MovieChat Forums > The History Boys (2006) Discussion > So unrealistic that I couldn't really ca...

So unrealistic that I couldn't really care

posted 15 years ago by itlyb
26 replies | jump to latest

I have a soft spot for movies with charismatic teachers and bright young students (ie Dead Poet's Society, Mr. Holland's Opus etc.).

This movie, however, went too far in its depiction of "bright young men". They were all so educated and quick to stand up and spontaneously perform scenes from plays and movies. WTF?? Where in the world do you find such a group of boys? What's even more unrealistic was the grown up way they dealt with some of them and some of their teachers being gay. It was like a perfect dream world where everyone is accepted for what he is.

What do you think?

[–] hzhang01 15 years ago

Well, it's probably true that you'd be hard pressed to find any teenager boys as articulate as those in this play/movie. But, in real life, many kids ARE very bright. Remember, these kids were Oxbridge bound, not the dumbed-down versions we usually see on TV or movies. Knowing some bright kids myself, it's refreshing to see in a movie that for once, kids acted with a degree of maturity that they are capable of.

[–] arlo_elam 13 years ago

'But, in real life, many kids ARE very bright.'

I get your general point, just thought it might be worth mentioning that some children are extremely intelligent without possessing spontaneous wit / eloquence.

In fact, some of the most intelligent and perceptive youths I've encountered over the years have been conspicuous by their 'vocal absence' so to speak. Whether this was due to innate personality, being browbeaten by pushier classmates, or a result of being born into a particular social class, I don't know.

(By the latter, I am referring to how class differences may influence a learning environment. For example, most of the boys in this film are obviously upper-middle class; they're encouraged not just to learn, but to express this learning at every given opportunity - they then expect to be lauded for this articulation of their knowledge and the school/teachers respond accordingly. It is my firm belief that such universal reverence just would not happen in a working class scenario - or, at least, not in the majority of working class scenarios. Such ostentatious displays would likely be rebutted/ridiculed.)

[–] CactusHazretleri 10 years ago

THANK YOU. Something just seems wrong with an entire classroom full of witty savants - you really have to wonder what chance there could have been that any of those people would *not* get into Oxbridge. It seemed like a movie about a bunch of spoiled little *beep* that were too clever by half and too posh for their own good. I spent the first half of the movie entirely caught up in how affected the whole thing was. That said, I definitely found myself warming up to the characters and the story later on, and all in all I think this is quite a good movie; I look forward to watching it again with a different set of expectations.

[–] !!!deleted!!! (41638798) 10 years ago

First thing is that this was a play and they basically transferred it to film without making alot of changes for the medium of film. So it came off a bit stagey.

But for those who think these guys were completely unrealistic?

I'm not so sure.

One, they were not just any guys from that Grammar School (competitive entry by difficult exam at age 11, which weeds out the academically interested from the vocationally inclined, for those who may not be familiar).

Then, among that grammar school they were the small hand picked top shelf few who were being coached especially for the prime purpose of passing the Cambridge and Oxford entrance exams and interviews.

So they were the brightest of the brightest (well except for Rudge, not sure how he got in there only for footie!)

I knew pot loads of guys like this back in the day, when it was "cool" to be smart and witty, and be able to recite Auden.

While their antics were stagey in presentation, they were not far off the mark for who they were and where they were headed.

I was at St. Catharine's for two years "in the dark ages" and Cambridge was awash with Dakins and Posners. It was not at all unusual to sit around with coffee and tea and talk all evening about poetry.

People were well educated back then, because there were few distractions beyond books.

There were only a couple of tv stations, so nobody watched much tv. No computers to take people's time. And if you knew something you got it from a book and memorized it---because that was the only way you took that knowledge with you everywhere before the internet. No google. No wiki. People used their brains.

[–] zeroid-1 14 years ago

I agree with you. The dialogue between them always looked, and felt, like a well rehearsed script from a very clever writer, not spontaneous conversations from adolescent boys. Also I hated the general fawning over them by everyone as tho' they were so special. Remember, they actually hadn't achieved anything in their life by this point, but all were made to feel like they were the most important people in the school. If that is at all realistic that explains why some turn out as they do.

[–] IRanOverARabbit 14 years ago

They were mainly fawned over by their teachers, and given that it was them who facilitated their development, it was probably what you would expect. In a school the successfully taught are the most likely to be held in high regard.

