History Boys

[sylvia]

Having read the glowing NY reviews and enjoyed seeing the different casts in London, I was a bit curious if anyone on these boards had seen History Boys' run on Broadway?

[dirac]

Good question - I'd be interested in hearing any reports, also!

[dirac]

Bumping this up, in case anyone saw it. (Or any of the plays noted at the Tonys last night!)

[rg]

i was lucky enough to have seen this prod. in both london's national th. and on bdway. it was the same remarkable prod. all around, except that is that the b'way th. was rather larger. there was however no problem w/ projection,etc. and my fear that the english/local themes etc. might not 'travel' was unfounded. nyc audiences seem as engaged and amused and moved by the play as the one i was part of in london.

i understand that now tickets are very hard to come by. it's taken off and selling out.

sorry the best supp. actor didn't go to s.barnett. however good the FAITH HEALER actor was.

i did like the fact that whenever THE HISTORY BOYS won anything, the band played BEWITCHED, BOTHERED AND BEWILDERED, which the posner character sings so movingly and amusingly.

i'd go back in a second, if i could afford it.

[Anthony_NYC]

I'm supposed to see "History Boys" in August. (Even before the awards it was hard to get good seats.) I'm hoping for the best, because every year I continue to lose interest in Broadway. In "Threepenny Opera" Jim Dale was great, the rest of the cast pretty good, and there was an excellent ensemble of musicians. But the direction, as widely reported, was just awful. It was like watching a high school production. Before that I saw "Sweeney Todd" and simply do not understand all the raves. Underpowered performances (especially Cerveris), underpowered musical values, and direction that at times made the musical numbers completely incomprehensible unless you knew in advance what they were about.

And horrible, horrible , horrible amplification in both cases. When ticket prices are so high, why do we get bargain-basement productions that sound as if they might be canned and played through cheap equipement? I'd rather stay home and watch one of the Shakespeare movies you all are talking about on another thread.

[dirac]

rg writes:

i'd go back in a second, if i could afford it.

PBS is currently showing an excellent documentary, “Broadway: the Golden Age” on various channels. It’s pledge drive season, but the pledge breaks include good interviews with the filmmaker, Rick McKay, and Jane Powell, so they’re not too painful, and the show itself is wonderful. (It’s also available on DVD.) McKay appears to have talked to just about everybody who was alive to talk. The show focuses on Broadway in the mid-century and one of the things that’s mentioned is that at one time it was actually cheaper to see a play than a movie. Those were definitely the days.

Anthony_NYC writes:

And horrible, horrible , horrible amplification in both cases. When ticket prices are so high, why do we get bargain-basement productions that sound as if they might be canned and played through cheap equipment?

That was another thing the old-timers remarked on in the documentary.

[atm711]

Bumping this up, in case anyone saw it. (Or any of the plays noted at the Tonys last night!)

I saw 'Faith Healer', 'Shining City', 'Awake and Sing', and 'Rabbit Hole'--and was particularly delighted when Cynthia Nixon received the best actress award. A revelation to see a fine actress in action after those years of that ditsy TV show.

[dirac]

Thank you, atm711. I first noticed Nixon when she played Michael Murphy’s daughter on “Tanner ‘88” but she dropped off my radar until “Sex and the City.” The other women were good in their way, but she was the only one who suggested genuine range as an actress. I saw her again when they televised the recent revival of “The Women” in which she played the old Shearer role, and thought she was good, if miscast. (I also recall a Mizrahi frock that showed off her beautiful swanlike neck and elegant shoulders. She looked lovely.)

What did you think of "Awake and Sing"? I know Odets has dated, but his language has such vitality even if he is inclined to rhetorical overkill.

[richard53dog]

Bumping this up, in case anyone saw it. (Or any of the plays noted at the Tonys last night!)

The only one I've seen so far is Jersey Boys, a very cleverly done but manufactured concoction.

But the demographics worked for me; I've lived all my life in that part of New Jersey. The same towns even.

My dentist has a display in his office of FV and the Four Seasons memorabilia. Like me, he's another Jersey boy!

.

Richard

[atm711]

What did you think of "Awake and Sing"? I know Odets has dated, but his language has such vitality even if he is inclined to rhetorical overkill.

Lincoln Center Theater put on a handsome production. I liked what Michael Yeargan did with the sets; as the family falls apart, parts of the scenery also fall away in successive scenes. All nine characters of the play came alive (plus a very talented dog). But it was Zoe Wanamaker as the Mother who ruled the roost (and the performance; Ned Eisenberg who played Uncle Morty looked a lot like our NYSenator, Chuck Schumer--even sounded like him!). I did feel the ending was a 'cop-out; after two hours of listening to Odets' high ideals he compromised them with his "everybody should be happy no matter what" ending.

[dirac]

I recently caught the movie version of “The History Boys.” It’s not flawless, but if it’s playing in your area you could do far worse this season. I understand it was shot not too long after the play began to run, so the performances wouldn’t be ossified after months of repetition. The theatrical origins of the material are still clear in staging and the actors’ delivery (and it is more obvious onscreen than it would be onstage that these kids are kind of old for high school) but I didn't mind. I have not read or seen the play -- if anyone has seen both I'd like to hear about it. The material has been opened up with some very ordinary montages accompanied by rock music, but these are tolerable. I’m afraid that for me the elegiac ending fell quite flat, alas.

Regarding the story – I found the central conflict not all that compelling nor was I able to take an entirely mellow view of the serial groping of the students indulged in by the character played by Richard Griffiths, however inspirational he’s alleged to be. Bennett stacks the deck with care, making it clear that both pupils and teacher regard the activity as an essentially harmless one, the only people who object are made out to be unduly censorious and/or hypocritical and yes, these boys are clearly old enough to take care of themselves – but. (We are also informed, in a speech assigned to the one major woman character, that the unfortunate wives of such unhappy closet cases are probably aware of the situation and really don’t mind. Sure they don't.)

Bennett’s dialogue is always a pleasure to hear. It’s also a pleasure to see a company of actors as good as these. Griffiths is good but I did not take to the character or the performer as much as I was evidently meant to do and I was just as impressed by Stephen Campbell Moore, who is very good indeed. I particularly liked the scene in which the class heartthrob, a shameless tease with both sexes (well played by Dominic Cooper), propositions him. Samuel Barnett as Posner was wonderful, very touching. Clive Merrison overplays as the headmaster, although the director, Nicholas Hytner, and maybe Bennett should probably take the blame for that.