![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Can we really quantify knowledge? And what is history anyway?
The answer to the first question, I think is "no", we can't quantify how much people know although I'm certain numerous professionals in the field will argue that point. One being an old ex-college friend, that I lost touch with two years back, whose job was partly to do just that -- quantify how much others learned or rather devise a method of figuring it out. We used to have arguments regarding how it was possible for someone who'd never taught to determine whether others were being taught, whether they'd learned, and what the best method was for determining that. Standardized tests? Portfoilos of the students work? Oral examinations? Is person A brighter than B just because they happen to be able to figure out a word problem in five minutes flat? Or is B brighter because they can analyze a poem and understand it?
The second question is no easier to answer, and arose twice for me this week, once in a book and now again in the movie I saw tonight, The History Boys - which poses both questions and does not exactly answer either. Just as it poses many other questions, some that make you squirm a bit with discomfort.
The best films, I've decided, are those in which leave you thinking, turning them over in your head, long after they've finished, replaying portions of scenes, pulling apart characters, wondering at themes. The ones that leave us with more questions than answers. Or at least they are for me.
If I learned anything in 2006, a theme echoed by this film if only in my own mind, it was this, not to let others define or pigeon hole me - to tell me what to like or what to want or think or define me solely by those things, and by the same token not to tell others who they are or what they should like. We are our own beings perceived differently each time we are seen, but only known completely by ourselves which is both tragic and glorious.
But I digress.
The second question...what is history?
One character in The History Boys defines it as just one fucking thing happening after another, no rhyme or reason to it. Another states that we must hunt the contextual meaning, attempt to understand it, locate the parts that make it appealing to others and not just dull twaddle. But, they argue how can one begin to teach or study an event such as The Holocaust? People visit the death camps in buses - so do they drink softdrinks? Eat hamburgers? Have a picnic? Take photos in front of the chambers? Look, here I am in front of Auswitchz? One character states well is studying the Holocauste any different than studying the dissolution of the church? Well, yeah, says another, the dissolution of the church did not result in the deaths of my relatives. And the character goes on to state - by attempting to understand, by explaining it - do we not belittle the event? Excuse the actions, explain them away...so we are in effect less horrified when they occur again? Does studying history, from a detached distance, interpretating and applying our own meaning to facts - create a history that is less true, less meaningful?
And to what degree can we determine someone has learned history? By their ability to parrot back facts and dates and coordinates? Or their dissection and understanding of the events? The degree to which their mind has interacted with it, sought to understand or decided not to even attempt an understanding - dismissing it out of hand as just one fucking thing after another?
Finally, why seek knowledge anyhow? To display a diploma from an ivy league school say Oxford or Cambridge or Harvard or Yale - and say in our dotage, with nose serenly in the air, so high we can see inside the nostrils not to mention the graying nosehairs - 'I always did have a love for "literature" and an appreciation for language', waving airily at the dusty books upon the shelves and the degree framed on the mantle. Or to achieve the high-paying job, the three houses, the applause? The Mensa membership? Or to pass it on to others, share it, evaluate it?
Does it matter - really, which school we went to? Is Oxford any better than Sheffield or Brighton or Durham? Is Harvard better than Brooklyn College or Colorado College?
The History Boys is about three teachers and their eight pupils - boys who have a chance to get a full scholarship to Oxford or Cambridge. What is ironic in the film is as hard as the teachers struggle to get their pupils into those schools, you get the feeling that their own feelings regarding them are somewhat mixed.
The History Boys attacks the questions I posed above in random order, and while it provides answers, it also provides the audience with enough room to question them. The other issue the film attacks, which I have not touched on - is homosexuality. The way the film attacks it surprised me, from what I'd read - I expected something else. Let's just say, that while certain bits made me squirm and no, not for that reason, (I have troubles with people being embarrassed or humiliated) it is far tamer than I thought it would be.
It is a funny film. I laughed throughout. But I also cried. The dialogue rich and textured. Which makes sense, since this film is based on the play and copies the play almost to the letter. It won the Pulitzer, A Tony, a couple of British awards, before becoming a film - recreating the performances of all the players for posterity. The actors that performed the roles on stage, perform them here.
If I had a quibble, it would be the same one, others have quibbled over before me - which is the outside shoots. The film is at its best when it takes place indoors, I think. The direction feels at times clumsy and unsuited for the big screen. Films after all tend to be two-dimensional visual affairs, while plays are three dimensional auditory ones. The two forms are not as compatible as one may think for a direct adaptation, but then that is the problem with adaptations - the adapter, whether he/she is adapting a play, a novel, a cartoon, a comic book or a tv show from one medium to another is faced with a quandry - how do you reproduce the essence of the work - without losing the original while at the same time giving it a slightly different take or ensuring new viewers etc see it in the same manner those who loved the original did? Easier said than done.
As adaptations go, this is a good one I think, having not seen the original - I can't really know for certain. It did move me and it did raise many of the same questions I saw batted around in reviews. It was and was not what I expected. The female role is much larger than I expected and a good counter-point. While it was a tad longer than I would have liked, but then all movies are right now in my opinion - I would not have let go of the last sequence for anything.
