I have seen "Dead Poet's Society" dozens of times, so rather than tell you my feelings about it I think I will pose a number of questions. Feel free to pick up on any one of them -- or more than one. Or, if you are moved, ask and answer your own questions. I will number the questions for your convenience.
1) Nwanda -- punk or hero?
2) Is the suicide glorified in any way? Or do we as readers see that Neil has options and therefore the suicide is seen as rash and misguided?
3) Is the movie, taken as a whole, more celebration or indictment of the carpe diem philosophy espoused by Keating, Whitman, Thoreau, etc.? In the end you have a suicide, a firing, and an expulsion; but you also have self-empowerment (Todd), love (Knox), and a whole bunch of teenagers who are thinking more independently than they were before.
4) Even if we can agree that Keating isn't responsible for Neil's death, does he do anything wrong? Is he blameless?
5) Fun symbolism Department. Birds. At the beginning there is a montage scene of huge flocks of birds rising and turning all together (they're wrens, in case you were wondering). Then there is an immediate cut to the kids going down the circular stairway all together (first day of school), the same directional flow as the birds in the previous shot, bringing out the "flock mentality" of the kids. Later, Knox rides his bike through a huge flock of Canada geese on his way to see Kris jump into the arms of Chet. Upsetting the flock! Also, two scenes of kids walking in the courtyard provide bookend symbols in the movie. First you have Keating encouraging his students to walk to the pace of their own drummer (a Thoreau line!) with the Latin teacher watching from the teacher's lounge above; then, at the end, you have the Latin teacher with his students in the courtyard, walking in unison, reciting something they have memorized, following already made footprints in the snow, with Keating watching from the teacher's lounge above (they wave to one another). If the style of walking is an indication, it's back to normal now in the school.
More later, but this should get you started.
In response to question number 2, I feel that Neil's suicide was rash and misguided because he did have other options. If he had told his father how he actually felt, like Keating advised him, then his father might have been more understanding of his situation. Part of the problem was that his father thought he was doing what was best for Neil. If Neil had told his father the absolute truth, and let his passion for acting shine through, then he might have convinced his father that acting was not a whim and that he had no desire to become a doctor. In a way, Neil met his downfall because he went against the mainstream, but not enough. Overall, he was a romantic thinker, but by not speaking his mind "as hard as cannonballs" to his father, he conformed. Ironically, this one small case of conformity is what did him in. If had followed tradition, or if he had not conformed at all, he might have been okay. But by being in between, he developed a dream of acting, but was not able to fulfill it.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what David says here. One of the key moments in the film is when asked point blank by his father to state his case, Neil pauses, then says "Nothing." Maybe his father wouldn't have listened, but it seems like it would have been an ideal time to have expressed his feelings.
ReplyDeleteKeating is blameless. The only person responsible for Neil is Neil. Grow up and stop blaming other people. Killing himself was a power trip for Neil. His father had complete control over Neil's choices and suicide was a way for Neil to regain power, and so he did. It is absurd and in a way infuriating to lateral the responsibility to third-party players. After all it was not about Neil's relationship with Keating but with his father. Even Neil's father does not deserve the responsibility. No one may have expected Neil's reaction, he was probably borderline anyway. In a similar light, why not let Neil own his death since he couldn't own his life. I mean offing yourself takes some stones. This is not a road one can re-walk. Many who actually are on the verge of suicide view death as an escape, to use Kirkwood Smith's words from That 70s show, "death will be a sweet release". Suicide for people like Neil is also a way to hurt the people they are leaving behind, the people that hurt them. This being said, in my opinion, Neil was a fool. He had a golden opportunity. He should have found a few small things he enjoyed and just stuck it out until the end. He should have just waited until he was 18 and moved away. Less than a year until he could have made his own decisions. What a, to once again quote Mr. Smith, "dumbass".
