What serious films, if any, were taught as part of your high school curriculum

Surely you are all lying. I go to a fairly big high school, we have 2 film classes and the best stuff we ever got was Dark Knight.

Those were different times.

I actually missed out on the first ever film studies class in high school, created as an English 12 alternative. I thought, correctly, that it would look a lot better on college applications to stick to the AP English route, and I also thought, incorrectly, that I would learn more in AP English 12 (boy, was I wrong—that year the teacher essentially sit back and let the students teach themselves).

I cannot speak for what was shown in that class but I am glad it exists. Yes, it focuses on film more as a business and storytelling technique by breaking down the elements of how a film is produced (producer, director, and such)—I saw some of their homework about knowing each person’s “roles” and regretted not being there to find out. Most of the people who knew me were very surprised and confused why I didn’t take that course, and I agree with them, but whatever. I know enough now, who cares if I learned it through their or later or whatnot?

Anyway, from The Red Balloon when I was very young to Au revoir les enfants when I took French class, public school has ended up showing me some surprising stuff, but sorry my friends, I cannot for the life of me innumerate all of it. What is more important is not that they tried to “teach me” these things ("What does The Red Balloon say about childhood? That I loved the damn thing when I was little because it was fucking awesome), but that many of the things they introduced me to I returned to later and found to be very good/important/meaningful, and that my previous relationship with these movies really helped them be more personable. After all, in that age group from 6 to 18, meaning is not taught, literacy is so that meaning can be understood later. The developing brain is not to be told " Au revoir is about…" something, but " Au revoir follows a coming of age story about a boy who realizes his classmate is a Jew hiding from the Nazis," at most to provide some historical context. In other words, we never discussed in French class what it meant that Nazis were running around France, but in our own way we still “got the point.”

Unless some of the kids were bored or whatever, but that’s their fault, not the teacher’s.

Anywho, Kurosawa was popular presentation for Shakespeare adaptations, kids movies were popular for language classes, and my economics and history teacher got together a Thursday night movie night where I got to see stuff like Seven Samurai, The Fast Runner, and Rabbit-Proof Fence. It was good times.

—PolarisDiB

High School film class circa 1986:

28 Up
Gorky Park
The Manchurian Candidate
Three Days of the Condor
The Conversation

Year 10-12 English

Ran
Run Lola Run
Fargo
Eraserhead
The Third Man

When I taught English (what would be called Language Arts in the US) at high school, we would make an effort to bring film into the syllabus here and there – mostly only one film at a time, analysed in thematic way with some attention to the ‘tools’ of the medium – use of camera, editing, sound, etc. Because these films basically had to stand on their own, and were usually taught in decontextualised ways, the story was the thing that merited a film’s selection – something akin to what makes a literary work worth studying, etc…

The films I taught over the years (not all of which were my own choices):
Highlander
The Chocolate War
Dead Poet’s Society’
Once Were Warriors
A Reasonable Man
Shrek
The Mission and Strictly Ballroom were 2 other films that have been very popular in SA schools.

Nothing edifying from a film studies perspective – largely chosen for their potential to discuss issues. I used Shrek to teach postmodern fairy tales, A Reasonable Man to teach cultural relativism, Once Were Warriors to teach about issues of culture, cultural disintegration, patriarchal oppression, etc. Sometimes very little actual film technique was involved.

Now, lecturing at university, I try to give undergrad students who are to become English teachers (and therefore will also be able to draw film into the syllabus) a more comprehensive understanding of film – leave issue-based film study aside until they’ve understood some of the language of film, and other concepts such as film genre and auteur theory, etc. But not that easy in the very short space of time allocated to film. I’m sure most of the film fundis on this forum would be shocked at the diluted form of film studies that gets taught in these courses but. given the fact that most schools in the country do not have the resources (human and technological) to teach film, it is not a proirity. Only students a handful of students will actually take it further.

At the moment, at undergrad level, I’m teaching a short module on Film Genre, focusing on scifi, and an equally short module which takes an pomo/auteur theory perspective on Tarantino. I’ve also recently taught modules on Heart of Darkness & Apocalypse Now, and District 9 .

All ideas welcome for other short, intro level courses for undergrads with very little knowledge of film!

for Film Studies in college (what would be high school in the US):

Blue (Jarman)
Jubilee
The Last of England
Kes
Made in Britain
Scum
Wanda
Koyaanisqatsi
The Red Shoes
The 400 Blows
Breathless
Citizen Kane
Singin’ in the Rain
Clockwork Orange
Dr Strangelove
Battleship Potemkin
Strike
A Fistful of Dollars
Rear Window
Vertigo
Bonnie and Clyde
If…
O Lucky Man
Britannia Hospital
The Wicker Man
Les Amants du Pont-Neuf
All About My Mother
Lilya 4 Ever
A Question of Silence
Scorpio Rising
Dog Star Man
Chungking Express
Ashes of Time
Easy Rider
Blow-Up
Alice in the Cities
The Phantom of Liberty
Viridiana
Un Chien Andalou
Return to Reason
Jabberwocky
Alice
Badlands
Taxi Driver
Funny Games
Irreversible
Tarnation
The Passing

and some more that slip my mind.

