View Full Version : Am I out of touch ?
My 14 yr old daughter came home from school last and told me they,d just watched 'saving private ryan' I was a bit shocked tbh, I mean I love that film but found the opening 25 mins to be pretty harrowing. Maybe Im out of touch or showing me age but I think 14 is a bit too young to be watching something so visceral as that, what does anyone else think ?
Alpinestarhero
06-06-08, 07:25 AM
Yea, thats a powerful film you know. I find the opening scenes on the beach very chilling. Did she get upset by it at all?
Bluepete
06-06-08, 07:25 AM
I agree, 14 is too young for that film. Having said that, lots of things have changed since we were that age, kids really do seem to grow up faster now.
Jeez, how old did that sound! Even worse, I look at new Cops and think how young they look!
So long as she slept OK and wasn't bothered by nightmares, maybe she can just seperate reality from the make believe world of film better than us?
Now go and take your vitamins and put clean pants on, you smell of wee wee.
Pete
Yea, thats a powerful film you know. I find the opening scenes on the beach very chilling. Did she get upset by it at all?
No, she only mentioned it in passing, she did comment on the soldier with his arm blown off on the beach and walking round looking for it, but she doesnt seem to have been fazed by it, different generation I suppose.
thedonal
06-06-08, 07:29 AM
I think that, probably, younger people can deal with these things better than adults- we've had more years of 'programming' to say some things are bad or scary- plus the chance of more real life situations of a large impact (we tend to get far more cautious as we get older).
If it were something that glorified violence, then it would be more of an issue, but if it tells it how it is and shows the reality of war, then perhaps in some ways it can be a good thing.
Though I think that it would be more responsible if the person showing the kids the movie asked the parents if it would be appropriate- different people handle these things differently and all.
When I was at school we only ever learnt about ancient history, the closest we got to present day was the industrial revolution so I suppose showing it before the 64th anniversary of D Day isnt a bad thing, Ive always tried to impress on my kids that the lads on the beach on D Day and the guys and girls in Iraq and Afghanistan arent much older than they are now, so if it helps to give them some sort of perspective maybe its a good thing.
Alpinestarhero
06-06-08, 07:34 AM
I think that, probably, younger people can deal with these things better than adults- we've had more years of 'programming' to say some things are bad or scary- plus the chance of more real life situations of a large impact (we tend to get far more cautious as we get older).
Also, adding to this, I guess since adults will generally pay more attention to the news, documentrys etc, perhaps scenes of a film which are like that of the openign scene of saving private ryan seem more real to us. Given that alot of lives where lost on the normandy beach landings, that opening beach scene from saving private ryan is probably quite close to the truth.
The film has a certified age rating on it for a reason.
The school has broken the law by showing it, a law which infact carries a prison sentence and/or hefty fine of £2500.
Me, I would have loved to watch a film like that while I was at school and it would have kept me occupied in a history lesson.
But that doesnt make it right for the teacher to break the law and possibly psychologicaly damage a child.....kids now days are violent and sadistic enough without the need for it to be forced into them any earlier, if it was my child I would probably complain to the highest levels and demand an explanation/action to be taken out of principle.
I agree, 14 is too young for that film. Having said that, lots of things have changed since we were that age, kids really do seem to grow up faster now.
Jeez, how old did that sound! Even worse, I look at new Cops and think how young they look!
So long as she slept OK and wasn't bothered by nightmares, maybe she can just seperate reality from the make believe world of film better than us?
Now go and take your vitamins and put clean pants on, you smell of wee wee.
Pete
How did you know I smelt of wee wee ? :D
I'm going out with a teacher at the moment and she teaches year 11 (whatever that is???). Anyhow, she showed them the Saving Private Ryan movie as part of their studies specifically to show them the first 25 minutes. It was in conjunction with reading material.
I think I would let my 14 year old see it. The film does not glorify war, I imagine that its as close as Hollywood has got to the reality of that day. The news today will probably show the men who were there visiting the graves of their friends, but does that really get across what these now old men did. My Dad was there (but not Omaha beach) he does not talk about it, I can only imagine what horror he has seen.
plowsie
06-06-08, 08:03 AM
Year 11 is 15-16 year olds FWIW.
I was told that The Exorcist back in its day made people ill. I watched and laughed at how bad it was. I think like people say its just different generations.
neillfergie
06-06-08, 08:10 AM
The difference of generations is true but i still think that a a school should be more careful of age certificates, they are put there for a reason, also there are plenty of films which are very violent which i can remember watching at about 15 like the matrix and im not a mass murderer, however, saving private ryans opening sequence is more harrowing knowing that its all based on real fact and also knowing the reality was probably even more horrific than the film.
The film has a certified age rating on it for a reason.
The school has broken the law by showing it, a law which infact carries a prison sentence and/or hefty fine of £2500.
Me, I would have loved to watch a film like that while I was at school and it would have kept me occupied in a history lesson.
But that doesnt make it right for the teacher to break the law and possibly psychologicaly damage a child.....kids now days are violent and sadistic enough without the need for it to be forced into them any earlier, if it was my child I would probably complain to the highest levels and demand an explanation/action to be taken out of principle.
are you for ****ing real??
I think the School were right to do it. Was it watched as part of History to highlight a particular topic of study?? If so good on them. That particular scene is about the Omaha landings as you all know, quite an important turning point in the second world war I think you will agree.
And something our young people should learn about TBH.
