Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Lawsuit over "Brokeback Mountain" screening at school

This is topic Lawsuit over "Brokeback Mountain" screening at school in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=005104

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 05-15-2007, 12:21 AM:

This popped up on MSN Movie News this evening. As a former college instructor I advocate the campus or classroom screening of films deemed provocative or controversial in order to spark discussion and debate within the school community. But that's at the college level, and within an academic setting where courses of study are offered in areas like literature or film analysis. But in junior high school? I dunno...

quote:
Lawsuit Over Brokeback Mountain in Class
May 13, 7:20 PM EST

The Associated Press

A girl and her grandparents have sued the Chicago Board of Education, alleging that a substitute teacher showed the R-rated film "Brokeback Mountain" in class.

The lawsuit claims that Jessica Turner, 12, suffered psychological distress after viewing the movie in her 8th grade class at Ashburn Community Elementary School last year.

The film, which won three Oscars, depicts two cowboys who conceal their homosexual affair.

Turner and her grandparents, Kenneth and LaVerne Richardson, are seeking around $500,000 in damages.

"It is very important to me that my children not be exposed to this," said Kenneth Richardson, Turner's guardian. "The teacher knew she was not supposed to do this."

According to the lawsuit filed Friday in Cook County Circuit Court, the video was shown without permission from the students' parents and guardians.

The lawsuit also names Ashburn Principal Jewel Diaz and a substitute teacher, referred to as "Ms. Buford."

The substitute asked a student to shut the classroom door at the West Side school, saying: "What happens in Ms. Buford's class stays in Ms. Buford's class," according to the lawsuit.

Richardson said his granddaughter was traumatized by the movie and had to undergo psychological treatment and counseling.

In 2005, Richardson complained to school administrators about reading material that he said included curse words.

"This was the last straw," he said. "I feel the lawsuit was necessary because of the warning I had already given them on the literature they were giving out to children to read. I told them it was against our faith."

Messages left over the weekend with CPS officials were not immediately returned.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-15-2007, 01:02 AM:

I agree. It's fine to show controversial films in a college setting. In one history class I had in art school the instructor showed part of the X-rated movie Caligula. Controversial films shown to students not old enough to attend an R-rated movie? I don't know about that.

I'd probably have to use the broadcast TV rule. If it's been shown uncut on a major broadcast network, then it might fly. Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan are among the few R-rated movies I can think of that have been shown uncut on broadcast network TV. I could certainly see the relevance in showing either movie in a history class.

The substitute teacher would have to be retarded to think he could get away with showing Brokeback Mountain to a bunch of 12 year old kids without getting any flak for it.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-15-2007, 01:34 AM:

Agreed here too. Usually I don't support parents suing schools because in most cases the parent is just a whiner, but the teacher really stepped over the bounds on this one.

BUT, I wonder what the lawsuit amount will be. I don't think the kids was "traumatized" to the tune of millions of dollars. A few thousand, maybe. That's the worst thing about this kind of lawsuit...the damages are always too huge, which just encourages more lawsuits.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-15-2007, 02:39 AM:

quote:
Richardson said his granddaughter was traumatized by the movie and had to undergo psychological treatment and counseling.

Bullshit! That girl was not traumatized. That's just stupid. This is nothing more than a greedy old geezer getting his granddaughter to play along so he can get rich.

My thoughts on that being made clear, I do agree it was wholly wrong to run ANY "R" rated movie to underage kids, regardless of what movie it was. Half a million dollars and "traumatized" though? Horseshit.

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 05-15-2007, 02:53 AM:

Most school require release forms if an R rated movie is going to be shown. Either the sub didn't know or didn't care.

I'll have to agree with Brad 100%.

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 05-15-2007, 03:09 AM:

I think the teacher can be disciplined. But come on, the girl was not traumatized. If she were, she has some mental problems that need to be taken care of. As far as monetary damages??? Please. The school can't be expected to predict every single thing.

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 05-15-2007, 03:54 AM:

What age are 'R' rated films intended to be shown to? Whether this was an appropriate film to show to that particular class I can't say, but in terms of age I can't see why it shouldn't be shown to 12 year olds. I can't remember whether it got a '12a' or '15' BBFC certificate in this country; I think I would probably have given it a '12a'.

Posted by Christopher Seo (Member # 7) on 05-15-2007, 04:19 AM:

I agree the film should not have been shown in this setting.

And I also say it's possible, even plausible, that the girl was traumatized, given her apparently ultra-conservative upbringing. But then, I would argue that the ultra-conservative upbringing was the primary trauma.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 05-15-2007, 04:56 AM:

quote: Stephen Furley
What age are 'R' rated films intended to be shown to?