In my film studies class, we were treated to Robocop 3 and The Notebook. I win.

In my film studies class we’ve watched Breathless, Jules and Jim, Chungking Express, The Celebration and The Idiots. Pretty good really, I wasn’t expecting to be studying Dogme 95 and I never thought i’d get to watch unsimulated hardcore sex in a classroom.

We had no film studies classes at my school. We had productions classes where we watched Jaws, Citizen Kane and The Grudge.

In other classes:
Schindler’s List
Behind Enemy Lines
Macbeth(Polanski)
Good Morning Vietnam
Cinderella Man
Apocalypse Now
Awakenings
Of Mice and Men(the one with John Malkovich)
The Great Gatsby
some more I don’t remember

basically nothing good

My film history class had:

The Gold Rush
Modern Times
City Lights
The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari
The Blue Angel
M
The End of St. Petersburg
Battleship Potemkin
Star Wars
Seven Samurai
Citizen Kane
The Magnificent Ambersons
Touch of Evil
The Lady from Shanghai
Psycho
Vertigo
Rear Window
Do The Right Thing
Annie Hall
Persona
The Seventh Seal
Wild Strawberries
The Wild Child
The 400 Blows
Cinema Paradiso

Strike!
The Battleship Potemkin
Spione
M
Grizzly Man
Come and See
City Of God
Saturday Night and Sunday Morning
Billy Liar
If…
Aguirre, Wrath Of God
Nosferatu (Both the original and the remake)
Videodrome
Nadja
Mullholland Drive
Taxi Driver
Murderball
The Cabinet Of Dr. Caligari
Psycho
…and more I can’t remember.

My High school had 4000 people and we didn’t even have film classes.

The only films I remember looking at and analyzing or writing about were Apocalypse Now and Tess, both for AP Lit in my senior year.

movie class in High School??? not so many, in Italy. But there are some association that, struggling with the lack of money and the official way to conceive (or not conceive) the education, are trying to teach image education at school. My personal experience was with Schindler’s list and Fellini’s Satyricon while studying latin.

There was a film society at my school, some that come to mind: Billy Liar, Borsalino, Wild Strawberries (very boring), Vanishing Point (naked woman on motorbike, yes!), Don’t Look Now, North by Northwest, Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner, King and Country, WUSA, Kes, The Seventh Seal, Round Up, Hamlet (Olivier), Henry V, Elvira Madigan, Death in Venice…

No Tarkovsky or Mizoguchi, but of course Bergman

Sansho the Bailiff should be available (maybe not compulsory!) as part of all school curriculums throughout the world. Kids need to know there are alternatives to Hollywood and have the chance to explore, have widened horizons, new discoveries, cultures and viewpoints. As an antidote to the usual nationalism, bigotry, jingoistic trumpet blowing, guns and bomb-dropping etc. Or if shown box office successes, at least be encouraged to look critically at what popular commercial cinema represents and how it plays a part in a form of indoctrination, without if possible taking away from the pleasure of entertainment.

Everything you can learn young, you can learn old. Learning things in class is less important than learning things on your own. When you come across something yourself, it’s far more memorable. There is a far higher likelihood that something you discover on your own will have a life-changing impact than something learned in class. Is it really important what should or should not be in the curriculum?

I agree it’s better to learn for yourself than have anything forced down your throat. Schools too often try to turn kids into good citizens for the establishment than help them think for themselves or live happy fulfilled lives. It should be more about opening up horizons and possibilities to be explored, awareness of other cultures etc not just the too common narrow regimented approach

“…the pleasure of entertainment.”

Sorry, when I first read that I thought of the “finish films” thread.

Anon. Is it important what’s included in the curriculum? Absolutely. Are you really going to argue that students are better off being dosed with a boring and bland high school curriculum so the epiphanies they find on their own will be all the more impressive? Or should schools provide educational experiences, in film and literature, that provide intellectual kicks AND foundation for future academic and independent study? You can’t tell me there’s a choice here.

I might add, Anon., that you’re seriously undervaluing the capabilities and intellectual acuities of secondary students.

@Z. Bart: “I do not descriminate against high school students, elementary school students, middle school students, college students or university students. Here, all are equally worthless.”

