MovieChat Forums > Dead Poets Society (1989) Discussion > Crazy how this movie was considered some...

Crazy how this movie was considered some of the best writing of 1989

posted 3 years ago by CraigJamesReview (1717)
5 replies | jump to latest

In the pantheon of movies that have manipulated their way to the top, “Dead Poets Society” is sure one of them. Peter Weir’s movie works magic and says all the right things and the musical score does its part too. But i’m still surprised it managed to attain the level of acclaim it did through the schere audacity of just being merely well-meaning.

It takes place in the hallowed halls of a prep school in 1959- a place that tells its students to follow the four pillars and you’ll do just fine in the Ivy Leagues. Except there’s one teacher who’s different and he, of course, is played by Robin Williams. New poetry teacher John Keating wants his students to refer to him as “Captain, My Captain” and to seize the day because they’ll be dead before they know it.

He also wants them to rip out the introductions of their poetry books because no old fart is going to tell them how to measure good poetry, and stand on their desks because apparently the world looks different from up there, and he inspires them to bring back something called the Dead Poets Society. The group is supposed to inspire revolutionary ideas and romance but mostly all we see is a bunch of guys sitting in a cave, swapping ghost stories, sharing porn, and talking girls. What gives?

Williams’ does nice work in what is a restrained performance from him. You believe his passion when he goes into teachings of love, of leading a life less ordinary, and having your own mind. These are important lessons and he works wonders with them, occasionally falling back into doing impressions, but mostly staying on dramatic task.

This also pulls some strong work from Ethan Hawke, Josh Charles, and Robert Sean Leonard as henpecked students whose lives have already been planned out for them and they’re none to happy about it. Hawke works as a shy young man trying to come out of his shell, Charles learns to take his shot with the girl of his dreams, while Leonard stands up to his domineering father who hates fun.

This is all pleasant and its lessons easy to follow but that’s part of the problem. Everything about it is planned behind Williams’ ability to inspire and the students needing inspiration. I still don’t know a thing about the poetry they’re studying or revering nor does Williams come across as a character. He’s a mouthpiece, the rest of him has no depth at all.

The conflicts are arbitrary- not only is this another authoritarian prep school film but the villainous school administrators simply just hate joy- and what’s worse is the students who have been taught these ideas of revolutions and risk through poetry actually just cower down when real heroism is needed. Keating is scapegoated. They stand on their desks in solidarity with him, but as mentioned, don’t fight for him.

But that the writing in this was considered great enough to be better than “Do the Right Thing” and “Glory” is most absurd. It’s familiar, hokey, and the characters are never as brave or literate as the poetry that’s supposedly inspiring them. This is all just lip service, which the actors are good at and Weir plays to the dramatized hilt, but ultimately just feels empty.

[–] Wuchak (8737) 3 years ago

It's still great writing for a drama that has to be contained within a 2-hour framework and be entertaining enough to attract an audience.

The film contains a wealth of riches to mine in subsequent viewings, and I don't just mean the insights conjured from the poetry & prose. Here are a handful off the top of my head: "The letter kills," referring to the legalistic nature of Neil's joyless father and most of the teachers at the school; the type of Judas (Cameron); the scapegoat (Keating); the stunning nature of feminine beauty (when Chris appears at the entrance of the school and the guys' mouths drop); the marvels of nature and how they're conducive to inspiration & spirituality; Keating's heartbroken countenance after Neil is removed from the theater crowd (Keating knows there's little he can do about the authoritarian mistreatment).

A possible objection is that Neil's tragedy goes against the very message of the film to "seize the day." I disagree. Neil really started to "seize the day" but his passions were quenched by an authority in his life who didn't share the spirit of freedom and he couldn't handle it. Dynamic ideas have explosive consequences, good and bad. The other kids had varying results with their attempts to "seize the day." Some made progress in attaining their dreams and others got in trouble because they threw wisdom to the wind, which Keating corrects in a later scene. The varying results make the story realistic.

Most of those who scoff at this film's message go back to their 9 to 5 slavery with no light at the end of the mundane tunnel. I encourage such people to give the film a second look. But BEWARE, there are no moronic explosions, CGI, non-stop 'action,' gore, OTT cussing, nudity or sex scenes. Then I would encourage these people to take a good look at their lives and ask: Are you willing to change it? Throw off the shackles? Throw caution to the wind and pursue your true calling, your dream? Will you "seize the day"? Or will you stagnate in a puddle of mediocrity?

"Glory" is great, but "Dead Poets Society" is superior to it, not to mention that other flick you named.

[–] Fandango (534) 3 years ago

I enjoyed reading your response, but couldn't help but feel a false note of positivity. It has often been said that Dead Poets Society, Heat, and Fight Club are movies made for men.