To see an R-rated movie by yourself you must be at least 17. Otherwise, a parent or guardian must accompany you to the movie.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 05-15-2007, 05:22 AM:

quote: Brad Miller
My thoughts on that being made clear, I do agree it was wholly wrong to run ANY "R" rated movie to underage kids, regardless of what movie it was. Half a million dollars and "traumatized" though? Horseshit.

Agreed completely: showing a film that explicitly depicts sexual activity (of any sort) to a 12-year old is not a good idea. But what needs to happen in this case is for the teacher in question to be pulled into her boss's office and told why it's not a good idea. Half a million dollars in compensation is just plain silly.

There was a similar ruckus here when the Education Minister decided to send a DVD of An Inconvenient Truth to all high schools in the UK for showing to the kids (story here), the only difference being that the point of contention was politics rather than sex. A parent in Kent has threatned to take the government to court over it, though I don't know whether he's followed through on that threat.

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 05-15-2007, 05:56 AM:

quote: Leo Enticknap
Agreed completely: showing a film that explicitly depicts sexual activity (of any sort) to a 12-year old is not a good idea.

I saw most, but not all, of the film. I don't think I would consider anything I saw to be unsuitable for a 12 year old, but it's possible that I missed one or more scenes which were unsuitable.

quote: Chris Slycord
To see an R-rated movie by yourself you must be at least 17. Otherwise, a parent or guardian must accompany you to the movie.

What's the next available classification below an 'R'?

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 05-15-2007, 07:50 AM:

I don't know. If I would've been expecting to see a good western with Hoppy or Roy or ol' Gene, and instead got a sex picture about two guys... I would've been traumatized! [Razz]

Stephen, PG-13. Not suggested for those under 13.

Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 05-15-2007, 07:53 AM:

quote:
"I feel the lawsuit was necessary because of the warning I had already given them on the literature they were giving out to children to read. I told them it was against our faith."

And therein lies the root cause.

I remember a parent getting upset because Kurt Vonnegut's "Slaughterhouse Five" was on the high school reading list in my community. The claim was that is was "nothing but filth" because it included depictions of sex and was "full of curse words".

These are scarry people!!!

Also, you always hear what $$$ they are suing for, but you rarely hear what they actually got (if anything).

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 05-15-2007, 08:03 AM:

To clarify something posted above--film ratings in the US are voluntary. Many theatre owners enforce them, but no one requires them to do so. The possible exceptions would be X and/or NC-17, where films considered to be "pornographic" may not be able to be shown to minors (under 18), depending upon local laws. Theatre owners are free to let anyone into R-rated films, however. Also, films are not required to be rated, and many are not. Again, the entire system is voluntary.

In any case, it's pretty clearly inappropriate to show something like Brokeback Mountain to 12-year-olds, especially in a school setting where the screening is (presumably) mandatory and where the students are not with their parents. I doubt that the student in question was scarred for life (agreed with the post above that the parents may have caused psychological harm to the child, not the film), but any teacher who uses such bad judgment ought to be disciplined and/or fired. (What possible educational value could a film like this have? It's a good film, but I fail to see how it would fit into a school curriculum.)

Posted by Jim Bedford (Member # 4) on 05-15-2007, 08:18 AM:

How many people were gratuitously murdered in BROKEBACK? How many animals were hurt in its filming?

It might not be absolutely appropriate for 12 year olds (I wasn't in the class and don't know details of what the teacher was trying to accomplish) but it certainly isn't much worse than the Teletubbies and Barney those kids were probably brought up on.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 05-15-2007, 08:39 AM:

What a dip. How many other films could he have run and not gotten into trouble? It's not like there are no other choices for the teacher.

Doubly so I'd be suing for showing my kids such a boring load of [bs]

Seriously, if that'd been a story about a cowboy and a cowgal no-one'd ever have bothered to see it. But Ooooohhhh...they were *whispers* gay.

I only saw this film just a week ago for the first time. I couldn't believe it won for Best Director! [puke]

There mustn't have been much else around that year.

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 05-15-2007, 08:44 AM:

quote:
I don't know. If I would've been expecting to see a good western with Hoppy or Roy or ol' Gene, and instead got a sex picture about two guys... I would've been traumatized!

From what I saw I wouldn't describe 'Brokeback mountain' as a 'sex picture about two guys', but it's possible there are scenes which I didn't see which could be so described; since I didn't see whole film, I can't be sure.

quote: Scott Norwood
(What possible educational value could a film like this have? It's a good film, but I fail to see how it would fit into a school curriculum.)

