to be slightly horrified a 15 film was shown to 11 year olds?

[plumandvanilla]

The film was Macbeth which they have been reading in English, but although it is Shakespeare aibu to think this is so inappropriate? Or will I be 'that parent'?

And that's a parental decision you can choose to make, PinkyBlunder. The op didn't ask if she was unreasonable to let her dc watch the film, she was taken aback that it was a decision she had no say in.

Sure, it's vividly described.

But the argument being put forward is that seeing it graphically presented onscreen is different from reading the text.

I totally get that (whilst thinking that Polanski's Macbeth is fine for anyone over about 12, BUT any teacher buying trouble by showing it to U15s without a note to parents is doing themselves no favours).

The bit in R&J about 'maidens' heads' is unlikely to be the focus at KS3/4, though it'd be a really interesting way to start studying the play in terms of Juliet as a victim of toxic patriarchy. I'd only bring that in with an older, more able group. Not because I think it's irrelevant or innapropriate, but because if you're doing R&J with middle set y9, say, there's only so much you can tackle in a 6-8 week unit.

FeistyColl I just answered your direct question. You asked me if I’d let DD watch that, I said yes.

The whole ‘appropriateness of texts’ and who gets to decide fascinates me. It was a big part of my BA and I never really got to the bottom of it. That’s why I was interested to know what people thought the difference was.

On a personal level RavingRoo has hit the nail on the head for me I think.

An old colleague (back in the 80s) used to tell his class of rough-arsed lads that if they worked well he would show them a film but it was a bit rude. He’d drop hints for ages. Then he’d put it on and say wait for the nude scene before showing them the witches. The poor buggers were traumatised.

Me neither, PinkyBlunder - but lots of kids do find graphic depictions upsetting in a way 'words on a page' aren't.

This afternoon I left my y8s watching 'Robin Hood Prince of Thieves' (lazy cover - we have a visiting author this week & I'm babysitting his workshops - y8 are doing Historical Fiction).

One girl found the opening scenes too much (I'm like, 'but the scariest thing is Kevin Costner's mullet!').

Ok, no problem, she joined another y8 class.

Golden rule is any film can freak out any kid - & if not them, their parents. So you send permission slips & have a plan B.

It's not irrelevant to say that the fact the film is 40 years old would impact a classification today. The BBFC have reclassified a number of films over the years to reflect the changes in society. They also have reclassified films for video release as that can be less scary than a cinema experience of a film.

That said I haven't seen this version of Macbeth so can't comment on suitability - but it is possible that the version in school is not a 15.

Fair dos Pinky (but at the risk of pushing my luck. I doubt you'd show the disembowelment to another 4 year on a playdate without checking with their parent. )
Actually RavingRoo describes the themes as appropriate for 15-18 year olds. So, by that argument it is best left till that age, not 11

I saw Macbeth in Stratford. They stabbed a small child on stage (acted obviously!), it was traumatic. It's a tragedy, of course it could be a 15. In appropriate to show 11 year olds.

It's definitely classified as a 15 on video release.

Having said that, I've taught Jaws as part of a Suspense unit. We use the extracts from the novel to teach foreshadowing, & then compare to the same bit of the film to discuss how different media do foreshadowing.

That's a 12, so officially ok. MUCH scarier than Macbeth.

No, I totally agree parents should be given a heads up

....but should thatbheads up extend to the text too?

& again, following the argument of text appropriateness, how about The Boy In The Striped Pyjamas? Thats pretty bloody chilling - & routinely taught to y7.

I'd argue that the death of Bruno is more potentially upsetting to an 11yo than all the stabbings etc in Macbeth. Definitely gave my y7 daughter (who attends the school where I teach) some worrying ideas to chew on. She's not bothered in the slightest by the gruesome scenes in Macbeth. Or the nudity.

Oh yes, The Boy in the Stripes Pyjamas really profoundly affected me. I lent it to my DF and he couldn’t finish it, it was too much. I must admit I was surprised it was a set text for year 7. The language and the POV goes right for the jugular of children.

Or A Monster Calls. Love it. Teaching to y8 this term.

My ds read it in y6 because I wasn't, at the time, teaching at the school he attends & was in the habit of using him as a guinea pig for interesting new texts.

He informed me in no uncertain terms that, given that ex & I were in the process of going through a grisly divorce, Dead Mum books were NOT something he wanted to deal with, thanks. I was also told where to shove Millions, on the same grounds.

Both brilliant novels. Lovely film adaptations. No blood or horror.

Macbeth much less close to the bone than either.

There is a version of Macbeth starring Sir Ian McKellan and Dame Judi Dench which they could have watched - a faithful adaptation but without anything visually innappropriate as I recall. A perfectly decent version of macbeth to show in a school.

I would be so pissed off if my child was shown something rated older than their age without parental consent. I wouldn't be sodding well having that at all. Where is the common sense in it? With a play like macbeth there are umpteen different versions to choose from - so choose an age appropriate one. It's not bloody difficult.

I know people who cannot stand The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas thinking it’s hollywood schmalz compared to the true horror of what happened. Anne frank’s diary is perhaps a better introduction to what happened.

Everyone’s a critic I suppose

& again, following the argument of text appropriateness, how about The Boy In The Striped Pyjamas? Thats pretty bloody chilling - & routinely taught to y7.

I teach secondary English. We've recently removed this from our KS3 curriculum because we find that our intake have all read it at KS2, in y5 or y6.

I vividly remember this being shown in my English class. Think I was 14 at the time? It was pretty graphic - the image that stuck with me was Macbeth's decapitated head still able to see and hear. Lots of giggling and sarky comments from my classmates, as you'd expect from an audience of that age. Nobody particularly traumatised. Still remains one of my favourite Shakespearean plays. Oh and Game of Thrones (which is probably watched by many 11 year olds) is waaaay more disturbing and bloody....

Actually, I just saw the Lady MacDuff murder scene on youtube and it's pretty grim and definitely not appropriate for 11 year olds.

This was the scene that many say was influenced by the Tate murder.

margots a little learning is a dangerouds thing...

Macbeth was reclassified . As I said upthread, 15 as a classification is fairly new. certainly does not date back to 1971 . At first videos weren't classified at all (bit of a cock up there!) until James Bulger and the subsequent Video Recordings Act.

In fact, DVDs invariably get higher classifications if they differ because of the extras and the ability to pause and rewind!! I gave the example of Casino Royale upthread...

Jaws by the way is a 12 on DVD but not a 12A for any special cinema releases where it is classified, generally, a 15 - although actually cinema classifications are not legally binding and can be overturned by the local council. true fact.

Am such a classification nerd.
Most complained about film? Shrek 2.

Followed by Woman In Black which led to a rewrite of the classification categories to include emotional effect.

Billy Elliot Live is another example Piggy. It was a 12A in the cinema but a 15 on DVD.

Yes, apparently because of some sweary stuff on the extras on the DVD?

Neither of my two would have coped with that rape scene at 11.