I can’t believe some of the small minded comments on here already, ohh they broke the law, boo hoo. Its not as though they sat them down to watch porn to explain biology is it??
Grow up, it a great bit of film that perfectly highlights the landings better than any text book. It also shows the horrors of war better than any text book.
It will also show kids that war is not fun nor are guns and bombs. They could well use Band of Brothers to highlight other important campaigns as well.
Red Herring
06-06-08, 08:14 AM
If the film has an 18 cert then I think the school is out of line showing it to 14 year olds with specific parental consent. Without getting all the law books out I'm not sure if what they did is against the law, are certificates not all about public shows (schools could be deemed private) or the sale/supply of films? Whatever the legal aspect I'd be pretty annoyed if my kids were shown an 18 film without me knowing about it first.
Having said that i do think Saving Private Ryan is an excellent film and would have no problem letting my kids (13 and 15) watch it. Yes there's a bit of blood and gore in it but there is also a powerful personal story about the losses incurred through war....
^ ^ ^ Neio I mean. RH got in first.
Wot he said
are you for ****ing real??
I would have liked to watch it at that age, it doesnt bother me, I have seen worse stuff on the internet from that age that IS real.
Edit: Regardless of what the film is and what the teacher is trying to put across ignore that.
But purely on the basis that they legally arnt allowed to show it makes it very wrong and the repurcusions are great. Some parents go out of their way to protect their children from films like that, and stick religously to age restrcitions and even then wont let their kids watch certain stuff......
so why should the school be allowed to completely disregard that and show a film like that, with a legally binding certification that deems it unstuiable for the age of children it was shown to, without the consultation of the parents first.
SoulKiss
06-06-08, 08:26 AM
Films a 15, was wrong for the school to show to a 14yo
End of
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41MXCSS1C9L._SS500_.jpg
But purely on the basis that they legally arnt allowed to show it makes it very wrong and the repurcusions are great. Some parents go out of their way to protect their children from films like that, and stick religously to age restrcitions and even then wont let their kids watch certain stuff......
.
Some parents need to get a life and relax abit not try and hide their kids from the truths of the worlds history. I can see the point yes it was illegal, but FFS it was shown to highlight a specific point in history and probably to highlight the horrors of war as well.
Some parents need to get a life and relax abit not try and hide their kids from the truths of the worlds history. I can see the point yes it was illegal, but FFS it was shown to highlight a specific point in history and probably to highlight the horrors of war as well.
Fair point, some parents do need to chill out.....but if a parent doesnt want their kids to see films like that, which are deemed to intense for their childs age.....then that should be respected regardless of what more relaxed individuals believe is OK.
Some parents need to get a life and relax abit not try and hide their kids from the truths of the worlds history. I can see the point yes it was illegal, but FFS it was shown to highlight a specific point in history and probably to highlight the horrors of war as well.
I totally get what you,re saying , and we dont try to hide reality from our kids, I just thought the opening scenes were a bit strong for young kids, saying that it doesnt seem to have affected her so thats ok.
wyrdness
06-06-08, 08:37 AM
Films a 15, was wrong for the school to show to a 14yo
End of
Yes, the school is breaking the law if they're showing it to 14 year olds.
However, I have this (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Second-World-War-Colour/dp/B00004CZW4) at home, which is a PG certificate, and is far more gory and harrowing than films like Saving Private Ryan, for the reason that the dead and dying are real people, not actors.
SoulKiss
06-06-08, 08:38 AM
Some parents need to get a life and relax abit not try and hide their kids from the truths of the worlds history. I can see the point yes it was illegal, but FFS it was shown to highlight a specific point in history and probably to highlight the horrors of war as well.
And its because of the "let it slide" attitude that you show there that we are in the mess we are in now.
You can hear/read about the horrors of the war WITHOUT seeing it in graphic detail on a tv screen.
Try reading anything by the War Poets, ie Siegfried Sasson and Wilfred Owen (which is what I did in school)
Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of tired, outstrippedFive-Nines that dropped behind.
Gas! Gas! Quick, boys! – An ecstasy of fumbling,
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time;
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling,
And flound'ring like a man in fire or lime . . .
Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light,
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.
In all my dreams, before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.
If in some smothering dreams you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est
Pro patria mori.
Luckypants
06-06-08, 08:40 AM
Some parents need to get a life and relax abit not try and hide their kids from the truths of the worlds history. I can see the point yes it was illegal, but FFS it was shown to highlight a specific point in history and probably to highlight the horrors of war as well.
Indeed it was shown to highlight a point and IMO a very valid and relevant piece that will speak to the children. HOWEVER, the school may well have broken the law by showing (as above not sure of legalities re private / public showing) this to children specifically excluded by the age certificate. At the very least they should have obtained parental consent for each child that watched the film - it is the least I would expect as a parent. I would have given that consent in the context the film was shown and even if the consent was not sought I would not be that upset by it, but would have discussed the film / lesson with my child to ensure they understood and took something from the experience.
The school's apparent disregard for the law and parental choice would have concerned me greatly if my child was attending this school. I would most certainly be writing to the school to express my concern about showing the film to my child without my consent. I would expect an explanation why the parental consent procedure was not followed.
plowsie
06-06-08, 08:42 AM
Sometimes I wonder if this is why things are so different with kids these day to how they used to be (from what I am told, things have changed a lot).
timwilky
06-06-08, 08:42 AM
I would have let my kids watch it. The D-Day landings etc were not taught in history when I was a kid, perhaps WWII was too modern and there was still a lot of documentary about it on TV. we don't tell kids today about Korea, Vietnam or even the Falklands.
