I was a high school senior in 1968-69. Our gym suits looked just like that. Nobody liked them. The song Simon Says playing in the background reflects the high school culture of the day - students were expected to do as they were told. In the film clip last night, the English teacher playing Simon and Garfunkel would have been considered cool, and we would have liked her. But even so, she stood OVER the students, who were seated in rows, and she did all the talking. She TOLD them the lyrics were poetry. In the 1994 film, the teacher might have sat in a circle with the students. She might have ASKED them if the song sounded like poetry. And if so, why?
I think that there is a thick cloud of political correctness seen in the later High School that is well contrasted to the original documentary. Schools today -- teachers, administration, faculty, and more -- must always worry about the correctness of what they are doing and the potential consequences that comes with their actions. Never would you see a teacher yell at a student like in the first High School when the student did not want to wear his gym uniform. I believe that the filmmaker was commenting on this new, fluffy way of teaching the students. I'm not opposed to this type of learning, but I think a point is to be made on the subject. The filmmaker takes this opportunity to caricaturize a system. By making the audience repeatedly look at the dynamics of the student-to-teacher relationships and to the collegue-to-collegue relationships, the filmmaker highlights the changes in a system that is so delicate and political.
Paula and Cathy, I had some of the same notes comparing the two documentaries. Even the way that the teachers and students were blocked in shots tended to be (from the short clip we saw) completely different: in the first movie, the teachers stood traditionally at the front of the classroom, standing while the students sit and silently listen. In the second movie, all conversations and lectures tend to happen on the same level. We only see a few classroom scenes- the English class, the learning aides working with individual students- and in all of these, they sit together, facing each other, and all parties speak and are encouraged to speak. The point was driven in over and over that these authority-student relationships are, supposedly, more give and take.
Cathy, I also noticed a shift from a teacher-centered classroom environment in the 1968 version to a student-centered one in the 1994 version. I'm sure that a significant part of this shift results from a change in the ideal teaching pedagogy being taught to educators; this is something I'm aware of from being in Millersville's education program. Even the filming seemed to focus more on the students, and even more so in the modern version. The camera was often put on the student immediately and would stay on them even when an adult was talking. The camera would eventually shift, but still favored the students and would acquire close-ups with students regularly that were rarely done with the adults on screen. However, I still think adults were more prominent than I expected them to be and it wasn't until almost an hour and a half in that we experience the first scene where it is exclusively student-on-student interaction. I had actually written down, "Why have we not seen student-on-student interaction? Why does the filmmaker always include adults; shouldn't students be the primary focus in a high school?" I am wondering if this is not a comment on the social/political climate present within schools, especially when taking into consideration the first conversation we witness about Rodney King, the class system, safety, and democracy. Maybe I'm reading too far into it...
I think that an urban environment allowed for a really unique blend of a host of different social issues. In the opening scene, we see a student discussing the Rodney King case in LA, and the role of Socialism in America. Over the course of the film, we almost moved down a checklist of important, popular debate topics: teenaged pregnancy, drive-by shootings and urban violence, student ambition, parent involvement, and race in the classroom. In fact, we see these special conversations, these conferences, almost exclusively, as opposed to "everyday" school experiences that wouldn't necessarily be unique to that particular demographic. As much as those situations may have been carefully curated- or induced- over time, they came together neatly in a way that might not've happened in, say, the predominately white school of the first movie.
My thoughts are that the urban environment was used due to the diversity and cultural elements that are ultimately exposed to the target suburban audience. I don't think this film was made to appeal to those depicted in the film. This film was created, in my opinion, to evoke shock, question not only the school system but home life as well, and to challenge the audience to do better with the school system. The scenes captured are exactly what we don't want to see happening in schools. The filmmaker successfully created an atmosphere in which we were able to fill like we were part of the conversations.
I think that we said in class that the school in High School was the same in High School 2, but I found an interview that said it wasn't...here is the link http://www.documentaryisneverneutral.com/words/wiseman.html and below is the comment that I found.
Q-What about High School 2. It seems obvious to me watching it that, this time, you chose an exemplary secondary school, where progressive, humane education really works.
I deliberately picked a high school that was different in a variety of ways from that first high school.In the first High School, there were 4,000 white students and only 12 black students. This one was 45% black, 45% Hispanic, only 10% white. I believe that some people seeing the film might ask the question whether the students are getting a good education. I’m not suggesting I think that, but people who see High School 2 could complain, "Where’s the Latin? Where’s the Greek? Where’s the discussion of the contexts of language? Why is everything turned into a sociological text?" I mean, those are legitimate questions about that kind of education.
Sophia that is good information to know. Now I wonder why did he change the school, was it due to the response from the documentary.