ReplyDeleteI, Stephen Armstrong, am the unknown. At least to the computer. ;)
ReplyDeleteI agree with the sly dog who appears nameless. Although Neil embraced romantic thinking and "carpe diem" he faltered at the most important time, and did not seize the day. When he should have followed Emerson and spoke cannonballs to his father he filtered his speech and submitted to his fear of his father. Therefore the cause of the suicide rests on Neil's shoulders. That said, a child's flaws can almost always be traced back to his parents and their method of raising the child. This holds true in Neil's case. His father became fixated on the prospect of Neil reaching what he never could, and forgot about his son's feelings or own ambitions.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that the movie in any way glorifies suicide since it shows it’s impact on Neil’s friends’ lives with their grief, expulsion, and overall disunity without him. I agree with Stephen that Neil should have just run away or gotten legal emancipation instead of killing himself. Regarding the 4th question, Keating played an undeniable role in Neil’s death but was not responsible. If he wasn’t teaching then they wouldn’t have looked up his picture in the yearbook, learned about the DPS, wouldn’t have gotten the poetry book, or started resisting conformity with the DPS or by acting. I think that Keating influenced Neil to go for the part, Carpe Diem, with his teachings of romanticism but never actually told him to defy his father’s wishes, lie to the school, or start the DPS club. In fact, he does the opposite and tells Neil to tell his father and also tells Nwanda that there is a time and a place for free thinking as well as for conformity. Although there is suicide, expulsion, and firing the movie celebrates romanticism just by the way it is filmed. All the romantics are viewed in a positive sort of view while the conformists (the snitch whose name I can’t remember, the headmaster, the parents) are portrayed in a way that makes the watcher want to dislike them. Even the way that Keatings teaches is portrayed positively because how would everyone rather learn: sitting in a stuffy classroom with nonstop lectures or marching in the courtyard? Especially the last scene of the kids on the tables celebrates what Keating taught and how it will impact these kids.
ReplyDelete-Ciaran
Due to my lack of experience with the movie I will simply be talking from the half hour that I watched and the chapter.
ReplyDeleteWhen confronted with the fourth question I come to an answer similar to Stephen's. Keating as a teacher is supposed to inspire his students and he did just that. In my experience, the teachers that care a lot about the material and their students are the most enjoyable and therefore more inspiring. Keating seems to present a very one-sided argument to the impressionable teenagers and they eat up the new revolutionary material and ideas. Contrary to Steven's remark, blameless is not the correct word for Keating's "guilt". He had power over these kids that he didn't realize. And though all he did was inspire his students to fully appreciate and grasp a complex thought, he breached the topic in a way where the students were automatically pulled into following his train of thought. He is not entirely blameless due to his influence on the boys, the metaphorical blood splashed on his hands. The majority of blame should be pointed towards the boys themselves, specifically Neil, for not knowing when to draw the line between rebellion and conformity that transcendentalism calls for.
Nice thoughts, y'all. Seems like Keating's responsibility is the hot button issue. For the record, I don't think he deserves any real blame for his actions, either. As a teacher I perhaps view the movie a bit differently than some. In the end, though, his goals seem pretty noble to me. His biggest crime was choosing the wrong environment to teach independent thinking.
ReplyDeleteHank couldn't get the blog to work for him -- here is his response:
I agree with Ciaran in that Keating played a role in Neil's death but was in no way responsible. Keating encouraged Neil to go out and seize the day, he simply wanted Neil to be able to do what he wanted. He wanted only positive things for Neil, and for neil to seize the opportunities that life presents. This in know way is encouraging suicide. But as a result of encouraging neil to go out and make his own choices and do what he wants, neil defies his father. Because of this, Neil gets in trouble with his father; who is already very rough on Neil. As a result of the defiance, his father is tougher than ever on Neil, and eventually drives neil to commit suicide. However, it is not totally Neil's father's fault. Most of the blame must be placed on Neil because it was his hand that did the deed, and he always had the choice, making him the most responsible party in his death.