I remember news articles of Vietnam on TV. Some of those would today not pass the film censors age limits. Kids, especially at high school need to learn there is only sadness and despair in war. When somebody is shot. it tears bone and causes huge holes, people die horribly. Not the neet little hole of traditional Hollywood where the hero fights off the pain to go for glory.
Fair point, some parents do need to chill out.....but if a parent doesnt want their kids to see films like that, which are deemed to intense for their childs age.....then that should be respected regardless of what more relaxed individuals believe is OK.
yes individual parents wishes should be regared by the school. But i am confident if any parent complained after the school explained why they done it they would understand.
Hmmm, tricky issue this.
Some of the kids in the class may of been 15. Some (like Stewie's kid) definately weren't. The film is a certified 15.
What would I do in that circumstance? Well, I suppose it depends.
If James had seen it (given that he suffers from extreme anxiety caused by Dyspraxia, and even watching CITV can cause nightmares), then I'd probably make a formal complaint to the school to enquire why I wasn't asked permission to show the film to him, given that he isn't old enough to see it.
If Harry had seen it (given that he's far more adventurous than any other kid I've seen), I'd of waited it out, no effects means no complaints. But I'd have a little word in the teachers ear to say that really they should of asked my permission first.
If Cerian had seen it, again, I'd of probably waited to see the effect it had on her before I did anything.
Now, if my other half was in this position, I'd have to try & do everything I could to stop her taking the school to court (My other half way over-reacts to things like this), as I don't feel that sueing anyone would help the school, given the incident is over & done with already.
FWIW, Harry is 3, and already happily watches 15 films (that we approve first) along with his brother & sister in the comfort of their home.
And its because of the "let it slide" attitude that you show there that we are in the mess we are in now.
You can hear/read about the horrors of the war WITHOUT seeing it in graphic detail on a tv screen.
)
dosent quite have the impact as seeing it on screen though. I read about bike crashes and fatals, but if i saw it it would be a bit more harrowing.
Its not a let it slide its more of a my god have the fluffy croud now got arround to stopping teaching the realities of the worst parts of our history!!
Maybe they should show the kids some of the helmet cam footage we currently take on ooperations now, i can assure you that is some seriouslt fu**ed up sh*t not censored. That will show them the horrors of war alright!
Indeed it was shown to highlight a point and IMO a very valid and relevant piece that will speak to the children. HOWEVER, the school may well have broken the law by showing (as above not sure of legalities re private / public showing) this to children specifically excluded by the age certificate. At the very least they should have obtained parental consent for each child that watched the film - it is the least I would expect as a parent. I would have given that consent in the context the film was shown and even if the consent was not sought I would not be that upset by it, but would have discussed the film / lesson with my child to ensure they understood and took something from the experience.
The school's apparent disregard for the law and parental choice would have concerned me greatly if my child was attending this school. I would most certainly be writing to the school to express my concern about showing the film to my child without my consent. I would expect an explanation why the parental consent procedure was not followed.
+1 Thats what I was trying to see.....hence please see disclaimer in my signature :D lol
fizzwheel
06-06-08, 08:57 AM
I dont see what the problem is. Theres plenty of worse or just as bad stuff shown on the news most evenings.
Yes its graphic, yes its not very nice and I rememeber watching it in the cinema and I could feel the adrenalin flowing and found myself thinking about what it was like and I was f*cking glad I never had to go through that.
I dont see what the problem is.
I'm much the same, but the problem for me is the lack of parental consent.
Either I'd be having a friendly chat with the teacher (as it's first occurence of the issue) or I'd be making a formal complaint, solely because of the parental consent issue.
If it then turned out that parental consent was sought, but my kid had faked the signiture & the school accepted it, my kid would be in a whole world of trouble. I'm putting money on it that at least Harry will try something like that.
neillfergie
06-06-08, 09:06 AM
im really not sure if the legality of showing the kids the film bothers me, a 14yr old is not that different to a 15yr old in respect to images of violence, however, I personally think we are becoming very tolerant of violence in general, dont get me wrong i think a adult can see the definition between reality and fiction and can watch a violent film or play a violent game without it changing their moral values but at the moment there is a big focus on knife crime and violence amongst younger adults and its being heavily reported in the news about how many have been killed so far this year so maybe there is a correlation between the access to violence in the media and violence in society? im not suggesting kids are stupid but they are more impressionable so we may need to educate them on the horrors of the past but is there another way to do it?
SoulKiss
06-06-08, 09:07 AM
My point isn't really in the content of what was watched.
It is the fact that the school broke the law.
Sure it was only a minor thing, but when you send your kids to school, you are trusting them to look after them.
In this case, they showed a film to under-age children, which even a consent form would not have allowed, as it is still an offence for a parent to show/let a child see an age restricted film.
The school showed a disregard for the law, which in another case could lead to physical danger.
For the record, I dont actually believe in the current age certification procedures, after all why should some arbitary group/committee make the decision on what films I can see or computer games I can play.
neillfergie
06-06-08, 09:16 AM
im pretty sure the age restriction is only a guideline not a legally enforced one? is it?
im pretty sure the age restriction is only a guideline not a legally enforced one? is it?
Nope 100% legally binding.
I sadly, as a student, worked in both blockbusters and toy r us at one point.
If you sold to a minor you went to jail and/or got a big fine.
