MovieChat Forums > Dead Poets Society (1989) Discussion > Anybody else disturbed by the 'messages'...

Anybody else disturbed by the 'messages' of the film ?

posted 11 years ago by calcaylor
93 replies | jump to latest

I know this is probably going to elicit some very negative reactions but I have heard what a great film this is over the years and finally decided to try it. At least 2 people I have very high opinions of spoke very well of this film. Having now seen it, I found a couple of its core premises troubling.

First off, Keating is encouraging all these boys in a very traditional prep school to live these artistic indulgent lives. They try to defend his character on this point by having him say he wanted them to explore the indulgent life but he didn't want them to get kicked out of school. Seriously? 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? Too far in the sense of getting either themselves or himself in serious trouble?

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."

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. 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.

.*´¨¨)
¸.•´¸.•*´¨)
(¸.•´ Think heavenly, act locally...

[–] harpon-1 11 years ago

I don't know how old you may be
but what I feel you may be lacking is a perspective on the times
and considering that this film was made 24 years ago
and about a period of time over 50 years gone

while the times before the tumultuous '60's has been frozen in media mindset
as one thing, romantic and full of big cars and prom queens
a lot of people found the cold war years tense and oppressive
the extreme authority of such institutions as prep schools
and college greek life indeed seemed to have a real sadistic edge
that was rather rejected then in the next ten years or so.

I see this kind of feeling expressed towards an Animal House as well
and at times it seems now largely connected to constant biased political diatribes of these times,
especially post-9-11

very few people who experienced something of school life in those times would feel the way you do.

http://thehearpe.tripod.com/index.html

[–] hoosiersfan2011 11 years ago

Good points. I thought this movie was decent when it first came out, but a few things about it bother me now.

Keating graduated from that same private school years before, so he would have well understood the consequences of challenging the establishment too much. He foolishly pushes the boundaries too often. He should have thought of ways to inspire his students that were more subtle and within the bounds of what would be considered acceptable at that school. Leading lively classroom discussions about literature and encouraging the boys to develop their critical thinking skills would have been more productive than having them stand on their desks and rip up their textbooks.

I think it's a mistake to portray Neil's father as pure evil. He seems like some unfeeling monster. The story should have made him not so one-dimensional.

Probably what bothers me most is that I can't figure out what the story's final message is supposed to be. That inspiring your students to be independent thinkers can lead to tragedy? That kids can't handle the idea of independent thought and action because they're too young and emotionally immature and unstable? That if a father is a cruel tyrant, eventually he'll regret his actions? (I have to wonder if the screenwriter had a father like Neil's, and writing this movie was his way of saying, "See, Dad, what you could have driven me to by being so mean to me all those years?") What are we supposed to take away from the fact that a creative, well-meaning teacher is unfairly blamed for a suicide and that his professional reputation is probably ruined?

[–] yusef-ghanima 10 years ago

you are that red haired rat kid, you are him, you are him

[–] Zando777 8 years ago

Um, okay.

[–] tokyocean 10 years ago

I think it's interesting and amusing how people have grown accustomed the the typical layout of a film or a novel. A movie doesn't need a plot to be great. A movie doesn't need to have an intended message to be great. This isn't some sort of children's fable with a moral portrayed to the audience.

[–] mrkadoche 10 years ago

I know this post is over a year old but I just wanted to say that Neil's father is very well portrayed as the opposite of pure evil. He is trying to do the best for his son and it shows in the fantastic acting where you can tell he doesn't want to send his son to military school but feels there is no choice. In addition to that, after Neil's suicide his reaction is heart breaking. He breaks down and cries "My Son My Son" if he was being portrayed as pure evil he would have stood there and said something cold.

In my mind Neil's father is a fantastic character who represents in part the hardships in coming of age and the tough decisions a Father has to make, yet often doesn't get right. Neil's father has the right motivations, but he is the product of exactly the sort of closed in thinking that Mr Keating is trying to teach the students to avoid. That is where the true tradgedy of the film lies.

