Middle School Shows Students R Rated Film

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

Middle School Shows Students R Rated Film

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

What, you mean my Etymology teacher in high school showing us Star Trek II was in the wrong? We gained no educational value in our English language studies by viewing the film?

{and the answer to both questions is... a resounding yes!}

The question here in this article is whether or not the showing of R rated movies is against the school district's policy. If it is, it doesn't matter what the teacher's think or what the principle thinks, or for that matter even what the Superintendent thinks. The policy is being broken, and the parents have the right to call them to task on it. Parents do not relinquish "guardianship" of their children to school officials during school hours... that is probably one of the lamest excuses I have ever heard.

If there is not a policy against showing of R rated movies, then parents need to push the School Board to adopt one.

I agree with you. Lazy teaching and lazy administration.

Jeffery_LQ1W · Senior Member

Generally R rated films are against school policy since they often include language and nudity. Now I have a different stance from film clips that might from "R" rated movies but aren't "R" rated themselves. For instance I would show parts of "Last of the Mohicans" to explain the terrain and brutality of the French and Indian Wars. It would be a good movie for those limited portions.

The "Patriot" might be good in portions to show how the order of battle was sometimes established, or guerilla warfare (though guerilla warfare had little effect in the overall war, versus the winning of one or two key battles and general attrition.

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

The Patriot is a horrible example to use to show how the order of battle was sometimes established. The battle scenes in that film are horrible. The marching is wrong and the field artillery is totally and utterly wrong. You would be better off showing some of the History Channel's Revolution if you want better accuracy. The film is so chocked full of Hollywood Fakehistory that it's educational value is completely lost. As a member of the Brigade of the American Revolution, I can tell you that most of the members I have spoke with were completely dissapointed in how poorly this movie portrayed the Revolution. Of particular distaste is the scene in the movie portraying the British burning people in a church. Not only is it horrifying to watch but no such thing ever occurred. The Nazis burned people in churches not the British fighting in the colonies. So what sort of history will students be learning from this film.

There are all sorts of different tools and aids that teachers can use to bring history to life in the classroom but showing R-rated films is not even a mediocre tool. Hollywood entertains very well sometimes and educates very poorly all of the time. Would a teacher actually be teaching the history of the Korean war by showing the movie M*A*S*H? It's plain outright lazyness on the part of the teachers who are looking for a babysitter. Why not give the kids a word search or Halloween themed coloring page.

I'm all for bringing the topics to life in the classroom but singling out kids and subjecting them to possible ridicule to show an R-rated movie seems over the top. The adminstration's excuses, as Cat pointed out, are lame at best. At worst they are arrogant and condescending.

As a side note. The mother that is protesting is the Bishop's wife for one of the wards in that town.

Jeffery_LQ1W · Senior Member

I think I would disagree with your view of the order of battle. They did line up correctly, artillery is questionable. My main quibble, given the fire power of the brown bess, is that they did not wait until they were closer together to fire, and frankly there wasn't enough smoke as would be reflected in the less refined powder of those days.

I do agree that the movie was horrible in its overall historical accuracy, but parts of it are useable.

The History Channel is not bad, but they tend to have less men and often show the same scene again and again from different angles to give the illusion (which sometimes works and sometimes doesn't.

<<The Nazis burned people in churches not the British fighting in the colonies. So what sort of history will students be learning from this film.>>

It was the Americans and their militia that tended to do that sort of thing during the American Revolution. Consider the Gnadenhutten Massacre as an example.

Film production that is good, helps to enliven and can still be accurate in the context of a short clip.

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

Jeffery_LQ1W wrote:

I think I would disagree with your view of the order of battle. They did line up correctly, artillery is questionable. My main quibble, given the fire power of the brown bess, is that they did not wait until they were closer together to fire, and frankly there wasn't enough smoke as would be reflected in the less refined powder of those days.

I do agree that the movie was horrible in its overall historical accuracy, but parts of it are useable.

The History Channel is not bad, but they tend to have less men and often show the same scene again and again from different angles to give the illusion (which sometimes works and sometimes doesn't.

<<The Nazis burned people in churches not the British fighting in the colonies. So what sort of history will students be learning from this film.>>

It was the Americans and their militia that tended to do that sort of thing during the American Revolution. Consider the Gnadenhutten Massacre as an example.