If you played an unsuitable dvd or put on an unsuitable game on the demo consoles.......you went to jail and/or a big fine.
Its heavily enforced and lots of covert visits are done on a regular basis to ensure you were complying.
There was no warnings......one strike and your out. Infact while I worked at blockbuster a girl in another store in the region sold a game to someone underage, she lost her job, went to court and was fined £2500, I think the employer was also fined significantly for some training issues regarding it.
SoulKiss
06-06-08, 09:24 AM
Nope 100% legally binding.
I sadly, as a student, worked in both blockbusters and toy r us at one point.
If you sold to a minor you went to jail and/or got a big fine.
If you played an unsuitable dvd or put on an unsuitable game on the demo consoles.......you went to jail and/or a big fine.
Its heavily enforced and lots of covert visits are done on a regular basis to ensure you were complying.
There was no warnings......one strike and your out. Infact while I worked at blockbuster a girl in another store in the region sold a game to someone underage, she lost her job, went to court and was fined £2500, I think the employer was also fined significantly for some training issues regarding it.
So why does the BBFC site say this.....
Film Certification
If you are operating as a licensed cinema, you may only screen certified films and must display the certificate in advertising, at the entrance and on screen immediately before the film.
Films in this country are certified by the British Board of Film Certification (http://www.bbfc.co.uk/) and categorised as follows:
U, Uc – Universal
PG – Parental Guidance
12 – Children under 12 are restricted
12A – Children under 12 to be accompanied by an adult
15 – Children under 15 are restricted
18 – Children under 18 are restricted
R18 - Explicit adult material, restricted to specially licensed cinemas and retail premises
However, this certification has no legal status; the ultimate power rests with the local authority, which may choose to ignore the classification. Local licensing conditions differ from area to area, but most have adopted a common approach that requires films screened in licensed premises (e.g. cinemas) to be certified by the BBFC, and forbids venue managers from admitting younger persons into films with an age restriction.
This may cause problems for societies who wish to screen uncertified material (e.g. films by local filmmakers or even schools) in cinemas or other licensed premises but in general local authorities will not intervene unless the film is likely to “cause a public disturbance”, “breach of the peace” or “deprave or corrupt a significant majority”!
If in doubt with unlicensed material, contact your local Licensing department and see if they will grant a specific local certificate for the film. Note that full membership of a closed film society (ie, one that does not require a cinema licence) is not available to under-16s.
It may be that its illegal to sell/rent/supply the media but.......
Maybe my rants above are unfounded :P
I'm in the 'it was wrong' camp.
I would have been annoyed if this happened at the school my kids attend. At the least I would have expected a letter prior to the event asking for permission. Chances are I would have given the permission, but that's besides the point. It should be up to me as the parent if I wish my daughter to watch a film such as that one. Especially whilst under the age limit to watch it.
I always ignore the age warnings on films and will decide myself if a film is suitable for my kids to watch. But that is my choice as a parent. I wouldn't expect the school to break the law as well. I would have complained to the school.
Warthog
06-06-08, 09:38 AM
I don't want any school deciding what my children should see. The BBFC is there for a reason, and the school needs to stick to it.
That said, I think the first bit of SPR is in fact vital to show kids, as war is a really terrible thing and they need to be shown that. But I decide that, not some random third person school.
Also, kids need a childhood, it is unfair to confront them with the harsh reality of life from age 3 onwards. But mid teens are much more aware and should be then be treated much more on equal terms.
plowsie
06-06-08, 09:40 AM
Might I say, very good topic for discussion rose by Stewie :thumbsup:
So why does the BBFC site say this.....
[center]
It may be that its illegal to sell/rent/supply the media but.......
Maybe my rants above are unfounded :P
Which means the school broke no law at all. And conidering the time in the accademic year i would quess that Stewies daughter is one of the youngest yet to hit 15 in her year group, so 99% of the kids were 15 at the time of viewing.
a bit like some 15yr olds sit GCSE's due to their birthdays.
My 14 yr old daughter came home from school last and told me they,d just watched 'saving private ryan' I was a bit shocked tbh, I mean I love that film but found the opening 25 mins to be pretty harrowing. Maybe Im out of touch or showing me age but I think 14 is a bit too young to be watching something so visceral as that, what does anyone else think ?Better than coming home and saying that she has just watched Shaving Ryans Privates :lol:
SoulKiss
06-06-08, 09:54 AM
Better than coming home and saying that she has just watched Shaving Ryans Privates (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0476592/) :lol:
Added the link that you should have had in there Viney :)
Which means the school broke no law at all.
Perhaps not neio.
Lets not forget the copyright legal notices at the start of films too. The vast majority specifically exclude showing to groups of people in schools.
If the parental consent aspect was over looked, this may of been too.
Perhaps not neio.
Lets not forget the copyright legal notices at the start of films too. The vast majority specifically exclude showing to groups of people in schools.
If the parental consent aspect was over looked, this may of been too.
Copyright and concent are different to the original soap box people climbed on about the legally binding (or not as it turns out) certificates.
Copyright and concent are different to the original soap box people climbed on about the legally binding (or not as it turns out) certificates.
I don't dispute that, but then, I didn't make the sweeping statement that the "school broke no law at all." :rolleyes:
Luckypants
06-06-08, 10:50 AM
Copyright and concent are different to the original soap box people climbed on about the legally binding (or not as it turns out) certificates.
