Teach them the passion of learning,not the learning of passion ...

Rating: 6/10 (25 October 2011)

The first time I saw "Dead Poets Society" at 16, I liked it BUT my appreciation was undermined by the fact that many high school teachers were screening this and "Good Will Hunting" to us. I guess their pedagogic value didn't leave them indifferent, nor the inspirational message about learning to think by ourselves, and to forge well-made rather than well-filled heads. Now I'm almost thirty, I saw the film several times, I read Roger Ebert's infamous review, I went to prep school, then a prestigious business school, I had my share of dreams and conflicts with my father, enough to build a second and more constructive opinion.
On the surface, "Dead Poets Society" ticks all the boxes of the great film begging for a Best Picture nomination, the impressive direction, the dazzling cinematography, the inspirational score, the sober setting, the supporting characters implying numerous subplots enriching the story and on the top of that: the inspirational message lying beneath an endearing script, full of poetry and an intelligent hymn to the extraordinary value of life. "Dead Poets Society" is a remarkable cinematic achievement BUT isn't life too complex a concept to be only defined by the duality of oppression/repression, conservatism/freedom. Are we either free- spirited or close-minded? Peter Weir can't prevent the script from falling into inexcusably manipulative clichés.
The movie sins by oversimplification, when it could have developed a more human and realistic approach instead of the whole hysteria that invokes romantic poetry as a dream builder.
On that level, I've always had a problem with Neil's suicide. I couldn't put my finger why, until I had an important discussion with my father. I revealed that everything I did was out of fear of disappointing him. He invested a lot of hopes for my future, but in the end, I was unhappy, and wished I could fulfill my personal, artistic dreams. I will never forget his answer. It was my entire fault, and I was just so lazy I couldn't do something on my own. I waited for a support when I could at least give a try and present him with a fait accompli. He was right, all I did was comforting my thinking with the fallacious idea that I would never make my dreams true as long as he disapproved. Parents are notorious for being the first dream-killers, but believing it's an insurmountable obstacle is the sign of a level of immaturity so high, that any anti-conformism would fatally lead to irresponsible decisions anyway.
Neil had choices. By leaving the house, he would have tried to live by himself, to become an adult. Through an existential impulse, as the most authentic illustration of the 'Carpe Diem' motto, instead of killing himself; he would have symbolically killed his father, and become a man... OR ...he could have considered the possibility to study theater in Harvard. Neil acted out of cowardice, starting by a lie that would have naturally upset his domineering father. The suicide killed the very purpose of the film, by trying to point an accusing finger on an oppressive system, responsible of Neil's act while the mise en scene was so overdone that it failed to show it as an act of despair.
This Manichean approach falls in lamentably formulaic plot devices, in order to make Keating the scapegoat of a fascist system, while Neil is the only one to blame. Or, for that matter, the writer, who probably thought that 'death' is so cinematically impacting, it's the only way to solve a problem, while it's pure opportunistic dramatization.
Anyway, Neil was the leader of the group : with his death, all the wannabe-poets were reduced to a bunch of recycled stereotypes, illustrating the worst influence an anti-establishment mind can have on spoiled rich kids with the right predispositions for pseudo rebellion. The most outrageous, yet realistic one is the use of poetry to impress and seduce girls. At least, one was sincere in his Don Juan role, while the other could have been more responsible and respect the fact that the girl he wanted was with another boy. Anyway, the romantic subplot was dull and predictable and reduced poetry to a bunch of slogans made up to 'get the girl'. I had a guy in high school who published poems dedicated to some classmates (all girls naturally) and they were all meowing over how sweet it was. As a poem writer myself, I couldn't help but question the motivation behind these writings.
(I won't go further with the other characters, one was labeled as the official villain, with no redeeming quality, and the two nerdy guys played the comic relief part, I liked it when they danced rock'n'roll but who the hell were these two guys fencing outside ?)
Poetry as seduction or poetry as therapy to overcome a sickly shyness, in the content, the whole course of Mr. Keating is a show, where the students love more the teacher than poetry. In prep school, I will never forget my math teacher who was a tyrant, she made me so nervous I felt I would nauseate sometimes. But ultimately, I remember her as one of the greatest teachers I ever had. "Dead Poets Society" starts with the wrong step by showing a professor already popular, when the greatest achievement is to go against the naturally pointless rebellious attitude of student. Teach them the passion for learning not the learning of passion.
Besides, some of the greatest artistic uvres were made during oppressive times, that let the very best of human soul translate its angst, its passion in an explosion of creativity ... and one must experience prison to dream of escape.