Film production that is good, helps to enliven and can still be accurate in the context of a short clip.

Actually they did not line up correctly in the movie. Their files are way to wide. Those wide files were not seen until Napoleonic battles. And the cannons were beyond questionable. Artillery that size was never used in the revolution because there was no way to transport it. No roads or bridges in most areas. Those cannons might as well have been boat anchors. I agree that the smoke would have been much thicker. For the purposes of filming there was no way that the director could have allowed the two sides to come any closer together for safety reasons. All they needed was some extra scorching an opposing trooper. Of course both sides had muskets with the colonists relying mostly on French made muskets. The effectiveness in muskets comes not from aiming and troops were not trained to aim them nor was the the command ever given to aim the musket. Massed volley fire was the key to break their order and spirit then a bayonet charge to drive the enemy off the field. If they retreat in haste and disorder the cavalry is there to send them hurredly on their way. The actual command for british troops to fire was the following: Make Ready (musket is brought up in the verticle position with the lock adjacent to the left cheek. The weapon is brought from halfprism to fullprism. This is for single rank firing. For three rank firing the front rank drops to the right knee andprisms as the butt of the musket hits the ground.) At the command "Present" (notice the command is not given to aim as in so many movies) the butt of the musket is placed against the right shoulder and the weapon pointed forward. The right foot goes slightly back about six to 8 inches. In three rank firing the second rank will take a short step forward and to the right. The third rank will take a short step to the left and forward creating a truly beautiful sight. The officer may command the troops to Oblique to the right or left in order to adjust the volley fire. All muskets will move as a group and be on the same level and pointing in the same direction. The next command is fire. The head is actually held up and the eyes do not go along the barrel. The reason for this is that Grenedier companies and fusliers would find their hats catching on fire from the blast from the pan (seen it happen, had it happen). After firing the soldier returns to a ready position and waits for the next command to either "Prime and Load" or "Recover your Firelocks or Arms". Having personally fired the Brown Bess on several occassions it is surprisingly accurrate, much more than many historians give credit especially on large human sized targets. We did platoon firing on a painted target of a lifesize soldier at various distances. Nearly every bullet hit the figure even at 100 yards. Of course some hit parts of the body that were not immediatly lethal or would not be lethal at all if treated in a reasonable amount of time but the soldier hit with a 69 caliber ball anywhere is effectively out of the fight. Yes, I did say 69 caliber musket ball. Even though the Bess is 75 caliber the fouling from Black powder makes firing that size a round useless after a couple of rounds. This is also one of the reasons that rifles in combat at this time were not very good for more than a few shots. The fouling was so bad that cleaning them was required after only a few shots or you couldn't get the ball down past the grooves. But I digress. Also, the uniforms were not indicitive of that period in the war, another innacurracy in the film.

And please be kind to the history channel. I am in some of that recycled footage!

If you really want a nice video that shows good battle tactics, camps, musicians, etc. I recommend contacting the gift shop at the Daniel Boone Homestead in Pennsylvania. They have a video which the Brigade of the American Revolution participated in that shows proper marching and battles of a large army without the Hollywood Bull Hockey.

Jeffery_LQ1W · Senior Member

The files of the British were close together, the militia were wide, but they were wide in the revolutionary war also since militia (versus the regular army) were, in general, less trained to untrained.

I did not speak to the artillery since I don't remember the over-all portion that artillery played in the battles.

Frankly I doubt high schoolers are going to know the difference between the napoleons and the 3 and 4 pound cannons commonly used in the American Revolution (though there were a few 12 pounders too).

Using good production clips can greatly enhance an otherwise dry and uneventful lesson of statistics. Its not good to lose sight of what you are attempting to convey.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Jeffery_LQ1W wrote:

Using good production clips can greatly enhance an otherwise dry and uneventful lesson of statistics. Its not good to lose sight of what you are attempting to convey.

If your high school history teacher was anything like mine, a drawing on a paper chart would have livened things up... my history teacher was the football coach and it was clear the "teaching" aspect was but a formality so he could be coach. I like history, but that was a semester / year (don't remember) that was about as fascinating as an actual statistics class...

Can't remember if he ever showed any movies in class. It was usually a true/false quiz of about 20 questions (straight from the teacher's edition of the textbook) on what had been covered the previous day followed by about 10 to 15 minutes of rambling "lecture" followed by read in your textbook pages x to x+y. And, on Fridays, forget about anything because he was working on the playbook for the game that night.

