It is a performances centric movie

Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

Quite a remarkable study of an anonymous high school. Wiseman's strength in this film is definitely editing. He has taken seemingly a mountain of footage from probably a year in a high school and selected choice bits to make a film that completely engages, despite the apparent lack of character development and traditional narrative. The scenes and moments are incredibly interesting and glue you to the screen. Some of the best treasures are in the tiny concrete room where kids argue about their detentions. A teacher shows girls how to strut their stuff, and boys learn all about sex from a jolly gynecologist.If you can get your hands on a copy of this, sit back and enjoy!

"High School" is enthralling in one sense; if you are obsessed with the mundane "American Splendor" of generations past, then you will adore this documentary. For its time, it was brilliantly avant garde and remains so even today for its muted commentary on administration and the growing disparity between older generations and the younger high schoolers of the late 60's. There is something purely amazing in viewing such settings in this vignette as they were, undoctored by Hollywood's lens. I am fascinated by the details of a time that I will never know personally and "High School" provides a brief glimpse into the mindset of the young adults of 1969 who are not unlike ourselves.If you dig documentaries, please give this one a shot. Maybe you'll become as obsessed with "High School" as I have.

Lately I've been exploring the issue of ethics in the films of Fredrick Wiseman. In my entry on "Titticut Follies", among other things, I discussed how Wiseman's clear judgmental stance might be considered by some to be a breach of documentary ethics. Some feel that the goal of documentary is to be as objective as possible, others feels that it should be used as a tool for social change. Wiseman falls somewhere in the middle. Wiseman has stated that with "Titticut Follies" and his next film, "High School", he had more of a fixed idea of what he was trying to go for (as opposed to his later, more thematically ambiguous films). But even so, that does not mean that the individual member of the audience cannot get what he or she wants out of what has just been seen. In a 1998 interview with "The Boston Pheonix", Wiseman stated: "When [High School] was first shown in Boston, in 1969, one of the people who saw it was… a very conservative member of the Boston School Committee. I thought she'd hate the movie. But she came up and said, 'Mr. Wiseman, that was a wonderful high school!' I thought she was kidding me – until I realized she was on the other side from me on all the value questions. Everything I thought I was parodying, she thought was great. I don't think her reaction represents a failure of the film. Instead, we have an illustration that reality is ambiguous, a complex mirror – that the 'real' film takes place where the mind of the viewer meets the screen. It's how the viewer interprets the events." In the above case, it would seem that the film is only unfair if you dislike what you see. The woman disagreed with what Wiseman was saying, but she still liked the film, because she felt that the images were strong enough to counter what Wiseman's intentions for the film were. So then does it really matter if he was "parodying" his subjects? Of course we could look deeper into a film like "High School", at more minute details, to see better, less broad examples of what could be considered unethical practices. In one scene, a teacher teaches a class and we see a close-up of her face, wearing thick, horn-rimmed glasses. About this shot, Calvin Pryluck writes, "One can wonder how the teacher in High School feels about herself since seeing herself seeing her bottle-thick eyeglass lenses larger than life on the screen." Small matters like this are important. But is the woman's appearance Wiseman's problem? Perhaps he chose the close up to emphasize the look on her face. Perhaps then if the woman feels embarrassed, then that is for her to worry about, no one else.

An early work of the great documentary commentator on American culture. It manages to show the horror of a repressive High School administration, but also displays the stupidity of the parents, students and all involved in the system. One classic scene involves an alumnus visiting his old coach while on leave from Vietnam. The coach vividly describes the injuries received by another of his students while serving: "He'll never play soccer again." Richard Leiterman's gratuitous lingering on the gym-shorts clad teenage girls' behinds is a more of a statement about the filmmakers than the subject.