I don't know the context in which it was being shown. For example, there are things that you might show to students on a media course studying film that you might not show to students of the same age as entertainment in a 'film-club' type setting. However, students studying specialised courses in this way tend to be slightly older.

Where there was some doubt about the suitability of a film it would be normal for a teacher to consult the Head of the school, and possibly obtain permission from parents.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-15-2007, 08:47 AM:

I think it is frivolous to sue a school for $500,000 because a substitute teacher showed a R-rated movie to some middle school students.

Let it be said at the same time, $475,000 of that judgment would go to the blood-sucking law firm while the actual client would get the remaining $25,000 -of which $10,000 would be paid to Uncle Sam in taxes.

quote: Stephen Furley
in terms of age I can't see why it shouldn't be shown to 12 year olds.

The movie seems to be pretty irrelevant as subject matter to show to middle school children. Aside from the point of Brokeback Mountain being a R-rated movie with both straight and gay sexual material in it, I would question a teacher's judgment in showing any Hollywood movie that didn't directly contribute to the lesson plan of the specific class being taught. If the subject matter is irrelevant then the teacher is simply wasting the students' time.

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 05-15-2007, 08:52 AM:

Actually, it is the studio who should be suing for the unlicenced public exhibition of a rented consumer DVD.

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 05-15-2007, 08:59 AM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
Aside from the point of Brokeback Mountain being a R-rated movie with both straight and gay sexual material in it.

I didn't see such material, but as I said, I didn't see the whole film; maybe 75% of it. It is possible that there was material in the film which I didn't see which would make it unsuitable for 12 year-olds. A teacher proposing to show any film to a class should have seen the entire film, and be familar with exactly what is in it.

quote: Bobby Henderson
I would question a teacher's judgment in showing any Hollywood movie that didn't directly contribute to the lesson plan of the specific class being taught. If the subject matter is irrelevant then the teacher is simply wasting the students' time.

Take out the word 'Hollywood', and I would agree with that; come to that, take out the word 'movie' as well. Anything which is put into a lesson should be there for a reason, and the teacher should be clear about what that reason is. It shouldn't be there just to fill some time, so he doesn't have to bother teaching the class.

quote: Mitchell Dvoskin
Actually, it is the studio who should be suing for the unlicenced public exhibition of a rented consumer DVD.

Good point Mitchell; in my day schools hired 16mm prints of films they wanted to show, and paid the appropriate non-commerciall exhibition fees for doing so. Today they show the films on video, and I would guess that at least 95% of the screenings are unlicenced. I don't actually know how you go about showing a film legitimately to such a group now. You can't just go into Blockbuster, say that you want to show the film to a school group, and pay the appropriate fee to do so; maybe you should be able to.

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 05-15-2007, 09:20 AM:

US copyright law has an exception for face-to-face teaching in classrooms.

Please see 17USC§110(1):

quote:

Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, the following are not infringements of copyright:
...
(1) performance or display of a work by instructors or pupils in the course of face-to-face teaching activities of a nonprofit educational institution, in a classroom or similar place devoted to instruction, unless, in the case of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, the performance, or the display of individual images, is given by means of a copy that was not lawfully made under this title, and that the person responsible for the performance knew or had reason to believe was not lawfully made;

There's often debate about what constitutes "face-to-face teaching," but in general, this exception permits most films to be legally shown in a classroom setting without obtaining a license. This does not mean that the entire school can assemble in an auditorium and watch the latest blockbuster without paying a rental fee, nor does it mean that teachers can show pirated versions from the Internet. But it does mean that they can legally rent a copy from Blockbuster (the copy was "lawfully made") and legally show it to students as part of teaching.

--jhawk

Posted by Chad M Calpito (Member # 3736) on 05-15-2007, 09:40 AM:

While I think it is wrong to show any movie with an "R" Rating to underage school groups, I do have to agree with Brad on this.

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 05-15-2007, 11:26 AM:

When I was in grade school, I'm guessing around the same age, our teacher showed us Excalibur for some reason... [thumbsup]

I remember her getting up and turning off the tv for a bit during the nude scene but we saw enough, lol.

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 05-15-2007, 12:09 PM:

I would never show BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN to 12-year olds. I might show it in a Senior English class, but I would doubt that. Too many other non-controversial things to use...BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN is as political as INCONVENIENT TRUTH.

I also wouldn't show it, as we've been told over and over NOT to use commercial films in class. Studio's consider these to be "public performances". (jHawk, our school district attorneys have investigated this point, and they are very specific when they tell us teachers that we should never use rented, borrowed or owned commercial films, although short excerpts are considered "fair use". Teachers in our district that have used full commercial films instructionally have been threatened with lawsuits by the MPAA. "Fair Use" however, IS a very complex issue, and not worth going in to here.)

