Skip to main content

That's what I think of Mr J Evans Pritchard.

Dead Poets Society
(1989)

(SPOILERS) I’ve been up and down on Dead Poets Society over the years, initially impressed by the picture and subsequently finding it rather lacking. As such, I hadn’t been minded to revisit it in a good while, but this occasion found me resolved somewhere between those two positions. On the one hand, Tom Schulman’s screenplay is often simplistic in its character and thematic content while sporting a veneer of substance and maturity. On the other, director Peter Weir imbues the proceedings with an immersive, tangible flavour of time, setting and atmosphere. It’s Witness all over again, basically, just slightly less satisfying in the final reckoning.

One element where my response hasn’t changed over the years, however, is Robin Williams’ performance. I’m entirely with Roger Ebert, who generally disliked the picture – “I was so moved, I wanted to throw up” – when he commented “For much of the time, Williams does a good job of playing an intelligent, quick-witted, well-read young man. But then there are scenes in which his stage persona punctures the character – as when he does impressions of Marlon Brando and John Wayne doing Shakespeare”.

Williams is indeed very good at suggesting a dedicated teacher, of the type who could inspire his students, but Weir – who, rather like Nic Roeg with his pop stars turned actors Jagger and Bowie, would later cast another funny man, Jim Carrey, to much more seamless effect – unwisely indulges his actor in exactly the same way Barry Levinson did, more germanely but also more brazenly, in Good Morning Vietnam a few years prior.

We’re mostly spared mawkish Williams, always his worst thespian front, but Weir should have known better than to encourage his comedic riffing, compounded by reaction shots of the kids in fits (which is also exactly what Levinson did in Vietnam, a big no-no of telling the audience something is funny). Pauline Kael’s response to Dead Poets Society was generally more measured, but she contrasting underlined her blind spot for the performer – her reviews of his ‘80s work are littered with raves – and misapprehends of these scenes “there’s no undue clowning in it; he’s a gifted teacher demonstrating his skills”.

One might easily lay the charge, given the title and lofty ideals expressed, that Schulman’s picture is victim to pretentiousness, but it actually largely avoids that. Mainly because, and I suspect Weir was conscious in favour of this, the kids aren’t terribly interested in poetry, aside from Neil (Robert Sean Leonard) with his designs on acting. They use their meetings, by and large, to do anything but recite earnestly and lyrically, and when they do compose, it’s to impress girls (Josh Charles’ Knox running after Alexandra Powers’ Chris).

Of course. there’s also an ill-advised attempt to show the healing power of creative thinking, in which clinically shy Todd (Ethan Hawke) is forced to stand in front of his class and experiences a miraculous creative and compositional dam breaking; it’s a fantasy scene, as anyone so blocked would clam up even more when put on the spot before their peers, rather than undergo a catharsis (likewise, the graph to judge a poem’s worth is rather over-egged). Generally, though, Keating’s relatively moderate anarchy (he has nothing on Jack Black) is easy to understand as a source of inspiration, one grasped amid stricture and repression.

And the performances of the juniors, if they’re all very recognisable types, and their situations are entirely trope-tastic ones, are all strong. Ethan Hawke has gone on to the greatest fame, and had previously appeared in Joe Dante’s Explorers; he inhabits the tongue-tied Todd convincingly enough, although for me Hawke has carried a hard-to-like quality throughout his screen career that makes it immensely difficult to empathise with a character who is, essentially, designated as the picture’s emotional core (he joins the school when we do, and while that’s also true of Keating, in the latter’s case we’re always at the level of the pupils looking in). Charles is something out of a John Hughes screenplay, but transported back in time, the goof who won’t admit defeat to the girl out of his league, while Gale Hansen’s Charlie is the cocksure troublemaker who has no problem finding girls and bringing them back to society meetings. Leonard, meanwhile, is the dazzling star pupil, capable at anything he puts his mind to but unable to stand up to an oppressive and domineering dad (Kurtwood Smith).