I disagree with Stephen Armstrong aka the first "unknown user". Stephen argues that because Neil had other options, he merely chose to kill himself so that he could rebel against his father and inevitably hurt him. Over the course of the movie, Neil became a free-thinker, he did what he did because he wanted to. I do not believe we could simply call him a d****** for believing in what he wanted. Neil was a believer, and he did not want to live an unsatisfied life. He knew in the conversation with his father/mother that he would never be able to alter his father's opinion. That is why he said "nothing", because no matter what he said his father would never agree. To make matters worse, his mother told him to "get some rest". Neil was not going to conform to what his parents wanted him to do, and thus felt like living under their rules was worse than dying. He did not want to live according to their rules, and sure he might have been eighteen the next year but the point is that Neil simply was done fighting the current. But instead of letting himself go with it as an alternative, he took himself out of the river. To some this decision would seem “stupid” or “rash”, but to him it fit. He was not going to live an unhappy life, and although he probably could have acted if he left his house, he was not going to go against his parents. Instead, he threw in the towel, because to him, living is not worth living unless you’re “awake” and doing the things you love.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ciaran, I don't think Neil should have killed himself. Yes, he was trapped since his dad wouldn't be actor but like they say " if theres a will, theres a way." There were certainly ways to get around this dilemma and especially since all he had to do was wait one more year till he was 18 instead of ending his life so short. The worst that could happen would be his dad would send him to military school or just be really upset. But the over all point is, he could've thought of ways to get around that rather than giving up because now it gives us the sense that he is not mentally strong and can't handle pressure. In response to question 1, I don't think suicide is glorified. Sure, it happened but that wasn't the message we received. When I think of it, I just pictured someone who had to end their life because they couldn't take on what was being thrown at them. In response to number 4, I believe all teachers should influence their students the way Keating did and encourage them to try new things. Everyone should be motivated to do what they love. Although, since this movie does discuss romanticism, I don't understand the fact it was not shown to its full extent. For keating being a teacher and someone these kids look up to, I believe he should have told Neil to just go for it anyways. The fingers shouldn't be pointed to anybody but Neil and his parents. His parents for not allowing their child to do something he loves and something he has talent in and Neil for giving up so easily. But on the flip side, Neil was hurt by his fathers decision and now his father is hurt by his sons death.
ReplyDeleteBefore I write my entry, I just want to say that the name is Kurtwood Smith, not Kirkwood. Putting that aside however, I don't see any reason to saddle Keating with the blame for Neil's death. While it is true that if Keating had never shown up, Neil probably wouldn't have killed himself, I still believe that Keating was absolutely correct in what he was trying to accomplish with his students. As Mr. Harrington said, Keating's goal was a noble one, although Welton Academy was probably not the most receptive school for his message. Although, that almost makes it more important for the students to have contact with a teacher like Mr. Keating. The other teachers worked so hard to shelter and control their students that the damage would arguably be greater for them NOT to have has Mr. Keating as a teacher. The fact that one student couldn't handle Keating's message does not detract from the immense impact it had on most of the other students. Realistically, even without Keating, a boy as emotionally-charged and passionate as Neil was eventually going to crack after constantly being under the enormous and restrictive thumb of his father. So no, I don't think Keating is deserving of any of the blame for Neil's suicide, it was just an unfortunate reaction to an extremely powerful concept. In terms of who is to blame, I think both Rosana and Steven, as well as all those who agreed with Steven, make good points. While I do think Steven's opinion is extremely rash and one-sided (perhaps to elicit a strong reaction from the rest of us haha) I think he is right in saying that Neil is at least partially to blame. To the rational person, it is obvious that Neil had many choices, all of them better than suicide. He could have further attempted to persuade his father, or simply waited until he became an adult and then left. However, Neil is not a rational person at the time of his death, which I believe is the fault of his unrelenting father. I fully agree with Rosana in that I think Neil was exhausted of always arguing with his father. It is said that the definition of insanity is repeating the same action and expecting a different result; I think Neil had simply come to the realization that he would never be able to get his father to agree. In this sense, I can at least understand why suicide would seem like the best option given the circumstances, although I am in no way supporting or condoning Neil's actions. All in all, I believe that Neil's father and his unrelentingly harsh parenting style was primarily to blame for his son's tragic death. However, Neil is not without blame either, as suicide was in no way the only or best option, although I can certainly understand how it would seem that way.