I personally wouldn't show BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN to anyone, as I couldn't stand hearing that STUPID GUITAR LINE OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER!

Posted by Jeremy Weigel (Member # 4208) on 05-15-2007, 01:37 PM:

quote: Scott Norwood
Theatre owners are free to let anyone into R-rated films, however.

I seem to remember when I worked for Regal that Tennessee had passed a law based on the "R" rating policy. There were sting operations carried out (much like on under age alcohol sales) and if a theatre was caught allowing persons under the age of 17 into a "R" movie unaccompanied by and a parent or legal guardian the theatre could be fined. Anyone on here from Tennessee able to confirm whether this was or still is the case?

I also believe a similar bill was introduced here in Oklahoma a few years ago, but thankfully never made it out of commity.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 05-15-2007, 01:49 PM:

Stephen: There is a sex scene involving the two male leads. Although it takes place in semi-darkness and you can't see any anatomical detail, the combination of the visuals and the soundtrack leaves very little to the imagination. The film got a 15-certificate here, which I think is about right.

quote: Stephen Furley
Good point Mitchell; in my day schools hired 16mm prints of films they wanted to show, and paid the appropriate non-commerciall exhibition fees for doing so. Today they show the films on video, and I would guess that at least 95% of the screenings are unlicenced. I don't actually know how you go about showing a film legitimately to such a group now. You can't just go into Blockbuster, say that you want to show the film to a school group, and pay the appropriate fee to do so; maybe you should be able to.

Schools, FE (US: community college) and HE (universities, mainly) institutions can join the Educational Recording Agency scheme. The institution pays a flat annual fee based on the number of enrolled students, for which it gets a licence which allows the screening of any off-air recording from a UK terrestrial channel or any retail DVD published in the UK (therefore a Kino or Milestone DVD ordered through the US Amazon site isn't covered, for example) on its premises and within scheduled classes. It's not a free-for-all: all the recordings used for teaching have to be registered and proper records kept by the institution. Off-air recordings can also be copied by the institution. But again, all the copies have to be properly recorded by the institution and full details passed to ERA, e.g. the transmission date, time and channel.

Posted by Caleb Johnstone-Cowan (Member # 3710) on 05-15-2007, 02:38 PM:

You couldn't show the film in the UK anyway in class because it might contravene the law that prevents promoting homosexuality in schools (though I don't think the film does).

If something was rated '15' or '18' usually teachers asked permission from parents for us to watch, usually Shakespeare adaptations. Of course there are legal issues in the UK with this.

The people involved need to step back and consider the interests of the child otherwise they shouldn't be in loco parentis.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 05-15-2007, 03:34 PM:

quote: Caleb Johnstone-Cowan
You couldn't show the film in the UK anyway in class because it might contravene the law that prevents promoting homosexuality in schools (though I don't think the film does).

They repealed Section 28 a few years ago, but I can still imagine that you'd get some parents mieowing and hissing if any teacher attempted to show Brokeback Mountain in the context of sex education or anything vaguely related thereto.

<off topic, sorry>

Incidentally, when they did repeal it, the occasion gave rise (indirectly) to what is quite simply the funniest bit of radio I've ever heard. It was a discussion on the Today programme about a government initiative to encourage schoolchildren to get more exercise and therefore prevent obesity. One of the interviewees was Norman Tebbit, who said that this wouldn't do any good, because obesity was in fact caused by gay sex (story, with link to the audio, here). I was driving to work when he came out with that gem, and laughed so much I very nearly ran the car off the road.

</off topic, sorry>

Posted by Jarryd Beard (Member # 2543) on 05-15-2007, 03:53 PM:

quote: Jim Bedford
How many people were gratuitously murdered in BROKEBACK? How many animals were hurt in its filming?

None, but those aren't the only things inappropriate for a 12 year-old to watch in a movie. I watched the movie and I was not offended. It was, however, rated R for a reason. Though the sex scene was filmed with dark lighting, it was completely obvious as to what was going on. I believe the scene portrayed anal sex complete with saliva being used for lubrication. That's completely inappropriate for an elementary or middle school classroom setting.

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 05-15-2007, 03:53 PM:

quote: Leo Enticknap
Stephen: There is a sex scene involving the two male leads. Although it takes place in semi-darkness and you can't see any anatomical detail, the combination of the visuals and the soundtrack leaves very little to the imagination. The film got a 15-certificate here, which I think is about right.