[–] Rosabel 10 years ago

It goes to show how different people can have completely different interpretations of the same scene. I took that scene with the father finding Neil's body completely the other way. Even in that moment of crisis, his focus is on himself: "MY son", i.e., my possession, the extension of myself. Which is what Neil was - his father was vicariously living through him the life he thought was successful and meaningful. Neil didn't really exist to him as an independent person. Even in death, he didn't use the boy's name, but referred to him in relation to himself.

Flat, drab passion meanders across the screen!

[–] claremacksee 10 years ago

Actually Mr Perry did use Neil's name after Neil suicided. Over the hysterics of his wife, Mr Perry screams "My son, my son! Oh Neil!" as he is attempting to pick Neil's body up off the floor.

DPS is my favourite movie of all time. I wsa 14 when I saw it at the cinema, and it haunted me for years. Even now, 25 years later, the tears start coming and they don't stop until it's over. Powerful stuff, although intense for young, impressionable minds. I guess that was the point, really.

[–] liscarkat (16476) a year ago

"My son" is not an expression of possession. It's an expression of deep affection.

[–] hoosiersfan2011 10 years ago

I can think of a couple movies where, in my opinion, a troubled father/son relationship is handled much better and more realistically than in Dead Poets Society.

In the first half of Breaking Away, the father says some pretty hurtful things about and to his son, who is a year out of high school and hasn't yet decided what to do with his life. But later in the movie the father gradually becomes more sympathetic to his son. There's a really wonderful scene where they go for a walk and the dad talks about when he was a young man--in a very natural, real way. The scene doesn't end with their hugging or saying I love you or anything like that, but you definitely sense that they've made a breakthrough in their relationship.

In The Graduate, you can feel the main character drowning under the weight of his parents' expectations. Ben's father at first tries to be understanding toward his aimless son, a recent college graduate. But (quite understandably) the dad's frustration grows as Ben seems content to while away the summer doing nothing but drinking beer and floating in the pool. Ben seems poised to reject his parents' lifestyle but has no real plan for how to find his own path in life. Meanwhile, his mystified parents are left to wonder what's going on with their formerly high-achieving son.

These two movies present complex and believable father/son conflicts and relationships. In contrast, Neil's father in DPS seems like a one-note, cliche bad guy whom no person or event has even the slightest chance of ever changing. Even Neil's death doesn't make him see the error of his ways. He ensures that Mr. Keating will officially be blamed for the tragedy and thus avoids any responsibility for his role in his son's death.

[–] annlevtex 7 years ago

Can I just say how great it is to see another poster on imdb reference the film "Breaking Away"? It is one of my favorite coming-of-age films of all time. And sports films, actually. And even comedies. It surprises me how many people now seem to have forgotten it entirely. Dennis Quaid was in it, and Daniel Stern. It was kind of a classic.

I LOVED the father/son relationship in that movie. It was strained but ultimately loving. Obviously, things don't always work out that way. No doubt there were such bonds that ended up in ruin due to generation gaps, overly harsh parenting, etc. But it doesn't have to be so black and white.

I don't fault the actor in this film. He was directed to play it that way. In the final scene I found him pretty heartbreaking.

I went to a New England boarding school, albeit a few decades later. But that air still lingered, to some degree. It could be pretty...cold, in more than one sense of the word. One big difference is that it appeared Neil's family lived very nearby. That was usually not the case. Students lived there for a reason; their homes were a distance away, usually two hours or more. In this case it seemed like Neil was a local kid who had gotten into the school and was living there as part of the deal.

[–] marktayloruk (2375) 3 years ago

Boarding schools are unnecessary and unnatural. A child's place is in the.home.

[–] archer1267 10 years ago

Keating graduated from that same private school years before, so he would have well understood the consequences of challenging the establishment too much.
--

Keating clearly says, when asked about the Dead Poets Society, "I doubt the current administration would look favorably upon that." I take the word "current" to be significant, suggesting that the administration in Mr. Keating's time was more open.