It did seem too obviously scripted, and for the early 1980s perhaps the boys were a bit too liberal in their views. I suppose realism had to be sacraficed to drama to make it watchable.

[–] Simon1970 14 years ago

At the risk of stating the obvious here, of course it seemed scripted - this was a "movie".
Do you think real policemen talk like John McClane?
Do you think real drug addicts articulate like Renton and Sick Boy?
Do you think real crooks banter like Jules and Vincent?

Real life is unrehearsed and mostly dull. Not many are willing to pay £10 to see that on the big screen...

[–] rrb 14 years ago

Well said, Simon. There's so much to recommend the script. If the OP is looking for real life, she should watch the news.

[–] SallySeton42 14 years ago

Yes it was definitely scripted, but so is The West Wing, and I still loved that. (No one really talks like Josh Lyman) I know a lot of very bright kids who are witty and intelligent, so it doesn't seem too improbable for these boys to be so.

The more unrealistic part is how okay the boys are with their two gay teachers. Teenage boys, in my experience, usually aren't so open-minded about that. But I do live in the States. Maybe it's different in the UK, and frankly, it's refreshing. Homophobic rhetoric would have weighed down this movie and would have drowned out all the other important themes.

[–] gb901 14 years ago

Considering that the film is set in the dark ages of 1983 and at a grammar school which would be by its nature both reactionary and conservative the incredibly liberal views are an anachronism.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Suzume-san 13 years ago

I think it's a lot like life as played out in the schools my own young attended. I was delighted by the refreshingly realistic depiction of a group of articulate, sophisticated and tolerant young adults.

There's no reason you should know this - you're American, I presume? - but these young men are not children, they are 18 or 19 years old, they've done their A Levels and achieved good grades, which makes them high achievers, highly intelligent and worthy of the special attention of their teachers. They are doing an extra term at school, after their A Levels, to prepare for Oxbridge entrance. And note that they are specialists in the humanities - the film is called The History Boys, not The Physics Boys or The Media Studies Boys. They know the poems, the plays and songs you mention because they have studied and enjoyed them; this point is made, several times.

Oh, and if I may play the part of the teacher myself - you mean e.g., not i.e. Do try to get that right.

[–] Prismark10 13 years ago

It was an adaptation of a stage play but unrecognisable to any inner city school I went to.

Its that man again!!

[–] julie_robin2 11 years ago

I agree. For me this was the thing that jarred the most about the film. They spoke like 'character's not real people.

I went to a Grammar School in the early/mid 80's (though mine had male and female pupils) and some pupils did get in to Oxford and Cambridge. My friend's boyfriend was one of those who studied for the Oxbridge exams.

But none were like these characters.
They just do not ring true of lads in the 80's, even bright, Grammar School lads.
In general clever 18 year old boys were keen to pretend they were less smart than they were, not showing off with poetic quotes and quick one liners.

I prefer Imaginality to reality.

[–] claudja777 11 years ago

1)the russel tovey charachter is not that genius.
2)also dakin.can't even spell nietsche
3)uhm ok as far as I could see the gayness is the way this movie use to tlel you that through litterature and wisdom u can literally have anyone at your feet.
4)I think campbell moore was straight.so dakin.I think they were confused
5)they're supposed to be this amazing boys.they're the history boys,noone ever went so high,you know?

is not like in us where entering ivy league can be done through some course and feeding poor on weekend.in uk to get into oxford is SOOOOO harsh.

not even their teacher got into.

[–] juryman 11 years ago

I'm a bit suspicious that this play was based on the author's own grammar school days, long before the 1980s. Without knowing exactly how selective his school was, it would be hard to know how bright the pupils were. Certainly, the attitudes to sexuality remind me of historical stuff I've read about British boarding schools, so I'd say we are talking archaic attitudes rather than modern.

[–] darkshines99 11 years ago

Kind of have to agree with a lot of the points other people have made. I don't think it was that realistic even though it was enjoyable. I suppose it was at least a grammar school because, if it had been anything like my school, there would have been no way you would have found boys like that (I attended a state school in the early noughties and they weren't even open about homosexuality back then).
But then I guess sometimes art is a lie we use to tell the truth. Perhaps in their heads that was what the boys were like. Although I also agree they spoke like characters more than real people.

[–] m-j-mooney 9 years ago

It reminded me very strongly of my grammar school 6th form in the early 1970s.