《高中》是一部由弗雷德里克·怀斯曼执导，纪录片主演的一部美国类型的电影，特精心从网络上整理的一些观众的观后感，希望对大家能有帮助。
●嗯人家的高中
●发现怀斯曼电影的最大特点就是，让美国人痛心，让中国人欢心。那些美国人看不惯的什么官僚啊体制啊，在中国都太小儿科了。
●在任何团体里都有公平和效率的冲突。文明的团体里效率优先，野蛮的团体里公平优先。我们不想要野蛮，想要文明，但又想得到公平的途径，所以现实才凄凉。最后士兵的那一封信，给教师传达的信息是“成功的教育”，但如果“让每一个学生自愿去战场送死”就是成功的话，我希望教育不成功。
●大师怀斯曼的纪录片，镜头硬切、突然的特写zoomin、手持摄影的摇晃都是为了让观众脱离出来看待那个时代的美国高中教育的各种弊端，而不是着眼于个案。想想要是在中国拍估计很魔幻现实。
●即便是1960年代的美国高中都能在某种程度上可以被看作大型制造厂，无论是武断霸道的男教员还是女生体态课的女老师，在提供了诸多机会和深度的教育之余，也成为了全权规划学生的机器。从大量特写镜头看到被拍摄对象的小动作，让机械的学校对话略微回归了一点人性。很好奇那个屁股镜头是怎样justify的。
●The Dangling Conversation
●嘴退化成指令，身体压缩成零件，特写的运用无出其右。对规训工厂的呈现目不暇接，由此六十年代青年反叛的背景也可见一斑。
●第一部Wiseman，“直接电影”。年轻人们学着体察社会丛林之准则，塑形起道德观和责任感，在成年之际做实际的考虑和人生的选择，实为常识我则艳羡。
《高中》观后感(一)：运转中的机构
怀斯曼经典纪录片《高中》(1968)记录了费城东北高中的师生互动，通过将家长座谈、性教育演讲、课堂讨论和教务惩戒等独立场景反映现代教育机构的权力运作模式。以直接电影手法、尤其是大量的局部特写作为社会学检验方式，貌似无序的剪辑实则通过独立场景的并置达到叙事的递进，从而不断深入教育权力手段的弊端在空间和时间维度的影响。
作为怀斯曼的早期作品之一，并不像提提卡蠢事那般给人以强烈的主观现实。提提卡像是怀斯曼站在精神病患者旁边说“嘿，看看这个人，是什么让他变成这般模样。”而高中一片怀斯曼则躲到了背后，蒙太奇剪辑带来的跳跃感也明显地淡化。在主题意涵，学校作为微观社会，是一个无时不刻不在运转的独立主体。类似于地球公转，家长老师属于地球（压抑，世俗，工作，疲惫，矛盾），孩子（反叛，突破，改革，性冲动，理想，自由，奉献，寻找）就像是金星。同时，太阳系又处在银河系中，银河系类似于美国社会。美国梦与个人梦，两极分化与种族歧视，大国主义与高中老师保守固执……那么，处于中心的太阳在此是什么？处于银河系中心的又是什么？
《高中》观后感(二)：六十年代的美国与当下的中国
一部非常典型的直接介入社会，记录真实的纪录片，大量的特写镜头恰到好处地捕捉、呈现各路角色人物的表情动作和肢体语言。该片是对1968年美国高中教育和社会代际价值观念的展现，具有十分珍贵的文献价值，难怪本片入选了美国国家电影保护名单的目录。上世纪六十年代的美国主流价值观以及师长与青春期孩子之间的矛盾冲突与当下中国的现状可谓不谋而合。那时候的美国师长们仍旧抱持着传统的清教徒式的价值观，努力，节俭，尊重传统和秩序，希望自己的子女听话，尊敬长辈，与中国的大家长别无二致。而那时候的美国青少年们则是反叛的，但在师长所代表的权威面前同时也是怯懦的，仍旧对秩序和权威心存畏惧，在面对未来的人生抉择时，他们也在自己的理想与师长们的期许间徘徊纠结………然而，有意思的是，同时期的中国孩子们却正在听课闹革命，批完老师批校长，俨然走在了全世界的前列，成为欧洲青年争相模仿崇拜的对象，尽管是带着东方神秘主义的猎奇心理。相反，五十年后的中国却与五十年前的美国在代际文化差异方面遥相呼应起来，真不知道我们是滞后了世界五十年，还是自身倒退了五十年………
《高中》观后感(三)：带有时代印记的中学
8.0，大量的特写、快推、大光圈镜头使得画面持续聚焦于局部（如身体的部位、物体的局部等），从而营造出一种脱离感，在这里，环境成了无关紧要的背景，而人物的行为、话语、精神状态以及人物之间的关系成为了展现的重点。作为1968年的纪录片，摄影机虽然仅仅聚焦于美国东北部一所高中，但依然能感受到社会性事件和时代性背景的凸显，譬如马丁·路德·金遇刺、越南战争、美苏两极太空竞赛等。惊讶于六十年代美国开放的性教育，不像中国的性教育一样，扭扭捏捏，好似见不得人。 相比周浩的《高三》，该片注重个体的呈现，而《高三》中大量的集体化镜头则更多注重集体的展示；在结构上，《高三》有一条明确的主线，即高三开学——高考结束——下一届高三生到来，形成一种开放式的解构；而《高中》的解构则较为随意、散乱；此外，相比《高中》这种直接电影作壁上观式的纪录，《高三》中的部分采访则使其带有真实电影的色彩；《高三》是倾注情感的关注，《高中》则是客观、漠然的纪录。 ps：如果你看过1975年梅索斯兄弟的《灰色花园》，你大概会记得梅索斯兄弟肩扛的摄像机，然后我相信你会和我一样疑惑，这里的怀斯曼是如何操作笨重的摄影机，使其看起来如此灵活、轻盈。
《高中》观后感(四)：美国挖掘哪里好？就去费城东北高！
让我们荡起双桨，看看别人怎么讲~
Author: geprescott from Philadelphia 8 April 2003 （IMDB）
I attended Northeast High School shortly after the movie was filmed. It is a disturbingly accurate presentation. Mr. Wiseman's cinema verite approach has encapsulated that time and space in the way to which historical endeavors aspire, but rarely achieve. The black and white format, while most likely driven by technology and cost, perfectly underscores the bland, but far from sterile, environment. While no accounting, regardless of volume, objectivity or technical accuracy, can fully convey an experience, this film merits its standing as an excellent historical work.
I remember the staff and how they made me feel. From comments I have read here and elsewhere, the movie provides the right mix of raw material for the audience to experience what I did. Or, if they "just don't get it," like the staff at the school, they will see what the staff did when the movie was made. Only after viewers expressed what they saw did the cast become incensed with what they later recalled as deceptive, malicious, slanderous abuses of trust. One teacher remarked to my class that the cameras were equipped with secret mirrors, so they could surreptitiously capture other than what they appeared to be filming. The movie was banned from Philadelphia for a number of years. This was during the Cold War. I remember wondering if people in the Soviet Union were allowed to watch it, and if I would be arrested should I smuggle it into the city.