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

Jeff, I think we will just have to agree to disagree on this. I think even using the clips of the film is bad. If I found out my kids teacher were using them I would raise holy heck. I think you are selling yourself short as a teacher if you think that showing clips from Hollywood movies is a great way to get them interested in the material. Why not let them play video games during class time such as Medal of Honor so they can get more interested in WWII or World of Warcraft so they can get interested in sailing? How did we ever get kids to learn history prior to television and movies?

Jeffery_LQ1W · Senior Member

I can believe that. It is also unfortunate, since sport is often a peaceful manifestation of war and an excellent opportunity to tie in historical connections.

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

I'm surprised they were able to show any Hollywood film. In recent years, litigation based on copyright law has made it almost impossible to show films in school--can't show any Disney film in elementary, for example. A few short clips from a film to illustrate a concept may be okay, but even that has come under increased scrutiny. And showing an entire film is Verboten in every district I'm aware of.

edited to add: btw, the link in the OP now leads to an article about recycling.

-- Edited by Roper at 04:09, 2006-10-25

Jeffery_LQ1W · Senior Member

<<I'm surprised they were able to show any Hollywood film.>>

That first statement shows an erroneous assumption on your part. I thought I made it clear that I did not show the entire film. There is no litigation over such an issue of using clips.

The fair use issue has a much broader base in education than other mediums.

Not sure which districts you do your education in, but in CA in general throughout the state it is not forbidden to use movie clips as part of the TEACH Act of 2002, a federal copyright law.

-- Edited by Jeffery_LQ1W at 09:21, 2006-10-25

Jeffery_LQ1W · Senior Member

Allow me to add:

<<

This disparity, coupled with the considerable number of additional limits and conditions imposed by the statute, may lead some educators to conclude that it's more trouble than it's worth to rely on Section110(2). This statute's complexity provides a new context within which to think about fair use: compared to the many conditions and limits contained in Section 110(2), the four factor fair use test seems, well, simple and elegant. That's a good thing, because even when we rely on and find 110(2) helpful, fair use will still figure heavily in our exercise of performance rights because putting anything online requires making a copy of it. The TEACH Act authorizes us to digitize works for use in digital distance education, but only to the extent we are authorized to use those works in Section 110(2), and so long as they are not available digitally in a format free from technological protection. So, for example, where 110(2) authorizes the use of movie clips and the available DVDs don't permit ripping (a prerequisite to creating a digital "clip"), you can digitize those parts using an analog tape; but you are not authorized by the TEACH Act to digitize the whole movie. Fair use is almost always going to be the best source of authority for making copies in any context, but especially in conjunction with statutes like 110(2) that give us specific authorization that may not be sufficient in a particular case. >>

From http://www.utsystem.edu/OGC/IntellectualProperty/teachact.htm

<<Checklist

So, use this handy checklist to see whether you are ready to use the TEACH Act:

My institution is a nonprofit accredited educational institution or a governmental agency

It has a policy on the use of copyrighted materials

It provides accurate information to faculty, students and staff about copyright

Its systems will not interfere with technological controls within the materials I want to use

The materials I want to use are specifically for students in my class

Only those students will have access to the materials

The materials will be provided at my direction during the relevant lesson

The materials are directly related and of material assistance to my teaching content

My class is part of the regular offerings of my institution

I will include a notice that the materials are protected by copyright

I will use technology that reasonably limits the students' ability to retain or further distribute the materials

I will make the materials available to the students only for a period of time that is relevant to the context of a class session

I will store the materials on a secure server and transmit them only as permitted by this law

I will not make any copies other than the one I need to make the transmission

The materials are of the proper type and amount the law authorizes:

Entire performances of nondramatic literary and musical works
Reasonable and limited parts of a dramatic literary, musical, or audiovisual works
Displays of other works, such as images, in amounts similar to typical displays in face-to-face teaching

The materials are not among those the law specifically excludes from its coverage:

Materials specifically marketed for classroom use for digital distance education
Copies I know or should know are illegal
Textbooks, coursepacks, electronic reserves and similar materials typically purchased individually by the students for independent review outside the classroom or class session

If I am using an analog original, I checked before digitizing it to be sure:

I copied only the amount that I am authorized to transmit
There is no digital copy of the work available except with technological protections that prevent my using it for the class in the way the statute authorizes

Also

TEACH says it is not copyright infringement for teachers and students at an accredited, nonprofit educational institution to transmit performances and displays of copyrighted works as part of a course if certain conditions are met. If these conditions are not or cannot be met, use of the material will have to qualify as a fair use or permission from the copyright holder(s) must be obtained.

