Dead Poets Society : Anybody else disturbed by the 'messages' of the film ?

You're the only idiot who thinks that.

A few posters have taken the time to look at what motivates the father. I think that that's important. Of course, he handled basically everything in a terrible manner, leading to his son's suicide. That said, how would you feel if your only child, who is a straight-A student going to the best prep school in the country and is a shoo-in for a spot in the Ivy League and everything that will flow from that, tells you - after one play - that he basically wants to throw that down the toilet and attempt to be an actor? Honestly, I would not be too thrilled. Add to that the fact that the parents have done so much for him (i.e. supported him financially when they had limited resources). I imagine that the father was also a Second World War veteran, which would add another layer to his character.

Of course I agree that we should all be free to live our own lives, but I also can appreciate a parent wanting the best for his child.

I was in Mr. Perry's situation 5 years ago. My kid has a high IQ and could do anything he wanted and he did talk about studying engineering for a while, but ultimately he chose to study music education instead. I wasn't thrilled about it at all, but of course I let him do what he wanted. He understood that he could make more money in engineering, but he was more interested in music. I chose to trust him to do what was right for HIM, and this is where Mr. Perry failed.

My own dad was a lot like Mr. Perry, so I didn't have a problem with how the film portrayed him, as a few posters have said they did. I found him to be a believable character. He was selfish. His remarks often revealed that, for example he told Neil several times "you aren't going to let ME down". He didn't trust his own son to choose what was right for himself, which is such a shame because Neil was such a great kid! I would be very proud to be his parent. As someone who was in Neil's shoes at one time, I know what it feels like to have your parents not trust you and try to control you. It feels terrible, and standing up to a parent like that is terrifying. I think Neil's suicide was more about taking control. He saw it as something that he could do that his father could not control. If he killed himself, that would be final, his father would never be able to control him again. It's not the choice that I made, but I suppose Neil felt death was better than military school and 10 years of studying medicine, which didn't interest him. He could have run away or purposely flunked out of the military school, but that would mean facing his father's wrath again. And Neil's mother was equally guilty since she didn't stand up to her husband and tell him he should let Neil be in the play and remain at Welton. That was all Neil wanted after all, a play really isn't that big a deal.

Yes, because learning to think for yourself and questioning authority is totally self-indulgent.

As one critic put it,at the end of a great teacher's course in poetry the students would love poetry; here all they really love is the teacher. A bit extreme perhaps but Keating does create a cultish aura around himself - another authority figure. And then when the crisis comes, all he says is "don't make it worse than it already is". He doesn't make much of an effort to stand up for his student (which probably would have failed anyway but still, it did get worse: Neil killed himself).
And the movie does stack the deck a bit: Neil is a straight A student and his father makes him drop activities that would have looked good on a college application?

Yeah, that's from the late Roger Ebert's review. I disagreed with him on this film and thought it was great. Anyway, when Keating says not to make the situation any worse, it is similar to earlier about daring vs. caution. Keating realized that Neil had lied to him about talking to his dad and his dad is angry with both Neil and Keating. He didn't expect Neil to kill himself, of course, and it was not his fault. It was that Neil was unable to stand up to his dad and felt this was the only way to defy him.
And the reason his dad makes him drop something at the beginning was that he felt Neil was taking too many of those activities. That also sets up how Neil's dad makes the choices for him. He didn't let Neil decide what to drop, he told him to drop something that he liked doing. And when Neil tried to object, Neil's father got mad and controlling. So Neil had no choice but to drop it. There is a deleted scene where Nolan is giving the activities out in his office and he asks Neil about not doing that activity in a surprised way.

Yes. Roger Ebert. Pauline Kael also pointed out that the father was painted rather melodramatically - as she said, the kid is getting straight As so he's obviously able to cope with what he's doing. And these are "official" activities, not acting, so there's no rational basis for opposing them. It's just a way to paint the father as a villain.
That's not to say there aren't parents who are so controlling, of course, but if the kid had been struggling a bit, at least there might have been a reason for it.
And of course Neil's suicide wasn't Keating's fault - but it is arguable his failure to even try to say anything when he could have was. It's easy to play the charismatic leader when there don't seem to be any consequences, but having been at the same school, surely he would have known how it worked there?
Pointing out flaws in Keating or the film doesn't make one a fascist meanie. I enjoyed the film, despite its faults.

i don't think showing kids standing on their desks is good for america's youth.