I see, I hadn't seen that scene. From the way you describe it a 15 certificate does sound about right.

quote: Leo Enticknap
Schools, FE (US: community college) and HE (universities, mainly) institutions can join the Educational Recording Agency scheme.

<Snip details> What this scheme doesn't cover of course is things like after school film clubs, youth clubs, Scout groups etc. showing films mainly for entertainment. I think there is far more of this sort of thing than there is use of film in a formal teaching situation.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 05-15-2007, 11:08 PM:

Ultra-conservative upbringing? Where's the evidence of that? And what business is that of yours anyway? Although I see clear evidence of ultra-liberal brainwashing going on here. And this isn't the first case of it.

What's wrong with parents being upset about teachers who push this crap on their kids? Would gay parents be upset if the school started showing anti-gay movies to their kids? Of course they would. This discussion doesn't belong in pre-college level education institutions unless the parents all consent to it first, and anyone with two brain cells to rub together should know that.

I'm all for the grandparents punishing the school district monetarily for hiring someone who was so unbelievably stupid to step over the line of common sense on this issue. Who the hell would think that showing a movie that is pro-homosexual, or for that matter, an anti-homosexual movie, or ANY movie dealing with homo-sexuality - or ANY kind of sexuality - to a group of eighth graders is a good idea? Who the hell wakes up in the morning thinking, "I think I'll show an R-rated movie about two gay guys to my eighth grade class today"??? It seems to me that the substitute teacher is at the very least a complete moron, or at most a pervert, and should be fired and banned from ever working in a public school ever again.

The grandparents were right to sue the pants off of that school district. I think my definition of "traumatized" and some other peoples' definition of "traumatized" are two different things. I agree with the grandparents 110%.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-15-2007, 11:26 PM:

quote:
I agree with the grandparents 110%.

So you're saying that although you agree with the grandparents, you feel that they should have gone further and/or sued for even more? Or you agree with the grandparents more than they agree with themselves?

Posted by Will Kutler (Member # 770) on 05-16-2007, 01:10 AM:

Agreed that this is an inappropriate film to show in class.

FYI, what they showed when I was in Jr. High School circa late 1970's early 1980's. Sex education was promoted as well as absenence. On one occasion a school assembly was called re: sex education. The film shown was of a girl getting her abortion...it was pretty damn graphic and bordered on porn. Not to mention the huge colord photo's/posters displayed all over the place of aborted fetuses, etc.

And this was a public jr. high school, part of Tucson Unified School District.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 05-16-2007, 01:28 AM:

quote: Mark J. Marshall
The grandparents were right to sue the pants off of that school district.

I thought the removal of pants was what you were objecting to! [Big Grin]

Sorry; couldn't resist...

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-16-2007, 02:49 AM:

quote: Will Kutler
The film shown was of a girl getting her abortion...it was pretty damn graphic and bordered on porn. Not to mention the huge colord photo's/posters displayed all over the place of aborted fetuses, etc.

That reminds me of those great driver's education films back in the day when they believed they could get people's attention by making them graphic.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 05-16-2007, 08:50 AM:

Leo, As long as they don't do it in front of the kids, then that's fine. [Smile]

Joe, Sure. If they would have sued for $550,000, I'd be ok with that too.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-16-2007, 10:09 AM:

quote: Brad Miller
That reminds me of those great driver's education films back in the day when they believed they could get people's attention by making them graphic.

Ah yes, the classic "blood & guts" films.

You mean they don't show those anymore? No wonder the kids can't drive.

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 05-16-2007, 01:00 PM:

I once had an attorney tell me that the justice system is not set up to accomplish goals by imposing a lot of moralistic conditions (yes, I know... they do it anyway). They accomplish their goals by the application of monetary penalties. Based on that, it seems reasonable that the expected leverage here would be financial. What amount is appropriate, I wouldn't know. That also seems to be spiraling out-of-control.

I'm in the boat with those who think this film should not have been shown. Being from a small community that didn't have the resources to let their schools get so diverse, I'm pretty narrow-minded about what I think parents should delegate.

Regarding the educational loophole that allowed the film to be legally presented: I wonder what that educational goal was. I don't recall seeing that in this thread. Aren't substitutes supposed to follow the regular teacher's lesson plan?... at least unless the sub has been in that class for a few days?

We were fortunate to be able to take our kids out of the public schools after their elementary grades. Having them in a setting where faculty accountability was in-place worked very well for us... and them.

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 05-16-2007, 08:28 PM:

quote: Jim Bedford
but it certainly isn't much worse than the Teletubbies and Barney those kids were probably brought up on.