It’s in his regard that the picture does somewhat trip up during the final reel. As Graham Fuller observed, following Neil’s triumphant performance as Puck, Dead Poets Societylapses into bathos”, offering his unearned suicide in response to the threat of being sent to military school by his father. It brings to a head the picture’s biggest problem; the polarity of its conflicting forces. As Kael noted, “The picture doesn’t rise to the level of tragedy, because it’s unwilling to give us an antagonist who isn’t hopelessly rigid” (true of Keating’s fellow masters, and of parents who rally round apportioning him the blame). While he doesn’t ask his son if he can fly, Smith isn’t ultimately that far from a more genteel version of Clarence Bodicker. Certainly as hissable in relative terms. That said, his and his wife’s (Carla Belver) reactions to the sight of Neil’s body are powerfully authentic.

And yet, Dead Poets Society rises beyond its shortcomings due to Weir’s world building. In much the same way as the Amish folk, or the also-school-focused sojourn to Hanging Rock, the director conjures a palpable sense of being transported to another place, one where his fascination with the rites and mores of the preparatory school’s institutional regalia is infectious; even more so, the opportunity to suggest that any break with this most conformist and Christian of establishments is of pagan, almost supernatural ilk. The boys’ first expedition to a meeting finds them running, hooded, through mist-shrouded woods to the welcoming womb of a natural cave, as if to engage in occult practices (quickly devolving into pipe smoking and sax playing).

Indeed, Weir cites the sequence as a “sort of shift into something more mythic and significant and in a way play with the time”, part of his key attraction to the material. Neil, naturally, auditions for A Midsummer Night’s DreamStig of the Dump hadn’t yet been published – and as part of his suicide ritual wears his own Puck’s crown (just not of thorns), suggestive of a messianic sacrifice. Maurice Jarre, again pairing with Weir, adds to the sense of the uncanny with his brooding electronic score. Donna Tartt’s The Secret History would further this educated elementalism, with its very privileged setting of murder, bacchanalia and drugs.

The picture is exquisitely shot, of course, be it bathing in autumnal hues as Keating is carried across a playing field at sunset, or giving way to winter and the end-of-term theatrical performance. This is very much the case of a director elevating merely solid material, driving impact from otherwise hollow speechifying and adages (“Seize the day, boys. Make your lives extraordinary”; “… dedicated to sucking the marrow out of life”). The picture would likely now be scolded for its hopelessly white, upper-middleclass self-indulgence, but its problem isn’t its milieu but rather how well drawn it is (it is inhabited perfectly, but Schulman is in no way Weir’s equal). Weir, for his part, “didn’t care if it was a school for WASPS or ants”.

Weir came on board following the departure of director Jeff Kanew. Williams was already attached at this point – Liam Neeson had also been cast at one stage, while Mel Gibson and Bill Murray had also been considered; at one point, Dustin Hoffman was attached as both director and star – although this rather conflicts with IMDB info that Mickey Rourke wanted Weir to make changes to the script. Earlier, a stalling Williams had apparently failed to show up to shoot for Kanew and the production was scrapped as a consequence. Weir opted both to indulge the actor with “15 percent" of Williams and refrain from having Keating die from Hodgkin’s disease in favour of concentrating on the kids.

The director had been set to make Green Card, but had to wait for Gerard Depardieu to become available. He felt Dead Poets Society’s success was very much down to the artistic force of the individual over leaning towards the community, which he considered antithetical to the true artistic personality (albeit, one might see the desk-standing finale, and obediently ripping up text books as a Pythonesque “Yes, we are all individuals!”, moments). This is very much an inclusive tale of an exclusive boys’ school, one that woos rather than risks offending its audience, who are beguiled by a relatively safe, nostalgic milieu; it’s there to transport you as the period trappings announce themselves. This isn’t the rebellious spirit of If; it’s more armchair, or desk-storming. But that’s fine. Dead Poets Society is a good film and well-made, and one with sufficient artistic merit not to appear like an impostor in the Best Picture category. Certainly, a damn sight better than the one that won.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the