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Matt, somewhat, in his response and am vehemently against Stephen's (here's your rash reaction Matt =) ). Most people have been saying that it was either Keating or Neil to blame for Neil's suicide. While I can definitely see how Keating's ideas could be seen as 'too much for 17 year olds' , I do not see this as the driving force of Neil's suicide. Keating gave these kids a new way to look at the world; a way that they had never seen but always secretly wanted. Keating gave them freedom. He was an adult, a person that the kids respected, and told them that it was ok to live their life as they wanted. What the kids did was live their own lives. If we put aside Neil's death for the moment, let's look at what positive events came out of this: Neil found his true passion for acting, Todd came out of his shell, Knox got a girl, and everyone else became their own person, even if it wasn't all shown on camera. The end scene, as corny as it is, shows that Keating left a mark, a positive one, on all of the kids he taught, which is what he wanted to achieve and did so. Now let's move to Neil. Neil deserves absolutely no blame in his suicide. While he did pull the trigger, he was led their by other forces. While this film does somewhat glorify suicide (question 2) let's, for a moment, take all of the bad-ness that is thought of when suicide comes to mind. Neil was a romantic, a free thinker. He wanted to live his own life, be his own capitan. When he lost that ability, the night of the play, he knew that his life was set. There was no way that at 18 he was gonna leave his parents and be free of them forever. That's just ridiculous. He was assigned to a life that destroyed everything he had built, and that was not ok with him. He was forced into a corner and had only one real way out. If he hadn't killed himself, he would have have hated himself and his life until he did eventually die. In his mind, it was the right choice. Now let me tell you who I fell was responsible for this. It was Mr. Perry. His super-charged hatred of the arts and his ironclad grip on his son's life was what drove Neil off the edge. Mr. Perry saw in his son everything he wished he was, as he states multiple times how hard he worked to put Neil in Welton. Mr. Perry just wanted Neil to be like he wished he was, and was blind to his son's true mental health. Even though Neil loved acting and, through defying his dad, showed his love, his dad just did not want to see it. That was what did it. Neil was consigned to not live life under someone else's terms, so he made sure he didn't have to, It wasn't a power trip or the dangers of free thinking, it was the only move Neil had left. Now i know people would argue (and those who sitll haven't put up posts might do so) that suicide never the 'only option' but we have to look at this from the character's point of view. He lived as a 10 on the romantic scale and was not going to waver for anything, therefore suicide was inevitable with such a misguided and controlling father. It was set up that way, and that's how it happened. This wasn't Neil's fault and it wasn't Keaitng's.
ReplyDeleteI would like to touch on one last issue on this movie and it pertains to the ending. I know how, in class, we talked about the end scene and how it was added in to brighten up the end, and after thinking about it, I do see how something of that nature was necessary. What I found interesting was when the headmaster made the boys sign the paper saying they agreed Keating should be fired. This is a big deal no one has touched on. This scene shows us that, no matter how forward thinking and liberal these boys were, they saw their own future and school life more important than their ideals. Newanda and Neil didn't. These two stuck to their guns (NO PUN INTENDED) and suffered the consequences of 'seizing the day'. This is the resounding message that I saw as important, among others. The idea that seizing the day is how one should live, but this society that we live in does not accept it. No matter how many people in your own lives tell you to follow your dreams and life in the moment, society is not for it. They will nail you down and make you step in line like the rest of us. If those boys really did believe in carpé diem, they would have all gotten expelled becasue it was the right thing to do. I woud have done it. And i guess that's one reason i love this moive so much. Ok, my piece has been said, i will now finish up. Thank you. =)