Interesting Point, when it comes to kids shows, closeted homosexual references have been around forever. In Noddy, Big Ears use to share the same bed. Now thats a same sex couple! I also remember a character called Sea Man Sam and Master Baitman in another kids show. Let alone Bill and Ben the flowerpot men and their obsession with WEED!

Play school theme

Theres a bear in there
People with games, and stories to tell.
open wide, come inside!
Its Playschool!

When I was at school, when the 16mm projector broke down one wet sports day. I was sent to the local video shop to rent 4 movies to be played in the different video zones, ie science block, library, theatrette ect.
Metropolis, Roxanne, a Disney film and Rambo were my choice!

Umm Rambo was the most popular choice!!! And the parental complaints went all the way to Federal Parliament [Confused]

Posted by Christopher Seo (Member # 7) on 05-17-2007, 12:15 AM:

quote: Mark J. Marshall
Ultra-conservative upbringing? Where's the evidence of that? And what business is that of yours anyway?

It's no business of mine, for sure. I just find it fascinating that an eighth grader was traumatized and suffered psychological distress and required psychological treatment and counseling due to a movie which she would have found powerful and touching and heart-wrenching and soul-stirring, or at least merely boring, given a different set of parents. C'est la vie!

Posted by Joel N. Weber II (Member # 3530) on 05-17-2007, 12:37 AM:

quote: John Hawkinson
But it does mean that they can legally rent a copy from Blockbuster (the copy was "lawfully made") and legally show it to students as part of teaching.

Somewhere, I've come across a claim that the situation is less clear if the video is rented, rather than owned by the teacher or the school, I think because the contract between Blockbuster and the renter may be able to prohibit this use. Unfortunately, I don't remember where I read/heard that, and can't find anything easily on google at the moment.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 05-17-2007, 02:02 AM:

quote: Brad Miller
That reminds me of those great driver's education films back in the day when they believed they could get people's attention by making them graphic.

Yes! There was a whole cycle of them in the late '60s and '70s, and I have 16mm prints of a few. My favourite is a 1970s masterpiece entitled Candles for Katie. Scenario: Katie is at school while her parents are preparing a surprise birthday party. However, they're rowing like mad and on the verge of divorce. Dad drowns his sorrows in half a bottle of whisky, then drives drunk to the school to pick his daughter up. Katie runs out into the road just as Daddy is coming round the corner, but Daddy is pissed, doesn't stop in time and runs over his own daughter. Blood and guts all over the road (shown explicitly - nothing left to the imagination), screaming kids outside the school gate ... fade to black; the end. The teachers' guide that came with the film stated that it was suitable for showing to 8-12 year olds as a 'don't run in the road' film, or to adults for the anti-drink driving message.

Another gem is I'm Train Trained, about straying onto railway lines. Schools could also order 'I'm Train Trained' badges to give out to pupils after they'd seen the film. Kid #1 wanders onto a railway track as a dare, and just manages to get clear before a train comes. Kid #2 climbs over a fence and onto the line to retrieve his ball, and is electrocuted by the live rail. Kid #3 goes on to try and help his electrocuted friend, and is mown down by an express train. You then see a severed arm being removed from the line by an ambulance worker, and over footage of the double funeral the voiceover tells you to never, ever trespass on railway lines.

Another popular schools film genre was the 'don't go with strangers' film. The script was pretty much the same each time. The paedophile always had a beard, wore a horrific tie, drove a flashy car (this is 1970s, so think of Ford Cortinas out of The Professionals) and invited the victim to visit his home to see his kittens. He'd hang around outside the school gate and explain to his potential target that her parents had sent him to pick him up. Then there's some sort of subplot to explain how the parents found out what had happened and got the police involved, and the last scene usually involved screams coming from inside the flat just before the police bust the door down.

Posted by Christopher Seo (Member # 7) on 05-17-2007, 02:23 AM:

Aww, too bad I missed that era of educational films. Reminds me of an episode of "3rd Rock From the Sun" where, I think, the cop shows the class a drunk-driving film titled "The Bride Wore Asphalt".

So maybe, really, the substitute teacher was a well-meaning sort who just wanted to discourage her young charges from a life of deviant sexuality. But in a tragic twist à la "Clockwork Orange", the students actually come to fear repetitive guitar scores.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-17-2007, 02:46 AM:

Leo, you will get a kick out of this one.

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 05-17-2007, 12:20 PM:

It was a one time occurrence. Even if you side with the grandparents, how lame to sue the school. How can the school predict when a guy just shows a movie out of the blue? A reasonable compromise would be to get the school to promise them that their kid would need permission to watch any R movies.