In the end, even though I paid no more than six dollars for it, I'd really have paid the current going price of $11. And recommend that everyone see it if they can, if only because I want to know what other's make of it.
The second question is no easier to answer, and arose twice for me this week, once in a book and now again in the movie I saw tonight, The History Boys - which poses both questions and does not exactly answer either. Just as it poses many other questions, some that make you squirm a bit with discomfort.
The best films, I've decided, are those in which leave you thinking, turning them over in your head, long after they've finished, replaying portions of scenes, pulling apart characters, wondering at themes. The ones that leave us with more questions than answers. Or at least they are for me.
If I learned anything in 2006, a theme echoed by this film if only in my own mind, it was this, not to let others define or pigeon hole me - to tell me what to like or what to want or think or define me solely by those things, and by the same token not to tell others who they are or what they should like. We are our own beings perceived differently each time we are seen, but only known completely by ourselves which is both tragic and glorious.
But I digress.
The second question...what is history?
One character in The History Boys defines it as just one fucking thing happening after another, no rhyme or reason to it. Another states that we must hunt the contextual meaning, attempt to understand it, locate the parts that make it appealing to others and not just dull twaddle. But, they argue how can one begin to teach or study an event such as The Holocaust? People visit the death camps in buses - so do they drink softdrinks? Eat hamburgers? Have a picnic? Take photos in front of the chambers? Look, here I am in front of Auswitchz? One character states well is studying the Holocauste any different than studying the dissolution of the church? Well, yeah, says another, the dissolution of the church did not result in the deaths of my relatives. And the character goes on to state - by attempting to understand, by explaining it - do we not belittle the event? Excuse the actions, explain them away...so we are in effect less horrified when they occur again? Does studying history, from a detached distance, interpretating and applying our own meaning to facts - create a history that is less true, less meaningful?
And to what degree can we determine someone has learned history? By their ability to parrot back facts and dates and coordinates? Or their dissection and understanding of the events? The degree to which their mind has interacted with it, sought to understand or decided not to even attempt an understanding - dismissing it out of hand as just one fucking thing after another?
Finally, why seek knowledge anyhow? To display a diploma from an ivy league school say Oxford or Cambridge or Harvard or Yale - and say in our dotage, with nose serenly in the air, so high we can see inside the nostrils not to mention the graying nosehairs - 'I always did have a love for "literature" and an appreciation for language', waving airily at the dusty books upon the shelves and the degree framed on the mantle. Or to achieve the high-paying job, the three houses, the applause? The Mensa membership? Or to pass it on to others, share it, evaluate it?
Does it matter - really, which school we went to? Is Oxford any better than Sheffield or Brighton or Durham? Is Harvard better than Brooklyn College or Colorado College?
The History Boys is about three teachers and their eight pupils - boys who have a chance to get a full scholarship to Oxford or Cambridge. What is ironic in the film is as hard as the teachers struggle to get their pupils into those schools, you get the feeling that their own feelings regarding them are somewhat mixed.
The History Boys attacks the questions I posed above in random order, and while it provides answers, it also provides the audience with enough room to question them. The other issue the film attacks, which I have not touched on - is homosexuality. The way the film attacks it surprised me, from what I'd read - I expected something else. Let's just say, that while certain bits made me squirm and no, not for that reason, (I have troubles with people being embarrassed or humiliated) it is far tamer than I thought it would be.
It is a funny film. I laughed throughout. But I also cried. The dialogue rich and textured. Which makes sense, since this film is based on the play and copies the play almost to the letter. It won the Pulitzer, A Tony, a couple of British awards, before becoming a film - recreating the performances of all the players for posterity. The actors that performed the roles on stage, perform them here.
If I had a quibble, it would be the same one, others have quibbled over before me - which is the outside shoots. The film is at its best when it takes place indoors, I think. The direction feels at times clumsy and unsuited for the big screen. Films after all tend to be two-dimensional visual affairs, while plays are three dimensional auditory ones. The two forms are not as compatible as one may think for a direct adaptation, but then that is the problem with adaptations - the adapter, whether he/she is adapting a play, a novel, a cartoon, a comic book or a tv show from one medium to another is faced with a quandry - how do you reproduce the essence of the work - without losing the original while at the same time giving it a slightly different take or ensuring new viewers etc see it in the same manner those who loved the original did? Easier said than done.
As adaptations go, this is a good one I think, having not seen the original - I can't really know for certain. It did move me and it did raise many of the same questions I saw batted around in reviews. It was and was not what I expected. The female role is much larger than I expected and a good counter-point. While it was a tad longer than I would have liked, but then all movies are right now in my opinion - I would not have let go of the last sequence for anything.
In the end, even though I paid no more than six dollars for it, I'd really have paid the current going price of $11. And recommend that everyone see it if they can, if only because I want to know what other's make of it.
no subject
no subject