I'm disturbed by this horrible take on a great movie.

Like someone else said on this board, I would hate to be a child of someone who thinks like the people who are against John Keating. Unfortunately, history seems to be repeating itself.

The comforting thought is that then probably there will also be a generation that will rebel against this conformism.

Watch, "The Angriest Man in Brooklyn." It was made in May, 2014. The messages of his depression and wanting to die are very prominent in this movie. I felt more like I was watching Robin be himself more than a character.

"Hear me now! This place is cursed, damned, and yes your master is the devil!"

Well, you are thinking exactly like Neil's father who - instead of repenting on his draconian ways which led to Neil taking his own life - choose to find a scapegoat in John Keating. Had John knew that Neil took part in the play without his father's consent, he would likely had dissuaded him; after all, one must know when to be daring and when to be cautious as he had told Charles.

Agreed. He encouraged Neil to be honest with his father and when he asked Neil about it, Neil lied to him because he was too scared to talk to his dad. When Keating realized that Neil lied, he also knew that any of them going to talk to him now about how great he was was not going to help the matter.

Education is not about learning facts, it's about learning how to think. Some parents to this day want blindly obedient children who will do exactly what they're told without question (and happily). I want kids who question and push borders because I want them to learn why those boundaries are there.

I don't think Mr. Perry was evil (though I have a hard time not holding a grudge against the actor in his other roles *LOL*) He was an authoritarian. He loved his son very much, and he wanted the best for him. He was mistaken though on how to accomplish that. I think Mr. Perry loved Neil very much. The scene where he finds the body has always stayed with me: him crying about his son and his mother insisting that he's alright. It's probably one of the most powerful deaths I've seen in a movie.

And Neil.I think if anything, it is a reason to not keep guns in the house. Neil's decision was impulsive. He was upset and made a rash decision. Actually what Mr. Keating was teaching would eventually have helped him to think his way around his father and how to get out from the authoritarian trap. But there was a quick out and he took it.

I thought the grieving for Neil was true too. It was mixed up in their own guilt and stress, but I never thought those boys weren't grieving for their best friend.

This movie is about a tragedy as a boy tried to make a transition to manhood with a very uneven support system and faltered, while his friends were left to continue on and try to make that transition without him. The very end showed that they were making the transition, doing what they thought was right, successfully.

---

Keating is encouraging all these boys in a very traditional prep school to live these artistic indulgent lives

---

No he's not!

---

I give my respect to those who have earned it; to everyone else, I'm civil.

---

the main messages of this film are: always question dogmatic authority, and seize the day. they show us these messages through an English class, through poetry, but the core message is universal and, honestly, quite brilliant.

together the ants can crush the elephant.

I learned this, at least, by my experiment; that if one advances confidently in the direction of his dreams, and endeavors to live the life which he has imagined, he will meet with a success unexpected in common hours."
(Henry David Thoreau, "Walden.")

---

---

__@
-_`\<,_
___(*)/ (*)____
nec spe,nec metu `

You sound like Neil's dad. Maybe you identify with him more than the other characters.

No.

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=14spme0&s=8#.U_XRd2K9KK0

Wow, I'm amazed at how many of the people posting here COMPLETELY miss the point of this movie. Keating says: "Sucking the marrow out of life doesn't mean choking on the bone." He's not trying to turn them into a bunch of revolutionaries. He went to the school and knows firsthand the danger of blindly accepting the party line preached by the teachers and administrators. They're trying to forge a lock-step group of Ivy-ready boys who question nothing. Keating knows how dangerous that is (think about the Ivy-educated men who have led the U.S. in the last few decades if you think I'm exaggerating). Keating wants them to think for themselves, not simply accept the life choices being forced on them by parents and others. What happens to Neil is tragic, but life is tragic sometimes. Keating tries to get Neil to communicate with his father what he wants to do. But Neil's cowardice and his father's intractability combine for a tragic ending. I do agree Knox is immature, but what 17- or 18-year-old isn't. He knows he's better for Kris than her meathead jock boyfriend, he just goes about trying to convince her the wrong way. And then there's Nuwanda, the ultimate rebel. In the end, he only turns on Keating because he's coerced into doing so. The school, and its adherence to outdated, misguided ways, causes Keating' downfall. Neil's downfall has little to do with Keating and more to do with is broken relationship with his father. In the end, "Dead Poets Society" is not about a teacher guiding students into reckless behavior, but about a teacher showing his students how to live as their own persons, and not simply give in to the wishes of those in positions of authority. Those in charge are not, simply by the fact they're in charge, right. In fact, very often most of the time, in my experience they are wrong. They only seem right because they're the ones who blindly followed those in positions of authority to them. They follow like lemmings and expect everyone behind them to do so also. The problem with that is it makes us all lemmings instead of men and women who think for ourselves.