Err not everyone, you are conveniently forgetting that most of the cogent replies on this thread centred around the school not seeking parental consent to show the film to under age viewers.
Err not everyone, you are conveniently forgetting that most of the cogent replies on this thread centred around the school not seeking parental consent to show the film to under age viewers.
as well as some geting funny about shock horror letting a 14yr old watch a 15 film, probably within a few weeks of actually being 15!!
Some parents need to get a life and relax abit not try and hide their kids from the truths of the worlds history. I can see the point yes it was illegal, but FFS it was shown to highlight a specific point in history and probably to highlight the horrors of war as well.
It was this particular statement that brought me in to the conversation. It is not for the school to over rule my opinion on if my kids get to watch such a violent and graphic film. It is also not down to 'other' people to suggest I need to get a life and relax. I shall bring up my kids the way I see fit. I expect others to respect that and use a bit of consideration before deciding what they wish my kids to view. As I said before, chances are I would consent if asked, but that's the point. No one bothered to think about what the parents would think.
Flamin_Squirrel
06-06-08, 11:31 AM
as well as some geting funny about shock horror letting a 14yr old watch a 15 film, probably within a few weeks of actually being 15!!
Irrelevant. It's not up to strangers to decide what laws should or should not apply to other peoples children.
Now I'm usually the first to say that certain laws should be taken with a pinch of salt - one of my favorite quotes is, "laws are for the guidence of wise men and the obedience of idiots", but that only applies to indervidual adults and how they choose to bring up their kids.
SoulKiss
06-06-08, 11:43 AM
It was this particular statement that brought me in to the conversation. It is not for the school to over rule my opinion on if my kids get to watch such a violent and graphic film. It is also not down to 'other' people to suggest I need to get a life and relax. I shall bring up my kids the way I see fit. I expect others to respect that and use a bit of consideration before deciding what they wish my kids to view. As I said before, chances are I would consent if asked, but that's the point. No one bothered to think about what the parents would think.
And having met them, however briefly, I must say you aint doing a bad job :)
Didn't feel worried that one of them would pull a knife on me or anything (well except when I refused a cake :p)
SoulKiss
06-06-08, 11:45 AM
Irrelevant. It's not up to strangers to decide what laws should or should not apply to other peoples children.
Now I'm usually the first to say that certain laws should be taken with a pinch of salt - one of my favorite quotes is, "laws are for the guidence of wise men and the obedience of idiots", but that only applies to indervidual adults and how they choose to bring up their kids.
I think that you will find (if I am being pedantic, and today I am) that it IS strangers that set the laws that apply to your children. There is nothing stranger than an MP :p
I think maybe the thread has gone over to the legal side of things, when in fact all I was saying was that it was it was a fairly harrowing film in parts, I would have probably agreed to allow let her to watch it if Id been asked and actually the school is a pretty decent one so I have no qualms with them at all, maybe its just me getting older, I know the film had to be the way it was to show the futility of 7 or 8 men risking there lives for the sake of one man otherwise they could have just shown them SAW 1, 2 or 3.
I think maybe the thread has gone over to the legal side of things, when in fact all I was saying was that it was it was a fairly harrowing film in parts, I would have probably agreed to allow let her to watch it if Id been asked and actually the school is a pretty decent one so I have no qualms with them at all, maybe its just me getting older, I know the film had to be the way it was to show the futility of 7 or 8 men risking there lives for the sake of one man otherwise they could have just shown them SAW 1, 2 or 3.
Sorry, dunno what appened there, could someone delete it please, ta
philipMac
06-06-08, 12:25 PM
With respect to the original post, is SPR too graphic for young teenagers, I would tend to think probably not.
SPR seems to show more what extreme violence / war is really about than most. It is about intestines hanging out of you, and walking about in shock.
Almost all films depict war as something else completely. And, there is no getting away from the fact that the child is going to see other, more hygienic sanitized wars on TV.
I think that its more damaging to show children this more or less constant sanitized violence, violence with no ill effects other than "the bad guys" being vanquished rather than a more realistic idea of what actually happens.
That seems to be the problem with the OP, the realism of the violence.
Is it possible the school has sought you agreement. I have had letters from the school written as "Reply to opt out". If we dont ask our daughter "Any letter today" we wont get them.
As for the 15 rating, I'm think the film would not even be a 15a if presented now.
Is it possible the school has sought you agreement. I have had letters from the school written as "Reply to opt out". If we dont ask our daughter "Any letter today" we wont get them.
As for the 15 rating, I'm think the film would not even be a 15a if presented now.
Do you think then that society has become violent ? or that we are more used to violence and most people can differentiate beteween the two ?
It was this particular statement that brought me in to the conversation. It is not for the school to over rule my opinion on if my kids get to watch such a violent and graphic film. It is also not down to 'other' people to suggest I need to get a life and relax. I shall bring up my kids the way I see fit. I expect others to respect that and use a bit of consideration before deciding what they wish my kids to view. As I said before, chances are I would consent if asked, but that's the point. No one bothered to think about what the parents would think.
Irrelevant. It's not up to strangers to decide what laws should or should not apply to other peoples children.
Now I'm usually the first to say that certain laws should be taken with a pinch of salt - one of my favorite quotes is, "laws are for the guidence of wise men and the obedience of idiots", but that only applies to indervidual adults and how they choose to bring up their kids.
quite right you bring up your kids how you see fit. I will bring my daughter up how i see fit.
Big ape did not mean to offend you.
Year 11 is 15-16 year olds FWIW.