TEACH Act Requirements (Overview)

WHO:

Accredited Nonprofit Educational Institution or Governmental Body

WHAT:

Performances of nondramatic literary works or
Performances of nondramatic musical works or
Performances of reasonable portions of any other work or
Display of any other work in an amount comparable to that typically displayed in a live classroom setting

BUT NOT:

Digital educational works (Works produced or marketed primarily for performance/display as part of mediated instructional activities transmitted via digital networks) or
Unlawful copies (copies you know or reasonably should know were not lawfully made or acquired)

WHEN:

By, at the direction of, or under the actual supervision of an instructor, and
As an integral part of a class session, and
As part of systematic mediated instructional activities, and
Directly related and of material assistance to the teaching content

HOW:

Transmission made solely for and reception limited to (as technologically feasible) students enrolled in the course, and
Downstream controls instituted:

Technological measures that reasonably prevent-
Retention in accessible form for longer than a class session
Unauthorized further dissemination in accessible form, and

No interference with copyright holder's technological measures that prevent such retention and dissemination

CONVERSION
ANALOG TO DIGITAL:

Conditions allowing conversion:
No digital version available to the institution or
The available digital version is technologically protected to prevent TEACH uses

GENERAL INSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS:

Promulgate copyright policies and
Provide accurate information about copyright and
Promote copyright compliance and
Provide notice to students that course materials may be copyrighted>>

From http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/scc/legislative/teachkit/overview.html

Maybe your districts need to review their copyright policies a bit more closely and update them. They have misinformed you.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

I don't know there, Jeffery. I think TEACH simply clarifies fair use in recordings of performances as pertaining to copyright in copying into and distribution of digital formats in relation to educational use. It doesn't necessarily state that a school or teacher has the right to show a film in it's entirety. Fair use in education does not mean showing / using the whole work without express permission of the copyright owner, and never has.

Back in the late '80's and early '90's, I worked for a national firm (now part of an international shipping firm) I'm sure you all patronized while in college. This company ended up legally on the wrong side of that argument for broad fair use of copyrighted work in print. While it usually did a good job of getting copyright permissions for course materials created for professors, a consortium of textbook publishers created a case against them, and instead of a more liberal interpretation of fair use, the ruling and court case resulted in a more restrictive interpretation of fair use, even for educational use by educational institutions. Anyway, the corporation leaders and legal counsel were surprised and stunned at the ruling (and it eventually caused a whole aspect of the company's business to disappear)... whereas I, a lowly front line grunt / shift leader at one of the stores, knew as soon as the lawsuit was announced it was stupid to try and fight it, because there was absolutely no way any reasonable person would read the law and then feel the need to re-interpret it liberally. And the penalties that were assigned to failure to comply with the law were extremely punitive, and did not just apply to our company, but anyone who breeched copyright fair use in a similar manner ($100K / incident / unauthorized copy).

Even if it is for educational purposes, showing a full Hollywood type movie does not constitute fair use under copyright. Unless a special edition specifically for the purpose is being shown in a public setting, it is illegal. Videos and dvds purchased at Target or wherever are for private, in home viewing... not public showing (even if no admission is charged). This is actually part of the reason why The Church frowns on folks showing any film in a class that is not from Church Distribution.

I think this aspect of public showings may be what Roper is referring to. And, individual districts may have fairly stringent policies in addition to that.

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

I apologize that the original link for the article no longer works. The local paper only keeps the articles up for the day. The gist of it is that Sister Jolley is leading a protest against a middle school that showed an R rated movie to the students. While the students did have an opt out option for parents to sign, she still feels it is innapropriate to be showing R-rated films in school. Her child was the only one who opted out so there is also the case to be made of singling out a student for ridicule who has some standards. Just what a middle school student needs.

What was really interesting was the school's response. The quotes in the article were flippant at best with even an assertion that the school had the authority to allow students to watch R-rated movies while the students were in their care when it was pointed out that these same students would not be allowed into the movie theater without an adult. What I gleaned from it was that the person quoted felt that they could make these decisions on behalf of the student.