Agree with the OPVERY well said :)

Regarding the OP's comments, I don't feel that Keating was encouraging these students to "live this radically indulgent life". He was teaching them to think for themselves. He was giving them context for what gives life meaning and encouraging to live a "well-lived life." There's a big difference. Is it a difference 15 and 16 year olds can distinguish between? Possibly and possibly not. I can see where what Keating was teaching could be viewed as "dangerous," especially for the timeframe of the movie, but I will bet that those student remembered Keating's teachings for the rest of their lives.

I completely disagree with the OP's suggestion that Keating should have left the moment Todd Anderson stepped on top of his desk to minimize the fallout to the student's lives. Enduring themes of the movie were to not let anyone else tell you how to think and don't conform simply to conform. Todd Anderson felt how Keating was treated was wrong. He couldn't stand by and do nothing. He acted according to his beliefsa testament to the teachings of Keating.

For Keating to leave prematurely before other's could join Anderson, to minimize the impact to their lives, would be to completely go against everything he was trying to teach. It would be saying "conform, don't rock the boat, don't act according to your beliefs." I doubt that any of the boys who stood on their desks got expelled. While they could, it's impractical to expel them all.


Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday. Was it worth it?

Maybe because this movie paralleled a friends life so well even to the point his father looked and acted the same way as Neil's father.

The gist of the whole movie for me is how it shows these kids in a world that is overly structured and planned out. Williams character rebels from this world and swings almost to absolute anarchy. I always felt the movie was a clash of total structure against complete freedom and it leaves itself to the viewer. Neil's father loved him but bottled him up and didn't let him grow. William's character directed him into no structure. This conflict destroys everyone.

If you want answers to these questions, just read Dara Mark's "INSIDE STORY" for a complete analysis. She admires this script as an example of Subject (Manhood), Thematic Point-of-View (Seize the Day, TAKE control of your life), Plot or External Goal (Value the individual) and Subplot or Internal Goal (Be true to your nature). I just met Tom Schulman at the Virginia Film Festival screening of this film yesterday. This film is a classic thanks to Mr. Schulman's script.

Apart from attempting to inspire people to lead their own lives instead of merely going along with one's life and questioning dogmatic authority, the film also questions the education system that has been/is in place in several parts around the world. You're asked to read the text-book, not question it. You're not asked to understand and practice, you're asked to reproduce the source material.

The film at its core, advocated free-thinking, which is what every human being should practice. Why does a person lose confidence when told by the sheep that he/she is different. Free-thinking often leads to being different and doing things differently, one should embrace it and not control it. These messages are incredibly relevant and important to every human being more so to a victim of the system (Not only Mr. Keating in the film, but also every student - they were all taught the wrong way to lead their leaves by the system and authorities) and anyone who thinks these messages are disturbing have either been fooled by the system and authorities so far or have not got the right messages from the film.

It would appear that you completely mistranslated Keating's intentions on rebelling against authority. From what I'm gathering by your initial assessment, the implication stems off this belief that Keating wanted the boys to be indulgentthere's a fine line between indulging (i.e. being hedonistic and embarking on an unfettered pursuit for nonstop, unyielding pleasure, such as promiscuity) and formulating your own image. Keating encouraged the latter to flourish and thus sparked a nonconformist revolt against the rigid picture the school's officials (and students' parents) pre-programmed them to embrace without any questions. One can easily shatter conformity without feeling that sexual gratification or similar activities must be a prerequisite to enshrine a rebellious nature.