No, I’m just kidding. I don’t think it’s unimportant what’s in the curriculum, but everyone has a different time when they should be approaching things. In general, high school students are not ready for things like Shakespeare. What changes between high school and college? Pretty much just the environment, but I think it makes a big difference. We don’t want to turn people off to Shakespeare, just because they’re not mature enough for it. I’m obviously not reccomending we cut Shakespeare from the curriculum, I’m merely pointing out the cunundrum of the educative process. Perhaps things would be better if everyone had private tutors? I have no idea.

Anon. Why are they worthless? Because the curriculum is staid and mired in past modalities, perhaps?

And it’s a gross generalization to suggest that upper-level high school students aren’t ready for art of the highest order. They’re just as intellectually capable as beginning college students. Its all about how the art is framed and taught.

@Z.Bart: Haha, it’s a slightly modified quote from Full Metal Jacket. I was just joking with you.

I didn’t say they weren’t, I just said many are not. This may have something to do with the environment they’re in, or the fact that they haven’t yet the life experience to appreciate it.

However from a physical standpoint, the brain continues to develop until between the ages of 21-23 when it becomes fully “adult.”

Anon., you’re sounding increasingly like an apologist for academic mediocrity. Bright high school students will rise to the challenges their instructors provide. I’ve had high school students write graduate-level essays on Shakespeare, Bulgakov, Pynchon, and Godard. Good high school teachers do not play to the lowest common denominator; they do not infantilize by giving sub-par or facile texts or assessments; they do not assume that their students will not be ready for meaningful intellectual exercise until they are in a more conducive environment (ivy walls), or until their brains are more fully developed. Man, I’m glad you aren’t setting the restrictive and demeaning ground rules for my school.

Z. Bart: “Good high school teachers do not play to the lowest common denominator; they do not infantilize by giving sub-par or facile texts or assessments.”

I agree that good teachers don’t play to the lowest common denominator, and that good teachers should maximize their students’ potential by exposing them to sophisticated texts. But good teachers also know their audience and what is most appropriate for that audience. “Sophisticated” and “challenging” are relative terms. There is a point where certain students are just not ready for certain types of engagement. After all, we don’t send third graders to Harvard medical school and assume they will simply “rise to the challenges their instructors provide.”

I believe the films I use provide “meaningful intellectual exercise” for my target audience. It is not an advanced class, but my brightest students often say that the challenge and depth of discourse rivals their AP courses. My goal is give them opportunities to refine their analytical skills so that they are on the path to being able to approach Godard when the time comes. That time isn’t now, at least not for most of them.

Do I believe that many high school students are ready for that experience now? You bet. And I envy those teachers, such as you, who are in an environment where that is indeed appropriate study. I’d love to teach in a school where Godard would be widely embraced. I do not teach in such a school.

Let me reiterate: I don’t favor dumbing down the curriculum. I favor challenging students intensely, but at the most appropriate level, whatever that level may be. (If I can get kids excited about Stan Brakhage or Chris Marker, I’m there. But if that same excitement peaks no higher than WENDY AND LUCY, then so be it.)

Shakespeare is actually a great place for high school students to be at, in fact Romeo and Juliet I think should be taught to midschoolers in prep for the… well… good Shakespeare plays in high school.

Anyway, my thinking is somewhere in between Z. Bart’s and Anonymouse’s, I think for the most part high schoolers are more than capable of standing up against the onslaught but a more effective teaching method is to build them up, through the easier texts like Of Mice and Men and Animal Farm to the more elaborate and discursive Grapes of Wrath and 1984 (not an invitation for someone to tell me there’s more to literature than Steinbeck and Orwell, I know already, I’m just making an internally consistent example, kthxbai). I wouldn’t really give a high schooler Pynchon mostly because I wouldn’t want to deal with the hissy fits when something like Against the Day is unloaded on their laps, but I think about how my AP English classes were structured in high school and I think what was missing is that the fourth year should have dealt with more experimental literature, Joyce and Nabokov and DeLillo and Danielewsky and so on. But that’s just me.

So I think that yes, high schoolers are more than capable of dealing with these things, but unloading Infinite Jest on fourteen year olds is probably an exercise in folly.

—PolarisDiB

Precisely, PolarisDiB. As a teacher of ltierature, I always try to select works that will make students uncomfortable—perhaps something just slightly out of their grasp—and then help them see that they can, indeed, reach it. I teach SCARLET LETTER to 10th graders, and it’s a tough sell, but every year I take pride in at least getting kids to acknowledge that the book has considerable artistic merit. (And plenty of kids end up loving it despite their initial dread.) But there’s no way I could sell Joyce to my kids. They first need Hawthorne as a stepping stone.

Likewise, teaching allegory as used in THE ASSASSINATION OF JESSE JAMES is sometimes a necessary stepping stone on the path to recognizing social commentary in Godard.

Some high school kids can write graduate-level essays on Russian literature; other high school kids can barely write a topic sentence.