I think a lot depends on generational understanding. I saw Mr. Perry as strict, but "pure evil?" Come on. I thought he clearly loved his son, albeit in a "tough love" kind of way. Mr. Perrys weren't that unusual, once upon a time, before all the coddling, "I'm not a parent but your friend" stuff started becoming the norm. Neil made the point of saying that his family wasn't well-off, and he seemed to be an only child, so damn straight his dad didn't want him blowing his ride. (And how is Mr. P. all that different from parents today with their over-programmed kids, going from one activity to the next, all in an effort to make themselves more appealing to a college admissions board?)

I don't know that this film needed to have a "message" per se. Mr. Keating inspired his students to think outside the box, and with that came consequences. Does it mean that the consequences are always tragic, like Neil, or that the nonconformists are punished, like Charlie? Not necessarily - Knox got the girl at the end, and Todd finally found his voice and was able to take a stand on something.

I like to think that Mr. Keating went back to London to be with the woman he loved :) And, in time, he would have found a place at a Rudolf Steiner or Montessori school!

[–] hoosiersfan2011 10 years ago

My opinion of Neil's father isn't influenced by what generation I grew up in. I have no problem with parents who expect their kids to be responsible, to work hard, and to become strong achievers. I do have a problem with control freaks, which Neil's father certainly is. The screenplay offers many indications that Mr. Perry is not strict, but controlling.

He tells Neil that he can't be on the yearbook staff because Neil has signed up for too many extracurricular activities that will take time away from his studies. A good father would have talked this over with his son before the school year began instead of issuing an order on the first day of school. Mr. Perry isn't interested in his son's opinions about which activities he wants to participate in and why. He also doesn't give Neil a chance to prove that he can handle several activities as well as his studies. Mr. Perry simply hands down an edict about what Neil must do.

Later Mr. Perry forbids Neil to be in the play. A good father would have said that, although he disagrees with Neil's decision to be in the play, forcing him to drop out so late in the process would be unfair to everyone else in the production. So he would have let Neil perform but then talk with him afterwards about the issue. In the movie, Mr. Perry is embarrassed to find out from someone else that Neil is rehearsing to be in a play. He's also angry that Neil decided to pursue an activity that he chose for himself, not one that his father chose for him. And he's furious that Neil defies his orders by not dropping out of the production. So the father focuses on his own anger and pride, and what he wants. What is best for Neil or anyone else is simply irrelevant to him.

And Mr. Perry explodes when they get home after the play, informing Neil that he's sending him to a military academy. A good parent would have stayed calm and said "Go to bed, and we'll talk about this tomorrow."

When kids are grade-school age and younger, it's appropriate to tell them what to do. As they get older, however, a good parent starts helping his kids make their own decisions. He backs off a little more each year and even lets them make their own mistakes. He also listens to their ideas and opinions instead of treating them like mindless dopes who can't think for themselves. This is how kids learn to be independent thinkers and competent decision makers. Controlling your kids only makes them resentful and keeps them weak.

And every story and movie does need to have a point. It can't be just beautiful images. It can't be just a collection of random ideas. It can't be just "a bunch of stuff happened; the end." The whole reason to tell any kind of story is to communicate something specific to your audience. The audience members don't need to all agree on what the point or message is, but they should come away from the story with definite opinions about what the writer was trying to communicate.

[–] archer1267 10 years ago

And every story and movie does need to have a point. It can't be just beautiful images. It can't be just a collection of random ideas. It can't be just "a bunch of stuff happened; the end."
--
I know how storytelling works, but thanks for the lesson. I just don't think it's as simplistic as "THIS is the message and THIS is what we want the audience to take away from the movie" is all, and I think the comments on any imdb.com message board reflect that.

[–] hoosiersfan2011 10 years ago

I know how storytelling works, but thanks for the lesson.

You're very welcome! Glad I could help!

