Shakespeare gone mad?

[Shakespearegonemad]

A primary school that I know of is showing/has shown the Richard III film made in the 90s to a Y6 class. It is a 15 certificate. In my opinion, this film is in no way appropriate to show to that age, as indicated by its certification. The reason given is that the children will be able to compare comedy 'Mid Summer Nights Dream' with tragedy 'Richard III'. Am I alone in thinking this is bonkers?

This is not my DC school, but the school of a friends DC. She doesn't seem concerned - it just cropped up in conversation. I think it's shocking - am I overreacting or should I take it further?

This takes interference to a whole new level, surely?

So, which type of governor is she going to speak to?

In our local secondary they won't even show 15s to a class of rising 15 year olds. Not on.

Types of governors? That'll be LA governor and foundation governor. Actually group of parents in question may well not complain (long, complicated story). Anyway, thanks all for your input. Action has been taken, and enquiries are being made. Whilst I may appear to be a tittle tattling member of the public, there is more to this than meets the eye. You will have to trust me on this. I may get back with more info if needs be, but until then, thanks again for the input. Goodnight.

Ah, you've gone. But I'll say this anyway: you know, without a shadow of doubt, that the whole film is being shown to the class of 11 year olds?

Because I just can't see it myself.

Excerpts, certain speeches - yes. Whole thing? Nope. Prove that this is the case and we can all get on our high horses together.

DS studied this play for GCSE last year. I don't imagine for one minute that year 6 kids will be expected to sit through the entire film - it's nearly 2 hours long for a start. Probably just Act 1 Scene 1 and the "Winter of our Discontent" speech. No way would 11 year olds expected to be able to make a critical comparison of 2 Shakespeare plays FFS!

How would that link up with Mid Summer Night's Dream? There's no comparable speech in that. I suspect what they're getting at is a tragedy versus a comedy.

Or Hamlet if you skip over some of the murder and the incest. You're on rocky ground with most of the tragedies. I think Elizabethan audiences were partial to a bit of gore and horror.

Hi Shakespearegonemad:

I can understand your upset - and if this is the 1995 R rated Ian McKellan version (well received & acted - but adult viewing I think) - I can understand your concerns - but I agree with many here who've pointed out:

1. your child isn't in the class who viewed some or all of this film

2. children would have had to receive a permission slip about viewing a film with a over 15 certificate

3. there is a good possibility that only a 'clean' extract was shown - simply to underline the difference between tragedy & comedy.

I think the likelihood is a small extract was shown - and suspect the Senior Management carefully vetted this particular lesson plan.

I also think in the scheme of things there's more to worry about in life.

Just for anyone out there that wants a bit of guidance - Common sense media often has ratings and advice on whether films are suitable for young children. It doesn't include Richard III (I just checked) - but always a good port of call to see if you're making a good choice for your own children. Sometimes letting young children see a film is a borderline and very personal call I fear.

HTH

Borderline would, I think, be a 12 for a year 6 class. Not a 15 with some very gory bits.

There are plenty of other Shakespeare films available. There's no need to go for one with an age limit 2 certificates above intended audience. And I would have thought the effort in editing down to suitable would be very time-consuming compared with that required to source one that did not contain unsuitable material.

But as it is not OP's school, and it is possible that the description given to her does not fit with what actually might happen, then I'm not sure she has the locus to complain.

Thank you all for your comments, both those supportive and those who think I'm a nosy old bat.

Hi Scaevola:

Sorry was not specifically referring to Richard III film (which as I said isn't listed on common sense) - more in the context of letting DD1 (then aged 10) see Thor (which has some foul language, a brief glimpse of Thor's behind when he gets a shot and a scene in a bar where one character ends up drunk and has to be helped home by Thor). The website explained why the film was PG and gave guidance on what age it was suitable for.

And that was the context for recommending the website for future reference.

HTH

I think in reality, most Yr6 chidren would have mentally switched off after 30 mins of Shakespeare, anyway. I adore Shakespeare and always have but at 11, anything but an abridged or shortened version would have far too much, even for me. Brave teacher imho, or a very virtuous, well-behaved class, to even attempt it.