Anyway, I have conservative relatives. And they don't get bent out of shape when their kids accidentally see a sex scene on cable. They are more concerned with them getting jaded over PG-13, light R material that is daily bombarded at them on basic cable channels and network tv during non-latenight hours. The kids can get jaded by that. But seeing something once , even if it's something extreme compared to their regular values, is not going to have a major effect on their psyche. Other than a snicker or confusion as to why Heath Ledger spits on his hand before doing Jake, I don't see the "innocent" kid really affected.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 05-17-2007, 02:33 PM:

Oh, I see, Christopher, so it's the parents' fault for not bringing her up so that she's properly prepared when some bone headed teacher wannabe decides to show an R rated movie in his eighth grade class instead of actually teaching algebra or history. If the parents weren't imparting conservative values on their little 12 year old girl, then she could have been subjected to an R rated movie containing scenes of gay sex, and it wouldn't have caused her psychological distress. So it must be the parents' fault.

I'm curious, Christopher... what is the youngest age that you would consider showing this movie to? If not 12... 10? 8? 6? How early in life are you planning to prepare your children psychologically and emotionally for a movie that contains a scene of male on male sex?

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 05-17-2007, 04:57 PM:

Brad: interesting. There's just one tinsy little flaw in the script of Boys Beware, though: if all paedophiles are gay, then presumably little girls have nothing to fear from going with strangers! Pity that this doesn't exactly square with reality (I wonder if Sid Davis ever saw M), but if a legend becomes fact, print the legend and all that.

I guess the nearest British equivalent is the now infamous Say No to Strangers (Part 1 on YouTube ... Part 2 on YouTube) - the acting and direction were much better than I remembered it; must have been VERY scary to someone in the target age group.

This is the last minute (the clip stops just before the end titles) from another schools classic. In the first scene, Jimmy gets his kite caught in overhead power lines, but has the good sense to leave it. In the second, he gets electrocuted (can't remember how; it's years since I've seen the whole film) but survives. Then he chucks his frisbee into the substation, at which point the YouTube clip starts and it's Kentucky Fried Jimmy time.

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 05-17-2007, 05:00 PM:

What if the movie had scenes implying heterosexual sex, would everyone be geting worked up as much about it? I haven't seen the movie nor do I intend to, but from what I hear it's nothing more graphic than what they can see on tv, be it hetero or homo love. This doesn't mean I think showing that film was right (like I said before one of my teachers showed us excalibur during class as "history")... but I highly doubt these kids will be fucked up for life having seen it.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-17-2007, 05:02 PM:

I'm beginning to think that Mark J. Marshall might be one of the grandparents!

Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 05-17-2007, 06:15 PM:

It was wrong to show the film to middle school students, but invoking the legal process in order to profit from the incident is worse.

Posted by Christopher Seo (Member # 7) on 05-17-2007, 07:39 PM:

quote: Mark J. Marshall
So it must be the parents' fault.

quote: Mark J. Marshall
I'm curious, Christopher... what is the youngest age that you would consider showing this movie to?

My view here is a little more intricate than you would like to think. Note that in my first post I expressed the opinion that the film should not have been shown to the class. Let the teacher be disciplined and the school board sued.

Nor do I think the grandparents are at fault, per se, for raising the girl a certain way; but one cannot help observing cause and effect. Let them teach her whatever they wish about the exact nature of things, and then, let her make her way through a world far beyond their grasp, or yours or mine, for that matter.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-17-2007, 07:59 PM:

I wonder if this "traumatized" girl's grandparents are on the MPAA rating board? [Razz]

Posted by Joshua Waaland (Member # 287) on 05-17-2007, 11:11 PM:

I have been traumatized by the past few years of crappy, mediocre films that have come out of Hollwood. I wonder if I can sue for that? [Wink]

Anyone else notice a decline in good acting lately? Spiderman 3 had some really goofy scenes in it. What was that whole scene about with Mary Jane and Harry doing "The Twist"? I was embarrased for them. [puke]

It just seems like so many films have poorly delivered lines anymore.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 05-18-2007, 08:00 AM:

quote: Mike Heenan
What if the movie had scenes implying heterosexual sex, would everyone be geting worked up as much about it?

Yes. See my first post. My primary argument is with the fact that someone would think it was ok to show an R rated movie to a bunch of 12 year olds without their parents consent. My secondary complaint is about the content of the R rated movie that was chosen.

quote:
Nor do I think the grandparents are at fault, per se, for raising the girl a certain way;

Sorry. I must have misunderstood this line in your first post...

quote: Christopher Seo
I would argue that the ultra-conservative upbringing was the primary trauma.