In regards to Neil's suicide, while they didn't spend as much time on it (this was during the end of a two hour movie. A lot of moviegoers get restless at that time so I doubt they would want to spend an additional half hour seeing the fallout. However, if this happened more midway through the film, the director would not have been able to flesh out the nonconformist angle, which was the primary objective), I don't view it as glossing over his death. People did grieve for him, including his parents, and it wasn't done in the span of two minutes (more like a good 15)

The final moment as well wasn't solely about Keating. Remember that Neil had just died and he was the biggest rebel of all the kids. The remaining students realized how one way to honor him (and Keating, the gentleman that inspired him to pursue what he wanted rather than his parents' desire. They both were essentially gone at that point. Neil was dead and Keating had been terminated) was illustrate that rebellious nature (i.e. the "O Captain My Captain" finale) Neil so adhered to and do such in front of the instructor who caused that behavioral modification amid their psyches.


When God made Tom Cruise, he was only joking.

He challenged them to think for themselves and be passionate.

This is one of the most ridiculous posts I have ever readand the OP knows it is such which is exactly why he never came back to discuss it.

---

radically indulgent

---

If what these kids did is the OP's idea of living a "radically indulgent life" then I would love to know what his idea of an ordinary life isWTF.


"It's Minnie Pearl's murder weapon."

I know this is an old thread now and all points would have been covered, so I'll make it brief

First point, I don't think Keating encouraged the boys to "live these artistic indulgent lives", I think he simply encouraged them to look outside what they knew and think for themselves, to open themselves up a bit.

Second point. What 'message' did you mean? I didn't see a message. And the reason the film didn't wallow in the impacts on all those people you mentioned is because the film was 3/4 through at that stage and couldn't just add another 90 minutes, and completely switch mode to explore the impact of youth suicide. That's a another film unto itself.

The writer WAS in a hurry to move the story along, because that's what good writers DO at the end of the second act: they move right along to the thirds act.


Never defend crap with 'It's just a movie'
http://www.youtube.com/user/BigGreenProds

I think that's a very good point. If you want to be a trendy, unconventional teacher, why not get a job in the kind of school where that is encouraged? Why go causing upset among boys in a conventional establishment like this one?

you zips missing the point. this is a goof on the education system , which is full of *beep* especialyy upper ivy crap. its just showing you that the things that happen to us mere mortals are a *beep* to the erudites.

Something about Keating and the way Robin Williams portrayed him always made me uneasy with further viewings. You can kinda see that he left the school on somewhat unfavorable terms and is making up for something he regrets. He's probably trying to live vicariously through these boys, but he seems conflicted about it under the surface for some reason. His approach was rather extreme, especially given the period this is supposed to take place in.

---

So he encourages these 14 15 16 year old boys to live this radically indulgent life but he didn't stop to think that at least one or two were going to take it too far?

---

So are teachers supposed to stop teaching Shakespeare out of worry that at least one or two might kill themselves like most of the Shakespearean characters do?

---

Secondly, I find the message of Neil's suicide disturbing. It seemed like the movie only spent about 5 to 10 minutes of grieving time for Neil's death. It bothered me in that rather than show the fallout of impact to parents, other close family, childhood friends, not to mention his fellow classmates, the movie seemed to suggest, "Well, sometimes people make the choice to kill themselves and it's awful but then you move on."

---

The suicide occurred towards the end of the movie, so there really wasn't enough time left in the movie to spend grieving about his death longer than they did. Besides, the impact on the parents and family is not what the movie was about.

---

What the writer of the story was in a hurry to move on to was to celebrate Mr Keating in a bogus "redeeming moment" where they honor him in a way that, although the film fails to honestly reveal, would have certainly gotten most, if not all, expelled.

---

There was nothing bogus about it. You missed the point here. It's not as much about the kids honoring Keating in the end, as much as it was about how Todd was affected by Keating. Todd was scared of everything throughout the movie, but ironically, he was courageous at the end being the first one to stand on his desk in salute of Keating. Keating had a positive effect on Todd, possibly changing his life for the better.

