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.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

Another case of the screaming oopizootics.

Doctor Who Season 14 – Worst to Best The best Doctor Who season? In terms of general recognition and unadulterated celebration, there’s certainly a strong case to be made for Fourteen. The zenith of Robert Holmes and Philip Hinchcliffe’s plans for the series finds it relinquishing the cosy rapport of the Doctor and Sarah in favour of the less-trodden terrain of a solo adventure and underlying conflict with new companion Leela. More especially, it finds the production team finally stretching themselves conceptually after thoroughly exploring their “gothic horror” template over the course of the previous two seasons (well, mostly the previous one).

He is a brigand and a lout. Pay him no serious mention.

The Wind and the Lion (1975) (SPOILERS) John Milius called his second feature a boy’s-own adventure, on the basis of the not-so-terrified responses of one of those kidnapped by Sean Connery’s Arab Raisuli. Really, he could have been referring to himself, in all his cigar-chomping, gun-toting reactionary glory, dreaming of the days of real heroes. The Wind and the Lion rather had its thunder stolen by Jaws on release, and it’s easy to see why. As polished as the picture is, and simultaneously broad-stroke and self-aware in its politics, it’s very definitely a throwback to the pictures of yesteryear. Only without the finger-on-the-pulse contemporaneity of execution that would make Spielberg and Lucas’ genre dives so memorable in a few short years’ time.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

They literally call themselves “Decepticons”. That doesn’t set off any red flags?

Bumblebee  (2018) (SPOILERS) Bumblebee is by some distance the best Transformers movie, simply by dint of having a smattering of heart (one might argue the first Shia LaBeouf one also does, and it’s certainly significantly better than the others, but it’s still a soulless Michael Bay “machine”). Laika VP and director Travis Knight brings personality to a series that has traditionally consisted of shamelessly selling product, by way of a nostalgia piece that nods to the likes of Herbie (the original), The Iron Giant and even Robocop .

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.