Like Fight Club, where one extreme (domestic femininity) seeks a solution in its antipode (feral masculinity), Dead Poets Society offers another contrast, only within a postmodern context. The school which the students attend was erected in the mid 19th century, right after the apex of enlightenment. As an institution, it personifies the core enlightenment principles of democracy, intelligence, and rationality. Keating, a purveyor of its antithesis, promotes a postmodern approach to education and life. While the eschewal of authoritarianism, stifling tradition, and an attenuated intellectual curiosity is appealing, he offers no alternative to the students' current paradigm.

Keating gave students nothing to replace their previous beliefs. He did not help them develop an alternative way to analyze poetry, or to express themselves, or to develop principled stands. Moreover, he did not even help them identify a method by which they might achieve such goals. They no longer believed in the authority of parents, schools, or scholarship, but hey had not developed an attachment to collaboration, or pragmatism, or empiricism. All Keating brought them was a vague admiration of indefinable personal experience, and even this derived solely from Keating's own charismatic authority.....

(Barton, 2006).

Much like the philosophy of Fight Club, Dead Poets Society does not offer any profundity that is not already available to the viewer. Its deeper message is the postmodernist representation of form over function. While ditching one's occupation to pursue, in most cases, some nebulous dream may sound fanciful, there must be a path toward outlined objectives.

[–] Wuchak (8737) 3 years ago

While ditching one's occupation to pursue, in most cases, some nebulous dream may sound fanciful, there must be a path toward outlined objectives.

Yet it's not nebulous to the individual, with the exceptions of airheads and sluggards. Plus my post plainly spoke of the importance of not throwing wisdom to the wind in pursuit of one's objective (stifling caution, yes; wisdom, no). This is stressed in the movie, as noted.

Furthermore, it goes without saying that any worthy goal is going to take a plan of action and the willingness to get off one's rump & persevere to see success. You have to use your brain to formulate a plan based on the resources & opportunities available. You don't have to be an Einstein to realize this and so there was no need to feature a scene with Keating teaching it, although he no doubt conveyed something to this effect behind the scenes.

A few examples from the movie off the top of my head (I haven't seen it for a couple of years):

Neil doesn't want to be a doctor, but desires to pursue acting and so he entertains a local acting gig, gets the role and tries it out. That was his plan; he executed it and found success, as far as empowering personal fulfilment and public praise goes. Thus he was excited and intended to continue with this course, but his authoritarian father sternly put the kibosh on it. Committing suicide was a foolish decision not encouraged by Keating in the least.

Knox wants the blonde, Chris, because he thinks she's mind-blowing and senses a mutual attraction. So he formulates ways to see her and starts a relationship despite serious tribulations.

Todd wants out of his suffocating shell with Keating and Neil's encouragement. He then takes advantage of opportunities to do so, like breaking the school rules by going to the cave meetings and, finally, standing on the desk as a bold salute to his inspiration, Keating.

Disregarding Neil's foolish suicide, these wise principles are the foundation to zeroing in on one's talents & desires (purposes), achieving them and finding true fulfillment. Not a bad thing to learn when your 16-18, huh?

I've viewed this movie several times over the years and every time it leaves me inspired & invigorated. 'Nuff said.

[–] Fandango (534) 3 years ago

I appreciate your insight and find your arguments to be sound and well-reasoned.

It is easy to watch the film and, like Gattaca, be in awe of themes of individual triumph. On the surface, Keating's ideology of individualism, wish fulfillment, and taking the path less traveled may seem sincere and noble, but upon scrutiny, it falls flat.

Keating's philosophy is perfectly encapsulated with his own interpretation of Robert Frost. While he reads aloud a passage regarding the road less traveled, he reinterprets it to fit his own subjective worldview. In its original connotation, Frost also states that both roads were ultimately equal. One does not need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. New modes of thinking can be established and adopted without eliminating old tradition.

When the students toward the end of the film climb on top of their desks, mirroring the earlier scene with Keating climbing on his desk, what we see is not a shift from incorrect thinking to correct thinking, but a subjective change of focus; but, perhaps more significantly, Keating's focus. The ending scene highlights how the students have not adopted their own worldview, but the worldview of Keating. They have symbolically replaced tradition with an incomprehensible individualism.

That's not to say that the film or its messaging is bad. There should be critical thinking, and one should question tradition and authority but, like Fight Club and Gattaca, we see a transposition of extremes as bitterness is replaced with acidity.

[–] Seperatrix (1220) 3 years ago

" . . . what’s worse is the students who have been taught these ideas of revolutions and risk through poetry actually just cower down when real heroism is needed. Keating is scapegoated. They stand on their desks in solidarity with him, but as mentioned, don’t fight for him."

" . . . the characters are never as brave or literate as the poetry that’s supposedly inspiring them. This is all just lip service, which the actors are good at and Weir plays to the dramatized hilt, but ultimately just feels empty."

Personally (and to each his/her own), i would have found a complete and sudden transformation of staunch heroism a betrayal of the portrayal of the players we were presented with through the course of the film.

In other words, standing defiantly on the desk at the end was a baby step. A baby step for someone with massive interior walls to break down. We are left with our imaginations where the heroism took him, and the rest, from there.