The filmmaker's ideological argument is one that is pervasive throughout the film: "Give me the child until he is 7 and I will give you the man." Set in London England, the director exposes this argument by interviewing an average group of elementary school children. His questions include a variety of topics that allow the viewer to become better acquainted with the thoughts and desires of what these children hope to become. The mere fact that his subject is elementary school children demonstrates his ability to fulfill one of the rules of documentary film-making: giving a voice to the voiceless. These children under normal circumstances would not have a voice in the world at such a young age. They are not celebrities; they are just like any other childingenuously funny, naïve, and inquisitive. Most of them aspire to become great things (i.e. astronauts, teachers); however, the director seems to implicitly suggest that given the immaturity of their present beliefs as seven-year-old children, those dreams they wish to fulfill are idealistically unattainable. How? Because given his argument, he suggests that because these particular children are "fully developed" and still immature at the age of seven, he presupposes that the nation of England ought to greatly fear the rising generation and what skills they will lack in the world. The last line of the film implicitly demonstrates this, "We have now seen a look at what the nation of England is in store for and what potential there lies within." Observing how the audience and myself was laughing at the naivety of these children (as I'm sure was intended to show how ignorant they are) I personally felt it was unfair for the director to cast such judgment on them because I don't believe a child is fully developed at the age of seven. One cannot presuppose such a threat to a nation based off what a child's inclinations and aspirations are at such a young age. Why? Because there are many factors that can and do contribute in refining a child's behavior into something better through a space of time and development. The director seemed to suggest that such a space for developing would not be necessary to determine who they would become in the future, namely, bums.
There are several filmic techniques that the director used to support his argument. First, he asked specific questions that he knew would exploit the children through their own responses: "What do you do after you get home from school?" to which most of the children responded, "Watch TV!" The implication here of course suggests that their lack of diligence and acquiescence to passivity and mind-numbing entertainment would cause them to become slaves inside of Plato's cavesomething not fit for a future nation to thrive on. Second, he captures on film moments of the children fighting with each other. This is more of an explicit ideology of showing that violence and aggression reign supreme amongst such a young crowd as this. The implicit ideology seems to suggest that if these children are fighting with their hands and feet now, how will they fight in the future?with guns, knives? Overall, I felt this documentary was promoting activism on behalf of the parentshow to discipline your children better! I felt this was rather ridiculous because they are only childrenthere's still plenty of time for them to grow and develop into more responsible beings.
There are several filmic techniques that the director used to support his argument. First, he asked specific questions that he knew would exploit the children through their own responses: "What do you do after you get home from school?" to which most of the children responded, "Watch TV!" The implication here of course suggests that their lack of diligence and acquiescence to passivity and mind-numbing entertainment would cause them to become slaves inside of Plato's cavesomething not fit for a future nation to thrive on. Second, he captures on film moments of the children fighting with each other. This is more of an explicit ideology of showing that violence and aggression reign supreme amongst such a young crowd as this. The implicit ideology seems to suggest that if these children are fighting with their hands and feet now, how will they fight in the future?with guns, knives? Overall, I felt this documentary was promoting activism on behalf of the parentshow to discipline your children better! I felt this was rather ridiculous because they are only childrenthere's still plenty of time for them to grow and develop into more responsible beings.