MovieChat Forums > Dead Poets Society (1989) Discussion > Film doesn't age well

Film doesn't age well

posted 8 years ago by MtnMan13
24 replies | jump to latest

This film doesn't age well, and by that I simply mean that as a viewer grows up, this film becomes less appealing. I first saw Dead Poets Society as a freshman in college, and boy did it resonate with me! The message I got is that you should rebel against authority because they're a bunch of ignorant old fogies who want to extinguish your inner fire.

So the boys in the film rebel, and the young me found this very cathartic and inspiring, but the older and wiser me says, To what end? Isn't this just rebellion for the sake of rebellion? What are they rebelling against, exactly? A first rate education? A structured environment in which they are learning the skills and discipline necessary to succeed in life? What was Mr. Keating really teaching his students? His lessons in self-discovery now strike me as trite and haphazard, like he was inviting them to take a journey without first consulting a map. Teaching students to think outside the box is a worthwhile endeavor, but don't they at least need to understand what's in the box first?

[–] Scarlett_Butler 8 years ago

A film that has layers that reveal themselves to the viewer at different stages in the viewer's life is a film that does indeed age well.

Your first interpretation of the film was that of a teenager who wants to rebel. That's normal. Your older self interpreted the film as an adult. That's good. Why would you want to see the film the same way you did as a teenager?

[–] MtnMan13 8 years ago

A film that has layers that reveal themselves to the viewer at different stages in the viewer's life is a film that does indeed age well.

I agree, but what does that have to do with a one-dimensional film like Dead Poets Society? The biggest problem is that if the viewer doesn't accept Keating as a brilliant, infallible sage -- and the movie very clearly expects us to -- then the story simply doesn't work. A layered film would have been more honest in this respect, showing us different dimensions of Keating's character, but it doesn't, and so for anybody who sees through the paper-thin emotional manipulation, there's nothing left to grasp onto making the film a hollow exercise.

[–] MichaelJPollock (781) 5 years ago

Agreed.
I think Scarlet_Butler's insightful comment would apply more to a film like Neame's 'The Prime of Miss Jean Brody', a film that actually invites different, more nuanced readings of the free-spirited charismatic teacher's character (played by Maggie Smith), her motivations and the consequences of her teachings.

[–] mrjbaptist 8 years ago

Enjoyed this film when I first saw it - as a college student. I have enjoyed the film every time Ive watched it since - probably at least a dozen times.

Of course, I am also in my second career now, working as an educator, so I still relate to young people.

[–] catbookss 8 years ago

TO YOU it doesn't age well, and while it once resonated with you back when you were in college, it no longer does. That's fine, that's your opinion and current perspective.

Just because you now, from your current perspective, now think it was about rebelling merely for the sake of rebelling, doesn't mean it is, or was.

Maybe you missed the point back when, relating to it merely as a call to rebellion for the sake of it, when it was not. What if the real point was "to thine own self be true?"

[–] MtnMan13 8 years ago

What if the real point was "to thine own self be true?"

That's exactly the sort of trite and hollow moralizing I'm referring to. Why does being true to oneself require rebelling against an authority who by all accounts has your best interests at heart? Why can't you be true to yourself while still following the rules and setting a good example? As the Apostle Paul said to Timothy, "Don't let anyone think less of you because you are young. Be an example to all believers in what you say, in the way you live, in your love, your faith, and your purity."

This is the biggest problem with Mr. Keating's advice: he encourages the boys to rebel without giving them any good reason to, and, no, "To thine own self be true" is not a good reason. As the saying goes, those who refuse to follow the rules often provide a good example for why those rules exist in the first place.

[–] catbookss 8 years ago

You think that's a trite and hollow message ? ... I hardly know how to respond to you if you honestly believe that. What could possibly be more important than discovering who you really aren't? What else is more difficult than realizing who you truly are, and actuating it? It's a difficult thing to do, and not many are able to do it, even halfway, let alone fully.

I don't understand why you continue to fixate on rebellion, when that wasn't the point at all. An authority m be it a parent ior professor may genuinely THINK they are acting in their children's or pupil's best interests, but in fact are acting in their own interests. This isn't at all uncommon.

