Am I just getting old, or...

[pfrsue]

I'd really like some feedback on this - and it's fine if you don't agree with me.

Yesterday, when I was sitting in the high school parking lot waiting to pick up my son (Yes, I have a kid in high school. Yes, this is horrifying.) I noticed that the tech club was outside filming a scene for some sort of movie project. The scene went like this: One boy, arm extended, shoots another boy with a hand gun at a range of about two yards. Shot boy crumples to the ground with blood on his shirt.

The teacher who acts as advisor for the club was present.

Now bearing in mind that we live a scant thirty miles from the Weston tragedy of a few weeks ago (when a fifteen year old boy shot and killed the principal), does this seem a little... off kilter to any of you?

To be honest, even though I realized that they were filming, I was a little shaken by what I saw. Give those kids points for being good actors in any case.

I'd be interested to hear what ya'll think - especially those of you who might be in high school, or recently graduated. Maybe I'm just an old fuddy duddy. Is it okay to act out scenes of gun violence in a school setting, or is it inappropriate?

Sue

[devilndisguise]

Well, I'm old too (10 years out of high school)...but I think it would depend on the context of the movie. For example are they writting a movie about how people can cope with this sort of tragidy, are they using it as a warning to help other students recognize the signs of what might be an impending incident? I'm sure if the adviser for the club was present, then this is most likely the case.

No one should make light of such incidents, but their frequency is happening more and more, and it's become something we need to be aware of and not ignore. If the point of the filming is to raise awareness in a venue that would intrest students of the right age...then I'm all for it.

[Spiderdancer]

Well... I've never been a parent.

But I AM young enough to remember high school (sort of, at 25). And I remember that high school boys WILL come up with images of violence, mutilation, and death, often in the context of humor. Why do you think that scene in Austin Powers with the guy in the pit is so popular? I went to a Christian school. The class clown spent Bible class doodling what looked like World War III on his notes.

He's in dental school now, by the way. Perhaps that's not surprising to those of you who have been to the dentist.

But boys ARE going to do that. Mostly they're just screwing around. Only a few ever do things like set fire to mice (like a different boy in the class) or actually try to harm another human being. It wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that what you (Sue) saw was, in fact, an attempt at a joke.

I'm not saying I think it's funny (though my sense of humor CAN be pretty morbid), I'm just saying it's not an uncommon thing.

[pfrsue]

Okay I queried the teacher via email, and he replied that it was part of a "police drama" and not a portrayal of students. (Although it was certainly a portrayal by students - which is the source of my query.) I'm going to assume that the "cop" must have been undercover, because there were certainly no costumes.

He went on to say that the production of films is important to the "development of career opportunities for some students". I'm not sure what that had to do with anything. I was questioning one scene, not the production of films. Quite the opposite actually - I did explain that I was a movie reviewer and that I supported what they were doing as a whole.

My question is more one of the appropriateness of students portraying gun violence in this day and age.

Maybe I really am an old fuddy duddy. *sigh*

Sue

[Spiderdancer]

pfrsue said:

My question is more one of the appropriateness of students portraying gun violence in this day and age.
Maybe I really am an old fuddy duddy. *sigh*
Sue

I'm personally totally in favor of students only being permitted to portray violence with swords. And nunchuku, because it's always hilarious to watch someone biff themselves in the head with one the first time they try to use it. (And, according to martial arts hobbyist Sib1, often the fifth and tenth time, too.)

[Lordmoon]

As long as they are being educated (by both teachers and parents) to tell the difference between acting and reality I don’t see a problem with this. Censorship here isn’t needed since you can see more violence then that on the new episodes of Pokemon and Yugi-oh. Education is the number one factor that will detour kids from doing the wrong thing.

Personally I have been a big fan of horror films (the more gruesome the death scenes the better) since I was a child. My first American film was Nightmare On Elm Street 3. I saw it when I was 4. Currently I am both a high school and a college graduate with a carrier going 7 years strong and not a single run in with the law. I attribute all this to my mother doing her job as a parent.

[DocD83]

Unless I missed something I'm the closest to a high schooler here ('01 grad--I was in high school when Columbine happened, if that matters to anyone), so I think I must pipe up that yes, Sue, you are an old fuddy duddy. But at least you're in good company, because I think devilindisguise is one too, and she's only 10 years out.