The information on copyright issues is interesting but misses the point I believe. Should schools be showing R-rated movies at all? Why do they feel the need to do this? Is sister Jolley justified in her protest or is she making a big deal out of nothing as some in the article alluded to? Are we as Latterday Saints obligated to try and change schools that allow R-rated movies even though they provide an opt out option and only one student took this option? And lastly, is there a legitimate educational value in showing these movies or any Hollywood movie in the classroom especially in light of the fact that these films can be rented and viewed at home.

In the interest of full disclosure, I personally was faced with a choice similar to this a number of years ago while in college. I took a criminology class dealing with juvenile delinquency as part of my upper division general education requirements. During the semester we studied various theories and studies on the causes and symptoms of juvenile delinquency. Our main paper that semester was to watch a Hollywood movie that involved juvenile gangs, point out examples of the various theories that we could recognize in the film, and evaluate if the examples were valid. I was a little concerned because I could not think of one juvenile gang movie that was not rated-R. Even though I was well into adulthood, I felt it was important to heed the prophets counsell to avoid movies with this rating. My oldest was almost 1 and I also didn't want to have to explain to her how I compromised my standards for a grade. To add to the already difficult assignment, the instructor gave examples of movies containing juvenile gangs and pointed out that one woman in her class used Pinochio and that although she satisfied all the criteria of the assignment, she did not want the students using animated Disney type films for the report. Most students were using films like Colors, Boyz in the Hood, etc.

I went home and was really upset. I told my wife I didn't know what I was going to do. The teacher was not very approachable and had little concern for issues brought up by students like this. I knew I did not want to watch one of these films and made the decision that if push came to shove I would pray first and then go with what the Lord would have me to do. I prayed several times pleading for a way to be able to complete the assignment without having to watch R-rated movies. The answer came finally as I was contemplating things while watching television with my wife. I suddenly had the thought come into my head to use an older movie you are probably all familiar with called West Side Story. I had never seen this movie and knew very little about it. I asked my wife about it and she knew the story very well and told me a little about it. Bingo! I had found the movie. The film was fantastic and I was able to complete the report and earned an "A" for the assignment and in the class.

I still can remember the tremendous pressure that I felt under during this assignment and was glad that I was mature enough and had a testimony of the gospel to look for the answer instead of just giving in. When I read the story in the paper I wondered how a middle school student struggling with the pressures of teen life and struggling to build a testimony might react when faced with the same choices?

I also wondered if one teen in middle school making the decision could influence others to also make the right decisions. When I was back in highschool I attended a birthday bash for a buddy at the local pizza parlor. They had reserved the back room which had a giant screen TV and VCR. The pizza was great and all of my good friends came. It was my friend's 16th birthday and we were having a great time. Now these kids were no slouches or slackers. All of them I knew. We were all in college prep or honors classes. These were pretty much clean living kids even though only myself and one other person were LDS. There were both guys and girls at this party. They started a movie on the big screen and I asked what the rating was. They told me it had an R-rating, and I told them I didn't watch movies with that rating and told them I would have to leave the room. I wasn't snotty or condescending. I went to the other room and was playing video games. A minute or two later the other guy that was LDS came out also. He too had decided not to watch the movie. Well when my friends saw what was happening they came out, apologized, and went and rented another film that did not have that rating. I was very surprised. We had a great time and people all evening kept telling me they were sorry for puting that film on. I was shown nothing but respect from them and if they were not aware before they were from then on that my standards were based on the church I belonged to.

At any rate, sorry to be so long winded. As you can tell, this issue hits home with me. With my oldest getting ready to go into Junior high I hope that the schools in the area will make the decision not to show Rated R movies in the classroom in the future. I also hope that she will have the courage to stand up for what is right.

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

Here is the latest on the R-rated movie situation. This article will only be accessible today though at http://www.hanfordsentinel.com/articles/2006/10/27/news/daily03.txt

Of particular interests are the responses to the article.

You can also read my letter to the editor here: http://www.hanfordsentinel.com/articles/2006/10/27/opinion/letters/letters01.txt

Just another reminder, these articles will only be available today.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Actually, if you search the publications archives using the terms "middle school r rated movie", you will get a listing of 4 seperate items dated between 10/23/06 and 10/26/06. But, in order to get the full article(s), one has to log in.