I also feel like even with the make up of the school population, staying with the same school and documenting years later would still show a different view. So why change the school?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI was a high school senior in 1968-69. Our gym suits looked just like that. Nobody liked them. The song Simon Says playing in the background reflects the high school culture of the day - students were expected to do as they were told. In the film clip last night, the English teacher playing Simon and Garfunkel would have been considered cool, and we would have liked her. But even so, she stood OVER the students, who were seated in rows, and she did all the talking. She TOLD them the lyrics were poetry. In the 1994 film, the teacher might have sat in a circle with the students. She might have ASKED them if the song sounded like poetry. And if so, why?
ReplyDeleteI think that there is a thick cloud of political correctness seen in the later High School that is well contrasted to the original documentary. Schools today -- teachers, administration, faculty, and more -- must always worry about the correctness of what they are doing and the potential consequences that comes with their actions. Never would you see a teacher yell at a student like in the first High School when the student did not want to wear his gym uniform. I believe that the filmmaker was commenting on this new, fluffy way of teaching the students. I'm not opposed to this type of learning, but I think a point is to be made on the subject. The filmmaker takes this opportunity to caricaturize a system. By making the audience repeatedly look at the dynamics of the student-to-teacher relationships and to the collegue-to-collegue relationships, the filmmaker highlights the changes in a system that is so delicate and political.
DeletePaula and Cathy, I had some of the same notes comparing the two documentaries. Even the way that the teachers and students were blocked in shots tended to be (from the short clip we saw) completely different: in the first movie, the teachers stood traditionally at the front of the classroom, standing while the students sit and silently listen. In the second movie, all conversations and lectures tend to happen on the same level. We only see a few classroom scenes- the English class, the learning aides working with individual students- and in all of these, they sit together, facing each other, and all parties speak and are encouraged to speak. The point was driven in over and over that these authority-student relationships are, supposedly, more give and take.
DeleteCathy, I also noticed a shift from a teacher-centered classroom environment in the 1968 version to a student-centered one in the 1994 version. I'm sure that a significant part of this shift results from a change in the ideal teaching pedagogy being taught to educators; this is something I'm aware of from being in Millersville's education program. Even the filming seemed to focus more on the students, and even more so in the modern version. The camera was often put on the student immediately and would stay on them even when an adult was talking. The camera would eventually shift, but still favored the students and would acquire close-ups with students regularly that were rarely done with the adults on screen. However, I still think adults were more prominent than I expected them to be and it wasn't until almost an hour and a half in that we experience the first scene where it is exclusively student-on-student interaction. I had actually written down, "Why have we not seen student-on-student interaction? Why does the filmmaker always include adults; shouldn't students be the primary focus in a high school?" I am wondering if this is not a comment on the social/political climate present within schools, especially when taking into consideration the first conversation we witness about Rodney King, the class system, safety, and democracy. Maybe I'm reading too far into it...
ReplyDeleteWhy did Wiseman choose the school setting that he did, an urban environment? What was he trying to show in doing this?
ReplyDeleteI think that an urban environment allowed for a really unique blend of a host of different social issues. In the opening scene, we see a student discussing the Rodney King case in LA, and the role of Socialism in America. Over the course of the film, we almost moved down a checklist of important, popular debate topics: teenaged pregnancy, drive-by shootings and urban violence, student ambition, parent involvement, and race in the classroom. In fact, we see these special conversations, these conferences, almost exclusively, as opposed to "everyday" school experiences that wouldn't necessarily be unique to that particular demographic. As much as those situations may have been carefully curated- or induced- over time, they came together neatly in a way that might not've happened in, say, the predominately white school of the first movie.
DeleteMy thoughts are that the urban environment was used due to the diversity and cultural elements that are ultimately exposed to the target suburban audience. I don't think this film was made to appeal to those depicted in the film. This film was created, in my opinion, to evoke shock, question not only the school system but home life as well, and to challenge the audience to do better with the school system. The scenes captured are exactly what we don't want to see happening in schools. The filmmaker successfully created an atmosphere in which we were able to fill like we were part of the conversations.
DeleteAshley
ReplyDeleteWhat do you believe his motives in focusing on select teachers?
I think that we said in class that the school in High School was the same in High School 2, but I found an interview that said it wasn't...here is the link http://www.documentaryisneverneutral.com/words/wiseman.html and below is the comment that I found.
ReplyDeleteQ-What about High School 2. It seems obvious to me watching it that, this time, you chose an exemplary secondary school, where progressive, humane education really works.
I deliberately picked a high school that was different in a variety of ways from that first high school.In the first High School, there were 4,000 white students and only 12 black students. This one was 45% black, 45% Hispanic, only 10% white. I believe that some people seeing the film might ask the question whether the students are getting a good education. I’m not suggesting I think that, but people who see High School 2 could complain, "Where’s the Latin? Where’s the Greek? Where’s the discussion of the contexts of language? Why is everything turned into a sociological text?" I mean, those are legitimate questions about that kind of education.
Sophia that is good information to know. Now I wonder why did he change the school, was it due to the response from the documentary.
ReplyDeleteI also feel like even with the make up of the school population, staying with the same school and documenting years later would still show a different view. So why change the school?