I think that it's just a bit, shall we say, simplistic, to raise a fuss over what was clearly a film project just because someone else in their demographic group has shot someone. Just think of all the other groups we'd have to ban from making films if this logic is extended to its conclusion. Not to mention the tenuous-at-best connection between violence in media and violence in life, or that schools are statistically pretty much about as safe a place as you could ever hope for, or that trying to stop something by denying and attempting to hide its existence is just about as futile a thing I can think of, or that the condescending nature of such censorship risks further agitation of the unhinged and unhappy students with the persecution complexes who are the real threat.....

You know, in most school shootings the motive given is that the shooter was tired of being picked on. We've known this for years, and you'd think they'd decide to crack down on--anyone? anyone?--bullying. Oh hell no, the media goes after the parents, the parents go after the media and the school administrators, and the administrators go out and buy metal detectors and get to fancy themselves security experts while they spend a few days putting together shoddy plans to save their collective asses in a siege scenario. (Ever read one of these? My high school posted the plans in the hall--think about that one--and all they consisted of was where to hunker down behind locked doors, and backups if those places were held against them. Four places were listed. Four! Is this a school shooting or is this Die Hard?) New training for cops since Columbine, by the way, essentially boils down to charge in guns blazing.

Notice I didn't put students in there. No other group blames the students as a group. The administrators and the police have simply and quietly come down on everyone. Stories of overreation abound if you'd like to google it, like the four year old suspended for playing cops and robbers or the multitudes of soon-to-be military and sport shooters who effectively have to go into hiding. When airport security was tightened after 9/11, and again after the recent liquid explosive plot, there was an absolute din of whining from people who WILLINGLY are trying to get on these delicate machines carrying hundreds of people, yet security that's just as strict and just as arbitrary is expected to be taken quietly--and DAILY--by people who usually don't even want to be there. The tacit message--and don't think high schoolers are too stupid to see it--is that they are inherently dangerous, unreasonable, unruly, and subhuman. This does not mix well with the "unhinged and unhappy students with the persecution complexes" I earlier said are the ones who carry out the shootings.

Sorry, that was more of a rant than I wanted. I just get so worked up over this--everyone involved is going to complete wrong direction and no one listens.

[Head Mutant]

I'd have to disagree slightly there -- a lot of my teens and teachers have told me how schools are aggressively going after bullying, particularly with a positive peer pressure movement. It's a recognized threat to our youth, and in some places (but certainly not all) it's being confronted.

But the buck stops squarely at the foot of whatever idiot decides that picking up a gun and taking it out on classmates and teachers is the only course of action. My sympathy ends the second they decide to do this, and they have to answer for their actions and their decisions -- if they don't squirm out of it by plugging themselves in the head, of course -- without trying to cry and point at outside influences and how we should pity them while their innocent classmates lie six feet in the ground. That's my rant.

Sue, I think that incident was certainly tacky, to be sure, but I think we're also a little oversensative in this day and age. Kids play cops 'n robbers as youth, and to channel creative impulses into filmmaking keeps them away from doing anything truly naughty

[Hucklebubba]

lordmoon said:

. . .with a carrier going 7 years strong. . .

So, I take it you joined the Navy?

docd83 said:

. . .or that trying to stop something by denying and attempting to hide its existence is just about as futile a thing I can think of. . .

Now this just isn't true at all. When you put your mind to it, no problem is too big to ignore.

docd83 said:

You know, in most school shootings the motive given is that the shooter was tired of being picked on. We've known this for years, and you'd think they'd decide to crack down on--anyone? anyone?--bullying.

This does not even approach a valid justification--and yes, I know that wasn't what you were getting at--but even its water-holding capability as a motive comes into question in light of the behavior of school shooters. If bullying was all there was to it, one would think the shooter or shooters would target the person or group with whom they had a grievance, as opposed to just slaughtering indiscriminately.

I would posit that bullying is, at most, a catalyst, and that it gets propped up as a motive because motives make people feel all warm and toasty inside, and because "screwed in the head" doesn't look nearly as tidy on a police report.

docd83 said:

The tacit message--and don't think high schoolers are too stupid to see it--is that they are inherently dangerous, unreasonable, unruly, and subhuman. This does not mix well with the "unhinged and unhappy students with the persecution complexes" I earlier said are the ones who carry out the shootings.

