The going theory in Hollywood is that teenagers want movies that appeal to the lowest common denominator. They just want sex and explosions and Josh Hartnett. And that's true, to a degree. But they're not giving the kids enough credit.
Right now in my class I'm showing Life is Beautiful to accompany my section on Elie Weisel's Night. I'm looking around the room and seeing every head aimed at the TV, mouths closed, cell phones away. They love this movie.
They also love Crash and Baz Lurhman's Romeo and Juliet. They like these movies better than they like Gladiator, which is a constant violence fest you'd expect them to love. Of course, this doesn't mean they won't sit through The Longest Yard 80,000 times, but kids are just like anybody else. They're hard to pin down into a simple category. They have brains and occasionally they like to use them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Part of that may be that Gladiator was a crappy movie!
ReplyDeleteBut yeah, you're right. Out of curiosity, how "representative" would you say your kids are?
They're 90 % Latino and 10% black, so not very. They probably love Crash more than most kids.
ReplyDeleteBut I used to teach redneck white kids, and they also love Life is Beautiful and Romeo and Juliet and a few other emotional movies. I was surpised to find they also liked Seven Years in Tibet. Both groups really like when I show episodes of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Go figure.
I've made it a point to expose my sister (12) to more than just what the local cineplex is showing.
ReplyDeleteDuring my Billy Wilder phase (where I just had to see like every movie he made) she watched The Apartment and Avanti! with me, and really liked them.
And yes, Gladiator was horrible.
Baz's R&J should appeal to kids: it's like Shakespeare meets MTV.
If it were really like MTV, Ashton would run out at the end with a camera crew gloating over the two corpses.
ReplyDeleteAnd by the way, I liked Gladiator. I thought the ending could have been a little more dramatic, but it was a blast to watch in the theater.
ReplyDeleteI think the one difference, isn't their comprehension level...it's what their growing personalities drift betweem as they find themselves.
ReplyDeleteI'm still young (23)...but thinking back over the last 10 years...something I can solidly say- it isn't that kids are all dumb- it's just that while finding themselves they go to what is in front of them, absorb it. cling to it...
A lot of time its a hot young star. or stars...or music group...etc...
As they get older, and find out that stuff just isn't all about trend...they formulate preferences that often drift from the easily fed mainstream...
They aren't dumb. But they also won't be pinning up snapshots of Roberto Beginni (sp?)