[–] MtnMan13 8 years ago

Later Mr. Perry forbids Neil to be in the play. A good father would have said that, although he disagrees with Neil's decision to be in the play, forcing him to drop out so late in the process would be unfair to everyone else in the production. So he would have let Neil perform but then talk with him afterwards about the issue. In the movie, Mr. Perry is embarrassed to find out from someone else that Neil is rehearsing to be in a play. He's also angry that Neil decided to pursue an activity that he chose for himself, not one that his father chose for him. And he's furious that Neil defies his orders by not dropping out of the production. So the father focuses on his own anger and pride, and what he wants. What is best for Neil or anyone else is simply irrelevant to him.

And Mr. Perry explodes when they get home after the play, informing Neil that he's sending him to a military academy. A good parent would have stayed calm and said "Go to bed, and we'll talk about this tomorrow."

You sound very young. Parenting is not as easy as you imply, and your condescending "A good parent would do this or that" tone is rather simplistic and native.

You seem to be forgetting the very significant story point that Neil lied in order to secure a part in the play. If my kid went behind my back like that, I would probably react similarly. If there's one thing I want to teach my kids it's that actions have consequences, and if the rest of the performance is inconvenienced because of it then it's on my son for lying and not because he is being punished.

Understand that I am not defending the borderline abuse exhibited by the father in this film, but at the same time, he's not entirely wrong in this scenario. He had a valid reason to feel betrayed by his son. As for Neil, well, as my own father once said, suicide is the ultimate act of selfishness.

[–] hoosiersfan2011 8 years ago

I am neither young, naïve, simplistic, nor condescending. I simply stated my opinion about what I find to be the poorly written, one-dimensional character of Neil's father.

You are the naïve one if you think suicide is about nothing but selfishness. It's about depression, something you clearly know nothing about. You sound hard-hearted and judgmental.

You also are the condescending one, because you can't state your opinion without including personal insults.

[–] MtnMan13 8 years ago

I simply stated my opinion...

Yes, and I simply stated my opinion that you come across as young, simplistic, naive, and condescending.

And, yes, suicide is selfish. It's a final statement that says, "I don't care about anybody but myself," because he is not thinking about how his death will affect those around him. Suffering from depression is not an excuse.

[–] The-Animals 7 years ago

I am deeply concerned about your kid(s). Hopefully they'll recover from your dreadful attitude and lack of self-awareness.

[–] Gurillanic 9 years ago

"It's better to burn out than to fade away."

When you live your life as if you should, pursing your passions then even death can inspire others to better their lives. It's the message that some things are more important than being safe and secure in your life.

Today, we live in a world where the free-thinkers did better than they did at that time. It was literally life and death decisions when it came to conformity. We live in a society freer than that now.

http://www.examiner.com/x-25119-Monte-Vista-Zombie-Examiner <-- Excellent Zombie Advice

[–] thrillho1010 11 years ago

I don't feel like Keating was encouraging them to be indulgent or anti-establishment. He has a bunch of students who are extremely bright and on their way to doing great things. They didn't need to learn how to be more academic, but to be more expressive. To make decisions, to think outside of the box, to be something greater than the robots that they've always been taught to be. Most of the great contributors to society aren't just brains, but innovators. That's what I took from his teachings. He never told them to get wasted and be anti-establishment, but to merely understand themselves and become better, more well rounded individuals. For example, I don't think he was telling Neil to throw away academics and to pursue becoming a professional actor, but that if he did something he was passionate about, he'd become more fulfilled and be able to do great things, whatever that may be. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's how I saw it.

[–] Assteroid30 11 years ago

I second that....beautifully put.

[–] doug65oh 11 years ago

I don't think so either. The core message I think is this: Whatever will be will be, but in the here and now know it’s okay to be young, to open your minds and look beyond the boundaries established [for example] by some moldy old bastard obsessed with the machinery of poetical interpretation. A poet is not a machine. He or she has a mind, a heart, and a soul. Be open to living life.

That message, in a broader sense, applies almost universally.