What makes you think that not following rules that may be outdated is a negative thing? If we all did that, we'd think the world was flat. Yet we now know it isn't. If you had your way, we'd still think it's flat, because that was "the rule" at some point, and those who thought otherwise were castigated and reviled. Yet now "flat earthers " are ridiculed.

So what, exactly, did Keating advise his students to do that's so repellant and objectionable to you now, that you once found inspirational? Tearing out the preface to a textbook of poetry written by someone who clearly had no understanding of it?

To realize they were prone to following the candence of others' marching without even realizing it?

To not realize that they, like others who'd come before them who were now dead, may not have discovered who they really were and lived their lives under the pretense of others who had done the exact same thing?

How do you suppose evolution, growth is accomplished if everyone merely follows the footsteps of those who came before them? Neuton didn't, nor Einstein, nor any of many since or before.

[–] MtnMan13 8 years ago

I'm focusing on the rebellion angle because that's the angle the film focused on. Keating said, "Be your own man! Go out there and do your own thing!" And what do we see as a result of his encouragement? The boys rebelling. Lying. Breaking the rules not to achieve some end but to simply break the rules. I'm not dismissing the importance of self-discovery in general but how it is depicted in this film.

[–] catbookss 8 years ago

I'm heartened to hear you're not dismissing the importance of self-discovery. It's a crucial aspect of growing up, and it's not at all easy..

Being a teen is very difficult. You couldn't PAY me enough to go through it again. All teens rebel to one degree or another, because it's a period of heightened sel-discovery. You're not a child anymore, nor are you an adult, it's a kind of no man's land, as you yourself felt, which is why this film resonated with you back when,

It's a time of individuation. You've discovered your parents and teachers aren't always right, and are flawed just like everyone else is, including you. So who ARE you, and who do you WANT to be? You become aware that you're not your parents, or your teachers, and not your friends either, so who are you, WHAT are you?

What I wish is that you'd be able to watch the film, unbiased by your young self, who only related to rebellion, because that really isn't the point of it, although I know you think it is.

In reality, Kesting was NOT encouraging rebellion, for rebellion's sake. The boys were already full of energy and the usual teen "rebellion," before Kesting arrived on the scene. I don't think you noticed that, and in your adult incarnation laid all the blame for what happened later on Keating, when it wasn't his fault.

Keating wasn't telling them to be reckless, or study. To the contrary, he took Nuwanda and Neil to task for it. He came into the study area and told Nuanda his call from "God" was stupid, and could have gotten him expelled from school, which he clearly thought was a bad idea.

When Neil came to him, he encouraged him to talk frankly with his father. Neil knew it was of no use to even try, and he was right, but Keating didn't know that.

Neil's father's problem was that he didn't listen, he gave Neil any chance to speak or any say in what he wanted to do with his life. Yet when Neil actually died, he was genuinely sad about it, but still hadn't learned anything and instead made Keatinf his scapegoat for his son's death.

[–] Owlwise (1536) 5 years ago

Absolutely agree with you. Neil's father honestly believed that he was doing everything for his son, without ever having the self-awareness to see that he was using his son to make up for his own sense of failure, of being cheated of the life he wanted but never could get. He came across as seeing Neil more as an extension of himself, rather than being his own person. All unconsciously, of course.

And yes, Keating wasn't "encouraging rebellion for its own sake" at all. He was making his students aware that they actually had some agency in their own lives, and that it's not wrong to explore that. Would some of them make mistakes? Of course! It's part of the process of becoming your own authentic person, instead of simply, unquestioningly living a life that's been planned & programmed for you. And as you point out, more than once Keating gently but firmly reminded them to keep their wits about them, to think as well as to feel. He genuinely did want the best for them.

[–] Jill-McBain 8 years ago

I am reminded of my youth every time I see it. I relive the boys' Feelings every time I watch it. It is so universal. I love it.

'Ne cherchez plus mon coeur, les bêtes l'ont mangé.' Baudelaire

[–] MtnMan13 8 years ago

This is why I say the film appealed to me when I was younger. The message that authority figures are ignorant fuddy-duddies who just didn't understand me was very appealing. Where the film steps a wrong foot is that it never hints at the possibility that the boys' perceptions, encouraged by Keating's vacuous moralizing, could very well be wrong, or that Keating's advice is well-meaning but misguided.