ReplyDeleteI'd like to take moment right quick to agree and disagree with Evsters on some things. I think he makes some very solid points on why Neil's dad is primarily at fault for his son's suicide, and why Mr. Keating should receive absolutely no blame. However, I think to say that the boy's valued their own futures more then their ideals is ridiculous, as evidenced by them standing on the desks at the end. By signing the papers, they were following more of Mr. Keating's advice. He said, "There is a time for free-thinking and time for conformity." Clearly, this was a battle they were not going to win. I believe the movie wants us to walk away thinking they signed the papers because there was no way around it, but that they were still going to live as Mr. Keating urged them to. This is why I feel that the last scene, as corny as it may be, was necessary. To say the message was not received simply because the other students didn't get themselves expelled is preposterous. Thanks, y'all, I'm really done responding now.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Evan but to a point. I agree with Matt that Neil's dad is a huge blame for Neil's death in him being blinded by what he wants for his son, and not what Neil wanted. But I disagree with Evan in that I blame Mr. Keating some for what he "implanted" per say in these boys minds. I have mixed feelings about this. Mr. Keating didn't push and shove the boys into the thoughts of romantics and "CARPE DIEM!" but... Mr. Keating didn't shy away from encouraging it little by little. I think that if Mr. Keating showed boys how to better handle all of this individualism and being your true self. Then I think that might have helped the boys, not be so dramatic, especially for Nwanda.
ReplyDeleteLet me just start off saying... I LOVE NWANDA. But in my opinion Nwanda is definitely a punk-studmuffin. Nwanda, took things way to far, in the end he was the true, true romantic (that took it too far). I feel like he could be perceived as a Thorough in that Thorough in the eyes of Emerson took Emerson's works/writtings WAY to the heart. Despite his studdly-ness Nwanda in my opinion is an example of Mr. Keating's teachings gone too far.
As for the birds! I have always wanted to do what that guy did on the bike with the birds! But I have only been able to do that will like a flock of three or more rats of the sky (pigeons) O.o.< I just thought I would add that.
In response to question number 1, i believe that Nwanda was both a punk and a hero. Nwanda was one of the few boys he stood up for what he believed in which can be seen as heroic. Some examples of this are the phone call prank, and in the end he refuses to throw Keating under the buss, resulting in his expulsion. While these acts can be seen as heroic they are also foolish. Mr. Keating even thought that the phone prank was stupid. There is a difference between carpe dieming and acting foolishly and Nwanda does not seem to know it. His expulsion in the end doesn't make him seem like a punk, but the other boys didn't get expelled and were still able to show their allegiance to Keating by standing on their desks. So to sum it up, Nwanda was a heroic punk because he stood up for his beliefs, but sometimes acted rashly!
ReplyDeleteOne thing that I would like to add, is although this movie mad me tear up in parts... I thoroughly enjoyed this movie alot! I see myself yelling carpe diem (Seize the Day) and Oh Captain! My Captain! quite often. haha ya...
ReplyDeleteFirst off, not to embarass you Maddi, forgive me, but I believe it's Thoreau not thorough.Ok, now in response to #2, I believe that Neil's suicide was the result of a couple things:
ReplyDelete1)his father's restrictive and overbearing behavior to control/force his son into what he could not be
2)his newly discovered passion for acting, and just as sudden realization that while under his parents it would be impossible for him to ever live out his dream
3)Mr. Keating's enlightening class in which he discovered romanticism, "CARPE DIEM!", and how to start thinking for himself
The combination of all the above with Neil's mental and emotional state led to his decision to take his own life. I agree with Evan (to an extent) and Matt. Though his English class was a powerful influence on Neil's life, Mr. Keating was not at all to blame for his death. I agree with Mr. H that the only crime he was guilty of was being in the wrong environment to teach free thinking. Though, all of his students benefitted from it. Even Neil, before he ended his life by learning from Mr. Keating was able to pursue his childhood dream. If only Neil had followed his advice later, and actually talked with his father about his passion for acting, his father would not have reacted so poorly at the end. No, I don't think that it would have changed his father's opinion of his son's future, but it would lessened the severity of his actions and by consequence possibly prolonged Neil's life.