[–] stevenackerman69 10 years ago

I agree. Maybe there will always be people who get beaten down (Neil killing himself, Keating getting fired, Charlie expelled), but there will always be people who will still try to live extraordinary lives. At the end, when they stand on the desks, they are telling Keating that they will not forget what he taught them and even though Nolan will be teaching the class the traditional way, they will still try to live the way Keating said. There is a quote, "You have not converted a man because you have silenced him." That applies here.

[–] dgcasey 10 years ago

Your analysis is so far off the mark it's incredible.

Whatever will be will be, but in the here and now know it’s okay to be young, to open your minds and look beyond the boundaries established

Really? You weren't paying attention then. Keating was admonishing these young men to seize the day, to seize every single day and to not stop seizing the day, even after leaving that school. Or has everyone forgotten him quoting Thoreau, about coming to the end of one's life and realizing that they had failed to live? He wasn't telling them to seize the day, but only while you're here at this school.

"Whatever will be will be?" Sorry, Keating would laugh in your face and tell you that whatever will be will be what you make it be. It's NOT okay to open your minds and look beyond the boundaries only while you're young. You should be doing that every single day until the day you take your last breath.

[–] Scarlett_Butler 11 years ago

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

Teaching someone the value of thinking for themselves is the same as encouraging them to live an "artistic, indulgent" life?

What the hell?

[–] angelatalk 11 years ago

I question the OP's description of an 'indulgent artistic life.' Creative activity can be hard work. Writers, composers, actors, musicians, dancers face incredible competition in getting their work out. Many gifted people never make their living only working at their art. Creation is more than a burst of inspiration; it involves revision, reworking and polishing and keeping the faith when no one seems interested in your work. I've known several published poets and actors and this is their life.

[–] Rhak 11 years ago

I don't think he ever incouraged them to live "artistic indulgent lives", as you put it. Keating knows that if nothing is done about it, they will continue on the path their parents set up for them and he wants to show them that they are not travelling on a beaten path. He wants to show them that there are other perspectives, alternatives to what the authorities tell them is "the right thing" for them.

I think you ran into some kind of moral trap the writers created here. Keating is not the bad guy, he's the victim. The movie shows how many of the students are warded from choice, detached from free will. He is trying to encourage them to take it back. He believed in in the goodness of Neil's father, he thought that he would understand how much acting meant to Neil and then let him continue to pursue his dream. Neil's father failed to meet Keitings expectations and drove Neil into a corner.

You argue that Keating should have known that something like this would happen, but how could he? He is too naive, too starry-eyed to see that these boys will run against a wall at some point, no matter how hard they try to achieve their dreams. He tells them to seize the day, but he fails to mention that sometimes they won't be able to do so. Sometimes life will crush their dream, put them on their knees and make them believe they will never be able to recover. Not knowing that you can in fact recover from such a backset, Neil sees no other way than to kill himself.

The only thing you could accuse Keating of is his naivety in believing the boys would figure life out on their own after being shown the power of perspective. Some of them did, sadly one did not.

[–] Low_Rent 11 years ago

I really like your interpretation of Keating. I think that we as viewers can objectively look at the events of the film and say that Keating should have done this or that but, as you imply, Keating was making a mistake in not ensuring his students were grounded in some reality. His intentions were good but he went about it the wrong way and Neil killed himself. I agree with you in that while telling the students to "seize the day" he should also have told them that if you get knocked down, get back up. It doesn't mean your dreams are over, just delayed.

[–] whitelighter07 10 years ago

I'll probably get blasted for this, but I'm wondering if maybe this "carpe diem" thing was even within the scope of the course. Perhaps he should've put more emphasis on poetry - the subject he was hired to teach them - and less emphasis on philosophy. I think he did a good job of making poetry interesting, and inspiring the boys' creativity. However, I agree with those of you who think that teaching boys that age to "seize the day" is playing with fire. I'm not saying they didn't gain anything valuable from it, just that they might not have the maturity to see that this can have dire consequences if not taken with a grain of salt.