I was told that The Exorcist back in its day made people ill. I watched and laughed at how bad it was. I think like people say its just different generations.
I can remember all the furore over 'soldier blue' and 'the exorcist' I can also remember seeing a bbc journalist shot dead on a news item which was shown over and over again from 6pm onwards, that was in about '79' or something, that couldnt be shown now cos it wouldnt be deemed acceptable, so has society become more violent or more sensitive to violence ?
SoulKiss
06-06-08, 12:38 PM
Do you think then that society has become violent ? or that we are more used to violence and most people can differentiate beteween the two ?
I dont believe in the "watching violent films/playing violent games" causes you to become any more or less violent.
Its societies attitude to what is acceptable that causes the issues.
Society IS more violent now - look at the number of stabbings of kids by kids at the moment.
But its the acceptance of this violence that is whats wrong, we shake our heads and wait to see what the government/cops will do about it, instead of going out there as a society/community and dealing with it.
If every parent checked their kids schoolbags/room at random times then knocked the crap out of them if they found a knife etc then it would soon stop it.
As it is, kids have rights, which seem to override the ability of the parent to be a parent.
If every parent checked their kids schoolbags/room at random times then knocked the crap out of them if they found a knife etc then it would soon stop it.
.
yep would help is schools could do the same as well. and the police for that matter.
Flamin_Squirrel
06-06-08, 12:42 PM
I think that you will find (if I am being pedantic, and today I am) that it IS strangers that set the laws that apply to your children. There is nothing stranger than an MP :p
Politicians don't decide whether a law applies to someone or not, a judge does. If you're going to be pedantic you can at least get it right!
Kids have always carried knives though, when I was at school in the 70,s kids used to carry steel tail combs with a sharpend point, and kids got stabbed in those days as well, and in the 80,s people carried stanley knives, all kids these days seem to get all lumped together as potential thugs and killers, and 99.9999% is absolute bollock$, its no wonder a lot of kids feel alienated, they think we all hate em.
they think we all hate em.
I do!! :smt044
Big ape did not mean to offend you.
Don't worry, you didn't. Just didn't agree with your statement s'all. :wink:
neillfergie
06-06-08, 12:52 PM
Games can affect adults in a small way though, last saturday night myself and a couple of work colleagues all in their mid 20s were having a few beers :drink:before heading out for the night, we were playing the new GTA :smt068wich i dont have cos im an x box'er, anyway, one of the guys said he had been playing it a lot recently and was in the car the other day and saw the police at the side of the road, he then went on to say he considered in his head for a moment how he could ram his way past them:smt013 before realizing it was probably a bad idea. Now obviously he never rammed the police car but the fact he thought about it(seriously!) shows it can change the way you think.
now im not saying games make you violent but it does make you think???:confused:
Warthog
06-06-08, 12:52 PM
Society IS more violent now - look at the number of stabbings of kids by kids at the moment.
Is it though, compared to when?? Medieval times were 100 times more violent! There have always been wars. I'd argue that recently kids have been getting more and more protected from violence. Don't let sensationalist newpapers kid you into thinking otherwise. Although I haven't checked this following fact, but I think knifecrime is largely unchanged still, its just been reported more. (FACT! haha)
SoulKiss
06-06-08, 12:52 PM
Politicians don't decide whether a law applies to someone or not, a judge does. If you're going to be pedantic you can at least get it right!
I was being extra pedantic and actually referring to the people who make the laws, which in turn can be aimed for use on a specific target :P
I do!! :smt044
Yeah, I do too if I'm honest lol.
Thankfully kerry doesnt want any either :D
And having met them, however briefly, I must say you aint doing a bad job :)
Thank you very much. I think the beatings are doing the trick. :wink:
Didn't feel worried that one of them would pull a knife on me or anything (well except when I refused a cake :p)
Never EVER refuse the cake. :lol:
Sadly many parents, clearly not anyone posting on here, expect schools to do all their kids education and discipline. I take responsibilty for my kids, I'll take the blame for thier indiscretions. I will then disipline them if needed.
Sadly many parents, clearly not anyone posting on here, expect schools to do all their kids education and discipline. I take responsibilty for my kids, I'll take the blame for thier indiscretions. I will then disipline them if needed.
My neighbours are like that. The only education they get is the one from school. As far as they are concerned it's the schools job not theirs. It shows.
Saying that, she has taught them good values and manners. They are good kids, but not very well educated.
rictus01
06-06-08, 01:22 PM
Just leaving aside the legal/moral issues (I with Bigape by the way), I don't think I'd much like my kids learning history via the American film industries hero filter as it tends to be somewhat inaccurate (for dramatic effect of course).
Examples ?, well
enigma, only a two line statement at the end of the credits (who watches all of those) tells the British captured one two years earlier.
Memphis Bell, was actually based on a Lancaster crew, not a B17's one.
Whilst I know history is naturally biased towards the victor and all that, it's taking the pi** a bit.
Cheers Mark.
rictus01
06-06-08, 01:24 PM
Never EVER refuse the cake. :lol:
Only I get away with that ;)
Only I get away with that ;)
You Sir get away with too many things.
enigma, only a two line statement at the end of the credits (who watches all of those) tells the British captured one two years earlier.
Whilst I know history is naturally biased towards the victor and all that, it's taking the pi** a bit.
In the example you've given, it was biased towards the Americans, not the true victors.