It sounds like you're suggesting that the already-dangerous students will cease to be dangerous once we stop making them feel dangerous.


Actually Doc, I'm reluctant to get into an extended debate on this subject because a) I don't particularly disagree with your overall argument, and b) I'm approximately 97% certain that you would win by virtue of sheer stamina.

[Big T]

I am of the opinion that no one will ever know why any of the shootings take place, there are millions of things that could be blamed but really the only people who know the exact cause are the culprits themselves. Recently there was a shooting in Quebec done by a teen who had been talking about it in a blog he kept. So of course now people are getting all paranoid about the internet. There is always something or someone to blame, the only problem is that placing the blame does not necesarily prevent another occurence.

And to make myself clear: I do not disagree with anyone, just thought I'd add my 2 cents

[Lordmoon]

So, I take it you joined the Navy?

lol No, I've never done military. I'm a bounty hunter. j/k

I am working for a company named EMG, Inc. We are a manufacturer of electronic guitar pickups and accessories. I am the International Administrator. I joined the company right after high school and accepted my current position after I graduated college.

I would posit that bullying is, at most, a catalyst, and that it gets propped up as a motive because motives make people feel all warm and toasty inside, and because "screwed in the head" doesn't look nearly as tidy on a police report.

QFT

When Columbine occurred one of the reasons for it discussed was video game violence with Doom being the main focus. Since then Jack Thompson has been on crusade to ban all violence in video games. But you know what? Currently the video game industry is large then the film industry with hundreds of millions of consumers worldwide. Connecting a handful of violent incidents to games is as moronic as suing the fast food industry because you have no self-control. There will always be unstable individuals that will breakdown sooner or later. Random violence is not something that just came about in the last 20 years.

[PoolMan]

What was it Peter Frampton said? Something like "If some kid is twisted enough that a videogame inspired him to shoot his classmates up, he's already ****ed up enough that he would have done it anyways". (forgive the paraphrase, I can't find the source, but I saw him say that in an interview)

I would say Sue has a legit concern; that having kids enact a scene of gun violence poses a potentially dangerous influence to those kids. However, as our dear rock n' roll teacher shows us, if the seed's already there, it's already there. Having played "shoot 'em up" in the school parking lot under the supervision of a teacher isn't going to inspire anyone to go on a rampage if they weren't already of the mindset that it's something they want to do anyways.

[DocD83]

I'd have to disagree slightly there -- a lot of my teens and teachers have told me how schools are aggressively going after bullying, particularly with a positive peer pressure movement. It's a recognized threat to our youth, and in some places (but certainly not all) it's being confronted.

Excellent. [tents fingers]

But the buck stops squarely at the foot of whatever idiot decides that picking up a gun and taking it out on classmates and teachers is the only course of action.

I totally agree. I'm not asking for you to give them sympathy, I'm proposing what I see as the best way to disrupt the cycle of harmful societal pressures which turns that 0.000001% of students who are already suitably screwed up into Dylan Klebold wannabes.

If bullying was all there was to it, one would think the shooter or shooters would target the person or group with whom they had a grievance, as opposed to just slaughtering indiscriminately.

I didn't say that's all there was to it. I had several paragraphs describing other things there are to it, and I twice described the shooters as "unhinged and unhappy students with persecution complexes." Bullying, it seems, is a last straw kind of thing, but it's a big thing and should be the easiest to detect and disrupt.

It sounds like you're suggesting that the already-dangerous students will cease to be dangerous once we stop making them feel dangerous.

They don't feel dangerous. The problem is the lack of respect given to them (or, more accurately, the lack of respect they perceive).

You have to remember, they do these things precisely beacuse they are powerless--it's a desperate attempt to force control over anything they can, and they're too unhinged to realize how much control they'll lose soon after. If you want to be cynical about it, I'm proposing we fake some respect so that they'll be under the delusion that they hold some influence--of course, it'd probably be more likely to work if you do it for real.

I'm approximately 97% certain that you would win by virtue of sheer stamina.

You'd have been right a few months ago, but I have a cushy new job and I'm too afraid of queering the deal to spend hours a day surfing the MRFH forum. (Incidentally, I'd like to thank all the taxpayers who sent me to Florida last week, just when it started getting chilly here.)