means.  Randall Adams himself comes across as intelligent and, very understandably, as angrily incredulous.  He had reason to stay angry too:  the injury of losing twelve years of his life in prison was compounded by the insult of receiving no financial compensation[1].  After his release, Adams also found himself in a legal battle with Errol Morris over the rights to his story.  Adams died of natural causes in 2010 at the age of sixty-one – six years after David Harris, who was executed for the murder of Mark Mays after nearly two decades on Death Row.

    11 August 2015

    [1]  According to Wikipedia:  ‘It is said that if Adams were “found to be wrongly convicted under today’s law in Texas, he would get $80,000 for each year of incarceration,” additionally “at the time his conviction was thrown out, wrongly convicted prisoners could get a lump sum payment of $25,000 if pardoned by the governor.” However, since Adams was released because his case was dismissed, not pardoned [sic], he received no payment from the state after his release for his wrongful conviction.’

Posts navigation