Not only did the British get the Enigma device way before the Americans, but the British (Alan Turing specifically) designed a machine that could crack the code faster than the Germans could do it themselves!!
But before all that, the Polish knew about German movements thanks to their own code-breakers.
German laziness was the downfall of the Enigma machine. The American's had naff all to do with it, they were just told where to move their troops. The fact they had an Enigma machine was due solely to us British, as we gave them the design to build their own.
rictus01
06-06-08, 02:07 PM
You Sir get away with too many things.
Not running away I don't :o ( just as well I don't try then :smt044).
rictus01
06-06-08, 02:15 PM
In the example you've given, it was biased towards the Americans, not the true victors.
Not only did the British get the Enigma device way before the Americans, but the British (Alan Turing specifically) designed a machine that could crack the code faster than the Germans could do it themselves!!
But before all that, the Polish knew about German movements thanks to their own code-breakers.
German laziness was the downfall of the Enigma machine. The American's had naff all to do with it, they were just told where to move their troops. The fact they had an Enigma machine was due solely to us British, as we gave them the design to build their own.
thanks for the illastration, my point about the history however was as it's taughtin school, but even that bias is perverted by film directors and stuff, so how wrong do you want our kids to be ?
I've had numerous occasions where I've had something quoted to me as fact by the boys, merely to have to explain how school history isn't quite acurate anyway, and that as before they used movies to teach it :smt104
SoulKiss
06-06-08, 02:20 PM
thanks for the illastration, my point about the history however was as it's taughtin school, but even that bias is perverted by film directors and stuff, so how wrong do you want our kids to be ?
I've had numerous occasions where I've had something quoted to me as fact by the boys, merely to have to explain how school history isn't quite acurate anyway, and that as before they used movies to teach it :smt104
You mean that William Wallace WASNT banging some French Princess-Tart ?
rictus01
06-06-08, 02:23 PM
You mean that William Wallace WASNT banging some French Princess-Tart ?
or as the kids will relay it, mad max has a sword ;)
I would have had no problem with my daughter watching it as part of her history lesson, but I would have expected to have been asked if it were ok if she had been under 15.
My daughter took Schindlers List in to school during her GCSE year when they were learning about the holocaust. They watched it over three lessons, and she told me that even some of the really hard-nosed kids were affected by it. I think that probably got the horrors of the holocaust over to the kids in her class far better than mere words on a page ever could.
Only a few yrs bak wen I was still in secondary school we used to watch all the films like; brave heart, gladiator, saving private ryan, black hawk down, the quick n the dead n dances with wolves n that was just 4 history. The school never asked for permission, never consulted the parents. Just watched the film, n then do 3000 word essay on separating fact from fiction. Life was so much simplier. :rolleyes:
yorkie_chris
06-06-08, 10:04 PM
The film has a certified age rating on it for a reason.
The school has broken the law by showing it, a law which infact carries a prison sentence and/or hefty fine of £2500.
Me, I would have loved to watch a film like that while I was at school and it would have kept me occupied in a history lesson.
But that doesnt make it right for the teacher to break the law and possibly psychologicaly damage a child.....kids now days are violent and sadistic enough without the need for it to be forced into them any earlier, if it was my child I would probably complain to the highest levels and demand an explanation/action to be taken out of principle.
Psychological damage watching a film? Don't be daft.
Rhiwbina_Squirrel
06-06-08, 10:04 PM
I remember watching this as part of an religious education lesson. I can't remember why so it couldn't have had a huge effect on me.
Alex
ljharmitt
06-06-08, 10:07 PM
I watched it about that age at school for a media project, at that age i understood the story well enough and had seen far worse, its not too young and it is a good film for media studying. Stop acting so old lol
I watched it about that age at school for a media project, at that age i understood the story well enough and had seen far worse, its not too young and it is a good film for media studying. Stop acting so old lol
I cant help it, I am old :D at the end of the day she,s seen it, isnt too bothered by it, jobs a good un.
northwind
07-06-08, 01:43 AM
And its because of the "let it slide" attitude that you show there that we are in the mess we are in now.
I thought it was the nanny state telling us what we can and can't do which got us in the mess we are now ;)
I think people are knee-jerking here, as if the teacher's done it for a laugh without thinking about the kids. How do we know she's not carefully considered the maturity of the class and the suitability of the film? Why do we assume the BBFC know better on what's suitable for these kids than a teacher who knows them? Legality isn't morality.
i work in a school and we are only allowed to let the kids watch U rated films. Unless the parents sign a disclaimer giving the school permission to show anything else. I would not be happy if they had not asked my permission. Saying that I would probably have allowed her to watch it if there was a valid reason. I would complain to local council.
yorkie_chris
07-06-08, 02:09 PM
If half of you make as many complaints as you say you would then I bet your kids get bullied a lot :-P
If half of you make as many complaints as you say you would then I bet your kids get bullied a lot :-P
why? the law states a child can only watch a film or play a game with the correct age limit. If I decide to allow my child to watch/play a game aimed at a higher age group that is my choice. No way would I allow someone else to make that decision for me without discussion with me. how i raise my child is my business ie I chose whether to smack or not, what they watch on video, what computer games they play, whether I let them out to play in the street. Not for some buggar else to decide.
Wayluya
07-06-08, 06:21 PM
I don't know the rules on showing kids movies in schools, but maybe the films are rated if shown for entertainment purposes. If shown for educational reasons then their is no rating?
