Talk:The History Boys (film)

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the British cinema task force.

LGBT studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles

Yorkshire Low‑importance

	Yorkshire portal The History Boys (film) is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Oxford[edit]

"It turns out that none of them ended up in jobs for which Oxford was remotely useful"

Really? I thought some of them went on to be lawyers, journalists and the like. Not all Oxford graduates have to become academics.

Film vs play[edit]

What are the differences? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.45.8.137 (talk) 04:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

apparently the play is an hour longer. There is a certain falseness to the basic notion of the play, which is a class of 8 outstanding candidates all doing history at oxford. They all strike me as rather extrovert and talented. Even for a grammar school this is a bit much, and i have seen it reported that this is more credible as a play than as a film. Sandpiper 23:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Americanisation[edit]

Given that this is a very English film, I don't understand why the plot summary uses American spelling and terminology (I don't think Alan Bennett ever referred to Rudge as a 'clueless jock'. Any chance of a quite rewrite? 86.134.83.14 20:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of criticism?[edit]

I doth quote from The Sun-Herald May 20, 2007:

“

Judging by the reviews and trailers for the Fox Searchlight movie The History Boys, you would think it was a modern-day Goodbye, Mr Chips...It is a pederastic fantasy about teachers who fondle their students' genitals in the nicest way and the boys don't mind.

”

The article goes on, but I'll just keep with that for the moment. Basically, the writer (Miranda Devine) says that the film is misclassified (at least in Australia) and the reviews do not accentuate the homoeroticism side of the movie, which she sees as the focus. Should this criticism be added? --JB Adder | Talk 10:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why this play and then movie, won so many awards and why the play and movie were so acclaimed, it paints gay men in a VERY bad light as being pederasts and into teenage/youth worshipping pedophiles when if you're homosexual you're NOT a pederast and being associated with such things is a horrible myth about being gay that many people think that gay people are into when they're not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.74.161 (talk) 08:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I think it's tripe and full of inaccuracies and anachronisms. A profoundly irritating little film. ZoeEGrace (talk) 10:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop rambling on about your insecurties. Hector acted like a paedophile but they were 16-18 years old. Legal age. It's not "tripe". The film didn't have flaws. It just differed minutely from the novellisation. LOTRrules (talk) 16:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The age of consent for homosexual acts in the UK when the film was set was 21. Alfred Kinsey (talk) 11:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

#Analysis hidden[edit]

I have hidden the Analysis section of the article from view. It was deleted earlier today by someone else, but the deletion has been undone and the section restored. The section consists of pov original research, and as such should be rewritten in order to be included. A ecis^Brievenbus 23:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

Perhaps not vandalism per se, as the edits seems to have lasted a while, but insistence notwithstanding the article should not have been edited to claim that The History Boys is about pedophilia (British or American spelling). The original editor is certainly free to try to show that to be the case, but the lack of any characters in the film under the age of 18 (or 17 at the youngest) would certainly make that a difficult undertaking. --165.230.133.90 21:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the time and place of the films setting (UK - 1983) - no homosexual act could be legally carried out on a male under the age of 21 and any act would have had to occur in private. Given the confusion that all the victims could have been 18 then paedophile would probably need to be replaced by 'sex offender'. Gomez2002 13:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just another thing, if you accept the assertion that all victims are at least 18, then shouldn't the text refer to 'men' and not 'boys', apart from in the use of the films title of course Gomez2002 13:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portsmouth[edit]

When they asked Irwin where he was from, he replies 'Horsforth' (town in Yorkshire). I've checked this on the sub-titles and changed the text.Gomez2002 21:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:History boys film poster.jpg[edit]

Image:History boys film poster.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rudge's father[edit]

Was Rudge's father really a college scout? I've always assumed the Rudge was just "playing the game" that Irwin kept on about, and agreed to get the place at college (and also to some extent that the college were also "playing the game" and looking for an excuse to get Rudge onto the college rugby team) Any thoughts ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.8.135.89 (talk) 09:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why shouldn't his father have been a scout? How else would he have got in? PhilomenaO'M (talk) 17:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

James Lombard - vandalism ?[edit]

The article lists a James Lombard as a producer, and in the cast as Mr Wilkins. I couldn't remember a Mr Wilkins in the cast (the PE teacher is Wilkes) so I just checked the credits on the DVD and there is no mention of James Lombard, either producing or acting. A quick search of the net throws up mainly pages copied from Wikipedia. Is this vandalism? Idealfarmer (talk) 20:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was added in June 2011 by this pair of edits. Keith D (talk) 21:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]