[–] Owlwise 10 years ago

I think it was within the scope of the course. Education isn't just about learning facts, but thinking about them; philosophy is part of the interior structure of living itself. And a great deal of poetry quite specifically espouses various philosophical viewpoints. Carpe diem is one of them, going back centuries, even millennia. Not to discuss this aspect of poetry would have been a failure to teach the subject.

What is education, anyway? Merely the means of securing incredibly expensive working papers one day? Or is it supposed to be about helping individual minds to learn to think for themselves, to decide what life is about -- life in general & one's own life in particular? Yes, it's dangerous -- most worthwhile things in life are -- but the alternative is staying locked up in the safety of the confining box others have made for you.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] whitelighter07 10 years ago

Incidentally, I discovered "carpe diem", is, in fact, from a Latin poem by Horace. I understand that this idea is expressed in different words by other poets throughout the centuries, which in itself makes it relevant. Still, I wish Keating had mentioned the origin of the phrase, just to keep the theme of the movie a little more strongly centered around poetry, and perhaps to help justify Keating's encouraging the boys to take heed of it.

[–] dgcasey 10 years ago

Perhaps he should've put more emphasis on poetry - the subject he was hired to teach them - and less emphasis on philosophy.

How can you teach a class in classical poetry and NOT get into philosophy? You can't study Whitman or Byron seriously without delving into the philosophy that they wrote about. When read Frost and him talking about the road less traveled, don't you get into the philosophy of what "all the difference" might be?

[–] Dark_Sithlord 10 years ago

Outstanding analysis, Rhak.

[–] freejazz38 11 years ago

Go thump a bible, lemming

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Owlwise 10 years ago

Where'd you get the idea that an artistic life is indulgent? It's hard work, often unrewarding from a financial viewpoint, and those who pursue it accept that worldly success is probably going to be quite rare, and that a lot of personal sacrifices will have to be made.

What Keating was encouraging them to do was to think for themselves, make their own choices -- and their own mistakes. He wanted them to know that it's possible to attempt to live the life you want, rather than the life that others have decided on for you. Which is a lesson more of us need to learn!

[–] Rosabel 10 years ago

When did we ever see that the artistic life is hard work? All we see is Neil deciding to audition, then opening night and bam! He's a fantastic success. It's implied that he's such a brilliant talent he soars to the top on the very first try. Who wouldn't prefer that to a 10-year slog in medical school?

Flat, drab passion meanders across the screen!

[–] Owlwise 10 years ago

But did Neil want to be a doctor?

Besides, a success in his first play, a school production, is no guarantee of an effortless rise to the top. What that scene did show was that his heart was in acting, not medicine.

But more than that, the essential question is: Whose life is it? Does Neil belong to himself, or to his father? Does he exist to fulfill his father's unrealized dreams, or to pursue his own dreams?

The psychologist Carl Jung said that children are often condemned to live out the unlived lives of their parents, e.g., the failed athlete who wants his son to become the superstar he never could be

So, should Neil have accepted the life his father had chosen for him, even though it was inauthentic for him -- or should his life have been his own, to succeed at or to fail at, according to his choices?

Who decides how you should live? You, or someone else? Which would you prefer?

[–] Degree7 10 years ago

Just a few points to the OP.

Life in the 1950s was somewhat controlled for both young men and women, although I'm sure women certainly had it worse, being confined to a life of housekeeping and raising kids. This was before women's right movement, but that's going off topic.

The authority of a 'prestigious' private school would be somewhat self-defeating, and what Keaton didn't want was to see these kids pressed into a life of being a doctor or a lawyer, and not really getting the chance to explore themselves at their most interesting and wild age. The school to the stance of squashing any self discovery, while Keaton wanted to inspire and have them thrive on it.

We really only get one life to live, and Keaton understood it would be a waste for the boys to not be able to discover their passions and inner-selves at the age when we all get to do it. But Keaton was fighting a whole system, a way of thinking. So he was probably doomed from the start.

Neil committing suicide wasn't Keaton's fault, it was Neil's parents, specifically his Dad's for being such an unforgiving @ss.

Limit of the Willing Suspension of Disbelief: directly proportional to its awesomeness.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]