Anybody remember the dummy anonymous logon someone over on Nauvoo once posted you can use in situations like this with newspaper articles?

Jeffery_LQ1W · Senior Member

Cat Herder wrote:

I don't know there, Jeffery. I think TEACH simply clarifies fair use in recordings of performances as pertaining to copyright in copying into and distribution of digital formats in relation to educational use. It doesn't necessarily state that a school or teacher has the right to show a film in it's entirety. Fair use in education does not mean showing / using the whole work without express permission of the copyright owner, and never has.

Back in the late '80's and early '90's, I worked for a national firm (now part of an international shipping firm) I'm sure you all patronized while in college. This company ended up legally on the wrong side of that argument for broad fair use of copyrighted work in print. While it usually did a good job of getting copyright permissions for course materials created for professors, a consortium of textbook publishers created a case against them, and instead of a more liberal interpretation of fair use, the ruling and court case resulted in a more restrictive interpretation of fair use, even for educational use by educational institutions. Anyway, the corporation leaders and legal counsel were surprised and stunned at the ruling (and it eventually caused a whole aspect of the company's business to disappear)... whereas I, a lowly front line grunt / shift leader at one of the stores, knew as soon as the lawsuit was announced it was stupid to try and fight it, because there was absolutely no way any reasonable person would read the law and then feel the need to re-interpret it liberally. And the penalties that were assigned to failure to comply with the law were extremely punitive, and did not just apply to our company, but anyone who breeched copyright fair use in a similar manner ($100K / incident / unauthorized copy).

Even if it is for educational purposes, showing a full Hollywood type movie does not constitute fair use under copyright. Unless a special edition specifically for the purpose is being shown in a public setting, it is illegal. Videos and dvds purchased at Target or wherever are for private, in home viewing... not public showing (even if no admission is charged). This is actually part of the reason why The Church frowns on folks showing any film in a class that is not from Church Distribution.

I think this aspect of public showings may be what Roper is referring to. And, individual districts may have fairly stringent policies in addition to that.

I don't know that anyone shows the "full movie". I certainly haven't asserted that, but it seems that everyone thinks that if you show clips you have copyright issues. And TEACH is very specific to clips being ok, while others have stated that it is problematic. Showing clips is not even problematic.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Jeffery_LQ1W wrote:

I don't know that anyone shows the "full movie". I certainly haven't asserted that, but it seems that everyone thinks that if you show clips you have copyright issues. And TEACH is very specific to clips being ok, while others have stated that it is problematic. Showing clips is not even problematic.

I think the assumption is being made (and probably supported by what we've seen thus far) that the school district / middle school / teacher(s) showed the whole movie.

And yes, teachers in middle school and high school will show the whole movie if they can. It is pretty idealistic to think otherwise. It frees them up from at least one day of having to actually teach. And will the teacher actually remain in the room while the film is being shown the whole time? I can recall seeing at least the following full length hollywood productions either as "treats" or as "teaching" opportunities in junior or senior high: Orson Welles' production of "Hamlet", some very well done movie version of "The Crucible", "Star Trek II", "Das Boot", Alfred Hitchcock's "Psycho". With the exception of the Star Trek movie, each had some legitimate educational value of seeing it in it's entirety (even though Psycho was probably questionable for showing to 7th graders in the first place). Given that this was over 2 decades ago, and it is our multi-media saturated generation that makes up the bulk of the corp of teachers these days, why should we assume that they wouldn't show the whole of the musical "1776" or the more recent movie "The Crossing" (the story of the Battle of Trenton) for a history class, or "Glory" to show the Civil War, or "The Days of October" for the Cuban Missile Crisis, or "Braveheart" for a unit in British history, or complete episodes from "Band of Brothers" or "Saving Private Ryan" for a unit on WWII? I have a friend who taught high school history prior to going back to get an some sort of doctorate level degree in education. He told me of his one time showing "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure" with the "educational" purpose of showing the kids how pop culture can change in just a couple decades...

Showing clips IS problematic if there is no express written permission given by the copyright owner. Fair use does not preclude the need for obtaining permissions and paying royalties (if so required). That is all I am referring to.

Jeffery_LQ1W · Senior Member

I hate showing movies, it kills the entire day. If I show movie clips, I stop and explain the situation and tie in the issues of the day.

Jeffery_LQ1W · Senior Member