[–] Picnic10 8 years ago

The big elephant in the room is that Mr Keating is employed at a beautiful school with many years of history. Having that school on your CV will itself open doors socially, in careers, and in your own inner confidence.

The OP is right. It's relatively easy for Keating to comfortably rebel when he's already got the safety net of working at a prestigious school and people know that he knows the rules.

The school wants to teach about structure. But it's not stuck in the medieval ages. This is America, for goodness sake. Even the most seemingly stuck in the mud teacher lives in a country that they know rebelled against British rule, that they know created some of the most dynamic cities in the world. It's unlikely that, following the Bohemianism of the 1920s, these 1950s teachers are truly the dinosaurs that the film relies on making them look. That'd be like thinking waist coated, bearded, hipsters are out of touch just because they look like someone from 1900.

Make your lives extraordinary.Well, you know what, it's pretty extraordinary to be ANYONE working or studying at such a beautiful school. To its credit, there are few monsters in the film. Neil's father's no monster ("My son, my beautiful son.").

Dead Poets Society can be looked upon as a message of seizing the day by ANYONE. But you might find more people trying to seize being part of your day if you have the fortune to go to a good school in a country that combines tradition with egalitarianism.

[–] nephihaha 8 years ago

Most stuff in America - other than the Indians - is too recent to constitute much of a tradition, unless we think of it as imported from elsewhere. The film makes an effort to reach back to pre-European times though in the form of the cave.

Besides, the school is curiously unamerican. It is churning out plastic Englishman (bagpipes aside) The trashy high school down the road is all too American. You could transpose Keating's school to England or even Austria.

They have a picture of Whitman on the wall, yet it is Keating who brings Whitman to life.

--
It's not "Sci-Fi", it's "SF"!

"Calvinism is a very liberal religious ethos." - Truekiwijoker

[–] Handar 8 years ago

To me it definitely aged well. When I was in high school the overriding theme was definitely the questioning of authority and following your dreams. However I am 24 now and I can interpret carpe diem as not only following your dreams in the face of adversity, but more generally as staying true to yourself and think about why you do the things you do (i.e. not blindly conforming just for the sake of it) which includes breaking free of your own limiting beliefs.

For example when Knox decides to pursue his feelings for Chris he is not necessarily being constrained by authority, but rather his limiting societal and personal beliefs which he was able to overcome. And with Neil, although he had a very tragic end, it could be interpreted as the opposite where he was not able to have the strength to carry on defying his authoritarian father to pursue his passion of acting and instead chose to 'escape'. (But I suppose it could also be interpreted as him regaining power by choosing to die for his beliefs).

Overall I think that there are many different messages to take away for people at many stages on life. And even though they didn't focus a lot on whether Mr Keating's advice could have been misguided, I think a case is definitely made through the headmaster (whose reasoning I can understand more compared to when I was younger). Also, when Mr Keating warns Charlie that a wise person knows when to Take risks and when to exercise caution shows that he does not want them to lose important things like education and certainly not their lives in the pursuit of rebellion for rebellion's sake. And also near the end when Mr Keating cries over his old DPS book, Ithink shows not only grief but also regret and self doubt. I am sure he would not be able to leave that school without wondering if he handled things in the right way.

[–] duckofprey 8 years ago

Just food for thought to the OP. Maybe it's you that didn't age well. Think about it.

[–] Juschill (809) 5 years ago

Wow, that’s stupid. Consider trashing your keyboard.

[–] Owlwise (1536) 5 years ago

On the contrary, duckofprey may have a very good point. People change as they grow older. Some may become more open, some more closed; some more flexible in their worldview, some more rigid. The OP is fixated on what he sees as pointless rebellion, so maybe this is an issue for him. Especially because the film isn't about rebellion for the sake of rebellion at all, but rather about questioning what you've been taught & realizing that you should & in fact do have some say over your own life.

[–] MyCousinMose (86) 7 years ago

I have to disagree with you about it not aging well, and about the focus of the film being about "rebelling". I saw it first as a senior in high school and I loved it. I have seen it several times since and it keeps getting better every time. To me I still find the film inspiring, and it's not inspiring me to rebel, it's "carpe diem".