Some of you seem to be completely missing the point.

I agree.

There is a huge difference between Neil participating in some plays while at college and med school, or during summer breaks (clearly the kind of thing that he and Mr. Keating were envisioning) and Neil dropping everything to become an actor.

You make good points, but your main point is flawed. I don't agree that the acting thing was just a hobby for Neil. Clearly it's what drives him. If it was nothing more than an extracurricular afterschool activity, he wouldn't go to such great lengths to lie to his father, knowing what the repercussions would be. I do agree with you, however, that "not being able to act" is not why Neil took his own life. There are deeper scars there and I believe he did feel there was no way out of that depressing existence. But I think that downplaying Neil's love of acting and passing it off as a passing fancy is the wrong way to look at it.

That is the thing. Neil's dad was controlling his life. Remember at the beginning when he tells Neil to drop the school annum because he is taking too many extracurricular activities? If he had let Neil choose which one to drop, that would've been different, but he chose for him, as though Neil had no mind of his own.
That seems to be the whole policy of the school-as though these kids can't think for themselves, although they are not little kids. Keating was trying to show them that they should think for themselves and determine what they want to be in life, even if it is being a doctor or lawyer.

I feel that Neil killed himself because he ended up living alife planned for him, by others. He was not living his own life, so he gave it back.



Cute and cuddly boyz!!

EasyStreet,

Neil's father didn't "want the best for his son," and "coming from a very different time" had nothing to do with his shameful and destructive parenting. He was a controlling and emotionally abusive tyrant (something found in every generation) who sucked the joy and hope out of his son and finally broke his spirit. When you truly want the best for a son, especially one on the verge of adulthood, you help him to become his own person, make his own choices (and mistakes), and pursue his own dreams. You can encourage, guide, and (carefully) advise, but if you demand, dictate, and suffocate, a parent will do more harm than good and risks losing the child one way or another. (The so-called "helicopter parents" of today will also discover this someday.) Most of all, you want your child to be happy regardless of whether or not you agree with his choices and pursuits, and Neil was happy being in the play and trying his hand at acting -- and let's not forget he was very good at it too. To say that tyrants and bullies have "good intentions" is absurd to the point of being laughable. And for your information, acting is also a profession in which one can find happiness, fulfillment, and yes, even financial success, and I assure you that to those who seriously pursue it, it's much more than just a "hobby." Would you ever say that being a lawyer, doctor or banker is a "hobby"? Of course not. Yet you think nothing of categorizing the acting profession as such. Personally, most actors I've known are much happier with their choices and their lives than the lawyers, doctors and bankers I've known. They pursued their dreams regardless of the naysayers and discouragers, and if you think that doesn't take a freakishly big pair, think again. Many of the lawyers, doctors, and bankers I've encountered act and look like they're badly in need of a laxative.

Neil didn't kill himself, his father did, and his ineffectual and subservient mother was an accessory. Neil would have continued to live and even thrive if his father had said just one sentence to him after the play: "You did a great job, Neil, and I'm proud of you!" And imagine the magic that would have been brought forth if he had said, "I'm sorry, son, I was wrong." Instead, his final dictate and demand to Neil was the last straw. Neil's father was thinking only of Neil's father, not "wanting the best for his son." The father continued to show what a stand-up guy he was by making sure that Mr. Keating was scapegoated and blamed for Neil's death! (Did he also "want the best" for Mr. Keating?)

An aside: I very much hope that someday your screen moniker becomes a reality and you do indeed find yourself on Easy Street, but first you must rigidly follow these guidelines: do exactly what your father demands; don't think for yourself or pursue your own dreams; don't have any outside interests and enjoyments other than those your father tells you to have; and above all else, never, ever take up the foolish "hobby" of acting! No good will come of it! Then and only then will you find yourself on Easy Street. After all, Neil followed these guidelines and look at the happy direction his life took! Good luck and let us know your future address. Until then, you should remind yourself of your goal by periodically listening to the tune below, which begins two and a half minutes into the clip.

Also, you might want to check out the town of Carefree, Arizona (yes, a real town) which actually has an "Easy Street." So, if you don't end up on "Easy Street" figuratively, you could reside on it literally. Most importantly, never forget the message I once received in a fortune cookie whilst dining at Mr. Chow on Camden: "There are often many bumps on the road to Easy Street." So true, especially if one pursues acting, but the rewards are more than worth it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pksn3ufx38A

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.

I agree with the OP. I never saw Neil's father as evil. He meant well; he wanted his son to go on to great things. Nothing inherently wrong with that; we parents all want to see our kids do well and succeed. It's implied that the family is not well-to-do (more like reasonably middle class) and that Neil's parents have poured not only their financial resources but their family hopes and dreams into Neil, in the hopes of ensuring his success.

Therein lies the problem -- the father's methodology is horribly misguided. It's drummed into Neil constantly that his parents have made tremendous sacrifices to get him into the school, so he'd better not let them down. Thus there's been a huge layer of guilt on top of him for most of his life, both for every little mistake he's made as a kid up to that point (a grade not quite as high as it might have been, etc.) and for any mistakes he might make down the road that would put the "family dream" of higher status and success in jeopardy. He's an only child carrying that guilt and those expectations, so it's basically all on him -- his father has blatantly told Neil that he, and he alone, is the family's hope for something better, and that to attain that "something better" he's GOING to go to Harvard, and he's GOING to be a doctor. Period. And along the way, his father exercises micro-managerial control over every aspect of his life, brooking no opposition or word of objection; to him, any deviation from the path he's set for Neil is a potential risk to the "family dream". Neil calls him "sir", stands bolt upright when his father speaks to him... hell, he all but salutes him.

Keating didn't tell Neil to run away or to throw all that aside, or even to defy his father (Neil had already done that by writing a fake permission letter, before Keating knew he was in the play). His advice was that he should talk to his father, express his passion for acting, and ask fervently for his permission. Neil did this, his father relented momentarily (probably since the play was the following night and thus there would be no ongoing impact on Neil's studies), and then reasserted his control. Neil ended things because he felt hopeless and could see no way out of the prison his parents had built for him.

Revenge is a dish best served cold.
-- Klingon proverb