I don't believe the school would expelled all those kids just for standing on their desks to say goodbye to their teacher. The school already had their sacrificial lamb in Keating, they didn't need anymore.

---

If Keating had had any real integrity, the moment that Todd Anderson made his move, he would have left the room quickly to minimize the damage to them.

---

Okay, that's just stupid. All Keating did was stand there and then thanked them. Running out of there would have been an insulting dismissal of the brave and moving gesture from his former students.

This movie is about the importance of leadership. OP failed to mention that Keating realized earlier on his slight misguidance by admonishing the phone call incident, so Mr. Keating was well aware of the difference between appropriate wisdom and blind carpe diem. Anyway, Keating never vocally instructed the boys to become degenerates, but rather he encouraged them to be confident and to lead themselves. He also wanted them to enrich their lives with material that has augmented civilization as opposed to becoming edified automatons. He wanted the ones with potential to blossom into freethinkers.

I've taught children overseas at schools that made students memorize as opposed critical thinking, and I realized rote memorization absolutely stifles creativity and confidence. Keating wanted to inspire and excite the minds that were destined to lead and be creative because those minds need such an environment to flourish.

And Neil's suicide was a tragic awakening for all that loved and cared for him. It taught Keating's students the harsh realism of authority while teaching him the importance of attentiveness to one's influence. However, the most important thing was that Neil's friends learned to be men of volition and self-guidance. Ultimately, the Dead Poets Society learned to homogenize as a melodious brotherhood tethered together by love; the love for oneself, each other, and life.

They became what mankind is destined to be: Unified greatness.

Or maybe they took back the decision and re-instated Keating, it's left for the viewer to interpret that any way you want.

I must say it was a fantastic film by the way, probably Robin Williams best film, probably just shades GWH for me, and a appropiate way to pay tribute to the late great actor.

you can blame the studio and robin williams for that.
the original script was essentially a drama about the students, and not as focused as a star vehicle.

"Ugh! I don't like this." Ambrose Bierce

You make some valid points, but I have to say learning to stand up for yourself is far more important in life than staying in any particular prep school. Both emotionally and more generally. You won't be very happy if you have no balls in life, and never stand up for yourself, or what you believe in. Unless you are, by nature, a sheep.

I find poetry itself silly and meaningless, but the lessons of learning to think for oneself, stand up for what you believe in, etc. those ideas are in fact valuable. As is learning to seize the day ("Carpe Diem.") If you wish to enjoy life at all. Which is, arguably, the whole point of it.

Not much point being academically and professionally successful if you're miserable your entire life.

Anthropologically speaking, art is an inherent part of any human community. Keating isn't suggesting that they all become starving artists, but rather that they live more fully than simply pursuing a course of action/vocation that pleases their families and takes over their lives. This film is apt in being set in the 50s as the baby boomer were really the last American generation to, as a whole, simply pursue money above all else. Sure, maybe Gen-X and the Millennials have their own issues, but one of the greatest aspects of living in the time we are in now is that we value contentment and fulfillment. This, to me, is what the film addresses. It seems to me that your assessment of the movie is over-simplified and a bit too easy. Maybe take a second look and give it some more thought.

We must have watched different movies.

'Ne cherchez plus mon coeur, les btes l'ont mang.' Baudelaire

Your opinion is valid, in fact - It's a major plot point in the film. That what Keating showed his students IS dangerous. You've just stated the obvious, IMO. Also, it's obvious that Keating wouldn't last long at Welton, and when you think about it - they probably would have sacked him pretty quickly

---

"If Keating had had any real integrity, the moment that Todd Anderson made his move, he would have left the room quickly to minimize the damage to them."

---

Todd stands on his desk and says: "O Captain, My Captain"
{Keating pauses for a brief moment, never turning around and then promptly leaves the room, briskly closing the door behind him - camera then switches to Todd, still standing on his desk, with a dumbfounded look on his face}
Todd continues: "Hello?? Captain? uh, Mr. Keating? MR. KEATING?!"
{cue The Price is Right 'Loser' sound byte plays as Mr. Nolan and the rest of the class breaks out in laughter at Todd. Slow Zoom out shot, Benny Hill theme music plays as credits begin to roll. Fin!}