Although you still haven't answered my questions. 1: What is the youngest age that you would consider showing this movie to? And 2: How early in life are you planning to prepare your children psychologically and emotionally for a movie that contains a scene of male on male sex?

I'm not a grandparent yet Joe, but when I am one, if the public school system is still at least as pathetic as it is now, my grandchildren will be nowhere near it.

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 05-18-2007, 08:10 AM:

It's too bad kids can't just be left alone to be kids anymore.

Posted by Christopher Seo (Member # 7) on 05-18-2007, 02:22 PM:

Firstly, Mark, I think you're taking my opinions far too seriously, although I am flattered.

Secondly, I would argue that the apparently ultra-conservative upbringing was the primary trauma to the secondary trauma of seeing the movie, if, in fact, the girl really was traumatized. I understand your jump to the conclusion that because I labeled the upbringing "ultra-conservative" I would blame the parents, but again, I take a more intricate view than that. If I labeled the teacher "ultra-liberal", would that even things out? I'm willing to do so.

Thirdly, I don't have to answer your questions. I told you that I agree the film should not have been shown to the eighth grade class, and I am not really in a position to develop a full statement on the child psychology of showing "Brokeback Mountain" to minors. I don't plan on showing the film to any children, or anyone, period, in case you're afraid that I'm another one of those ultra-liberal propagandists. And this is irrelevant to my above point.

Posted by R. Andrew Diercks (Member # 1725) on 05-18-2007, 08:33 PM:

I would be PISSED if this was shown to my kids in middle school. That's not to say I wouldn't allow them to watch it with me. What gives any other adult the right to decide what R rated films my children see. At least I can direct any after movie discussion and answer questions in a way I feel appropriate. This teacher would not have shown this film without an agenda or lesson that he felt needed to be taught.

Posted by Aaron Mehocic (Member # 15) on 05-19-2007, 06:10 PM:

I know of a substitute teacher who was told never to come back when he showed Platoon to a history class while the regular teacher was home with the flu. That was back in 1990. Given what Hollywood has done since, I don't think that was all that bad.

Posted by Will Kutler (Member # 770) on 05-20-2007, 10:40 PM:

What people do in their own bedrooms is their own business. Just don't try to force you private lifestyle on me! However, things do become public business if they adversely impact the safety and well-being of the greater public...or if public money (tax $$) is spent on...whatever.

That being said, this film had no business being shown in a public school without parental permission. First, it is "R" rated and second it was, in many peoples views, promoting a lifestyle which is unacceptable to many.

This past semester I was involved in a situation. We have a college faculty/administrative member who happens to be a lesbian. This individual was in the Student Union promoting "Comming Out Day"...I believe that is what it is called. Anyhow, as I was walking out of the Union I happened to pass this person, whom I know, and said hello and inquired about what her presentation booth was about...as she was packing up. She told me and I politely excused myself and started to walk away, telling her that I was not interested in this topic. This individual just went BALISTIC and atempted to start an altercation with me, accusing me of homophobia and racism! Gee whiz, I never made any type of anti-gay remark towards her, and yet she wanted to start a fight because I was not interested in her personal lifestyle!

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 05-21-2007, 04:47 AM:

I tend to find that activists about any cause are more likely to go more ballistic if you're just not interested than if you actually oppose their views. It's a great way to wind 'em up!

I once went on a date from hell I'll never forget. The lady in question was South African, and quite charming until, after a couple of glasses of wine, I asked what I thought was a perfectly innocent question - why did she move from South Africa to England? 'That shit Mandela, that's why!' was her response. It quickly became apparent that the extent of her hatred for the gentleman in question would make Hitler and Mussolini look like museli-munching lefties. Oddly enough, it seemed to make her even madder when I replied that I really didn't have any view one way or another as to whether or not Nelson Mandela should have been hanged, or that I was happy to take her word for it that Eugene Terreblanche Sings Ballads of the Boers was the best CD in the history of the music industry.

I get the impression that these people actually want you to be shocked and outraged by their actions - it's part of their agenda, following the logic of 'no publicity is bad publicity', I guess.

Posted by Joshua Waaland (Member # 287) on 05-21-2007, 07:16 AM:

quote:
I tend to find that activists about any cause are more likely to go more ballistic if you're just not interested than if you actually oppose their views. It's a great way to wind 'em up!

The sad part is that these people are actually a very small part of the population but get most of the attention. The media likes to sensationalize everything and they love to give these people a platform to speak from. I think it is apparant where most of Americas values lie. You can see that by the way they vote. The media wants you to believe the minority are actually the majority so they can push their agenda. [Roll Eyes]