spam-1164 — 15 years ago(January 21, 2011 05:44 AM)

Okay, so there has been much derision about there being no clear motivation for the attacks and events in this film. For me, it isn't that difficult to understand. If you're a young person who feels browbeaten by society and without any hope (or, perhaps, wish) of making a success of yourself in the traditional sense, then you are likely to hang around with others who feel the same way. Particularly when you're from a poor background there isn't much available which holds your interest, so you take to crime. The only crimes you're able to commit involve violence and you begin to enjoy the feeling of power over your victims. At this point, you have the required abilities and sensibilities to change things in a very direct way when you begin to enter the age around where politics start to matter, and all that's missing is the spark.
You could go and attempt to blow up Parliament, but you have no knowledge of construction or explosives. Similarly, you could attempt to assassinate the Prime Minister, but you have no guns or knowledge of how to use them. The next authority figure down the line, and the one which most directly affects you, is your least favourite teacher (and why not remove the entire institution while you're at it). Sincere wishes for change, coupled with a flair for violence, no link with current societal norms, a problem with authority, and impatience can most definitely lead to a gang of youths attacking a school.
The attacks are as brutal as they are due to youths' experience with these forms of assault and, in the case of the Roxanne Mckee character, more disfiguring due to her beauty and the way society holds such things in high regard (all the while lambasting these youths). Blunt instruments are chosen as weapons because they can be found everywhere, and because carrying a knife on the streets can land you in prison. Faces are covered because they make the assailants harder to identify and reverse any psychological hold the victims may have over the youths if they are known to them. As an added bonus, it also lends an air of the romantic revolutionary freedom fighter (although I don't think that would be taken into consideration at the time) as well as aiding in the application of terror (something which does cause people to freeze, cower, and fail to defend themselves).
The motivation is simply a neglected group looking to bite the hand that feeds them because they know of no other way to express their frustration and/or affect a change in society that favours the way they see the world. The leap from assault to murder may seem like a large one, but it's really just one split second change in circumstance and some people come to the realisation that it's an easy way to get what they want and/or that they actually enjoy it. What I believe is a huge leap is the assumption that the motivation is due to the F mark for the one boy's work. Although it may have been the spark or catalyst, that obviously isn't enough on its own and you have to look a little deeper. These youths were certainly not without motivation, you just need to think in order to understand it.