FWIW, me no kids and a 40 (very small ish!) year old bloke I think showing movies like Private Ryan and ESPECIALLY the first 25 minutes is a good idea, both for the history stuff......but because one thing that 99% of all Hollywood mainstream movies (and domestic TV) lacks is enough graphic and realistic violence. Seriously!
I remember when in the late 1970's the "video nasties" hit the headlines (Driller Killer / SS Concentration Camp Guard / Texas Chainsaw Massacre etc) although nowadays fairly laughable on the gore front, one of the effects was that movie makers sanitised the violence to get "action" past the censors / rating agencies.....the effect is that yer can shoot / stab or mutilate 100 baddies in a movie, and yer hero can get shot or stabbed (and wince a bit) without anyone realising that in real life these things are not as clean or painless as portrayed. Obviously at some level folk do know it is not as portrayed, but the cummulative effect normalises violence as something not totally unpleasant. That can never be a good thing for society as a whole.
Obviously Movies are not meant to be 100% realistic and are of course entertainment, but a sanitising of violence leads to a diss-association (sp?!) from the effects.....especially on kids (who have usually yet to learn any different in real life).
Even horror movies nowadays are not that gruesome :(
JessicaRabbit
07-06-08, 06:23 PM
why? the law states a child can only watch a film or play a game with the correct age limit. If I decide to allow my child to watch/play a game aimed at a higher age group that is my choice. No way would I allow someone else to make that decision for me without discussion with me. how i raise my child is my business ie I chose whether to smack or not, what they watch on video, what computer games they play, whether I let them out to play in the street. Not for some buggar else to decide.
Quite right, it's denying you a basic parental right. I'd let my kid watch it, but only if they asked permission first, else I'd be STRAIGHT down to the Headmasters office to give him a stern caning... :smt079
northwind
07-06-08, 06:23 PM
Just for the sake of argument here, turn it on its head... You're still leaving it up to someone else to decide what's suitable and what's not, so if you take the line that the law's right then it's still being left for some bugger else to decide.
Just for the sake of argument here, turn it on its head... You're still leaving it up to someone else to decide what's suitable and what's not, so if you take the line that the law's right then it's still being left for some bugger else to decide.
what im saying is they have a rating for a reason. If I allow my child to watch an 18 that is up to me, he plays 18 rated x box games. But he is my son therefore it is my decision. I feel strongly that the school were wrong on this occasion nothing to do with the movie but the fact that they broke the law in showing under age children a film that has been deemed unsuitable for their age group. If they wanted to show this movie they should have got parental consent. Guaranteed most parents would have given their consent if there was a valid reason for watching this movie and it was going to be discussed etc. What next sex education in a brothel?
yorkie_chris
08-06-08, 11:51 AM
http://www.owenbloggers.com/tyler/WindowsLiveWriter/WinterWonderland_13F83/image%7B0%7D%5B8%5D_1.png
:-P
I can apreciate both sides to this argument. Parental consent requested prior to showing the film wouldn't have gone a miss perhaps but, in the context that it was shown it perhaps wasnt gratuitous or out of place.
Granted learning history from film versions perhaps is a lazy way of teaching, but also conveys the message in a media that children are now all too familiar with. It's perhaps no different to teaching history from history books that have been written on-sided and have a very biased view on the contents.
I'm just saying that as times change different forms of media will be used to teach children and, as has been mentioned on the forum many times no one is in favour of the "nanny state" that we find ourselves in. By allowing teachers to make informed decisions regarding their choices of teaching you enable them to do the best that they can with all forms of surrounding media. After all kids are sent to school with the knowledge that a structure of learning decided by someone else not you as a parent will be taught.
As a child I wouldn't have been allowed to view such a film at that age and, I also know certain children of that age that would find the scenes very harrowing. However the things that children are witness too today are very different to how things were when I was that age. Many children wouldnt batter an eyelid to many of the things that would have caused me nightmares at their age.
Teaching children about war in particular and the ramifications of such a thing is very difficult to strike a balance however the film in question has very high ratings to being very true and acurate of the time (the beginning sequence I am referring to here) so perhaps not such a bad choice of film at all.
ie I chose whether to smack or not, what they watch on video, what computer games they play, whether I let them out to play in the street. Not for some buggar else to decide.
The beatings my ma gave me as a child did more to damage my psyche than any film ever did.....:smt104
If half of you make as many complaints as you say you would then I bet your kids get bullied a lot :-P
:smt043:smt043
northwind
09-06-08, 02:39 PM
what im saying is they have a rating for a reason. <snip> If they wanted to show this movie they should have got parental consent. Guaranteed most parents would have given their consent if there was a valid reason for watching this movie and it was going to be discussed etc.
I pretty much agree by the way, I'm just trying to see both sides.
I'm wondering about the consent though, would it have any legal standing, since it's still breaking the law with or without consent.
gettin2dizzy
09-06-08, 03:01 PM
You big bunch of pansies! Of course the teacher would have thought this through. Do we as a nation always have to presume everyone's an idiot? I really hope no one would complain as this would just have knock-on consequences.
FWIW, me no kids and a 40 (very small ish!) year old bloke I think showing movies like Private Ryan and ESPECIALLY the first 25 minutes is a good idea, both for the history stuff......
Saving Ryan's Privates historic? :lol: I know what you mean, it brings some of the grim reality to life but I'm sure there was at least one Brit on that beach! ;)
What next sex education in a brothel?
:cheers:
and a Logical fallacy to top it all off. Wonderful! :lol:
vBulletin® , Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.