With pathetically few exceptions, the teachers and administrators were generally condescending, arbitrarily authoritative, and guided by their own biases. They cared little for the students as learners or human beings, were poorly qualified to communicate, let alone teach, and were surprisingly more ignorant of current events than most of the students.
There was one notable exception, and I wish Mr. Wiseman could have found a way to weave it into the film's cloth without betraying its honesty.
The dean of students, figuring prominently in the movie, known as "The Mean Dean" in my day, taught my 12th grade history class. I was fortunate not to have known him in the more familiar context. At least that's what my memory tells me. With his Frank Rizzo haircut, overwhelming physical presence, brutal manner of speech, and distinctive gait owing to severe WW2 injuries, he contrasted with all of the other social sciences teachers in every way.
At the start of the school year, he explained that his â？odeanâ？ alter ego would never enter the classroom and he held to that. He was honest about his opinions, never declining a straight question. He admitted what he didn't know or understand, and welcomed input from the class. He proudly related how the GI Bill allowed him to make a good life after his horrible experience in the war, his Corvette indulgence that was not popular with staff, and an almost childlike fascination with the complexity of the world. His unambiguous goal was to encourage the students to be skeptical of news and politics, to collect information from many sources, and to analyze and draw their own conclusions. It was one of the only classes in which we were taught to think for ourselves. The only textbook was a mandatory subｓｃｒｉｐｔion to the Sunday New York Times, which we were required to read. Class assignments consisted of our comments and analyses of articles and editorials. Grading was based entirely on quality of the analysis. He was excruciatingly critical of process, and completely oblivious to content. I donâ？Tt know how he felt about the late Justice, but for me William Brennan and my 12th grade history teacher are my two First Amendment icons. I agreed with almost none of his very clearly expressed opinions. Still, I remember this as the most liberal of any class in my public school education.
There was one other notable exception to the gray abyss of high school. The SPARC extracurricular program, and its associated magnet program curriculum for the tiny clique of "advanced placement" students, was one bright spot in the school district's otherwise unenviable history. But it was so academically and physically isolated from the school mainstream, I don't see how it could have been accurately integrated into this movie. The shame is that the excellent teachers and equipment afforded by the program were not available to the large majority of students.
The reading of the soldier's letter was a perfect closing, as it so perfectly distilled the utter ignorance of that generation of teachers and administrators. There has been some progress in the intervening 30+ years, but there has also been some backsliding. "High School" remains, sadly, a timely insight into the education system in this country.
以上评论版权归发言者所有，不代表草民观点~ FYI~ 分割线~~~~~~~~
好多美丽妹子的特写，真是小心肝儿推开波浪一个劲儿晃啊晃~~~