I have seen "Dead Poet's Society" dozens of times, so rather than tell you my feelings about it I think I will pose a number of questions. Feel free to pick up on any one of them -- or more than one. Or, if you are moved, ask and answer your own questions. I will number the questions for your convenience.
1) Nwanda -- punk or hero?
2) Is the suicide glorified in any way? Or do we as readers see that Neil has options and therefore the suicide is seen as rash and misguided?
3) Is the movie, taken as a whole, more celebration or indictment of the carpe diem philosophy espoused by Keating, Whitman, Thoreau, etc.? In the end you have a suicide, a firing, and an expulsion; but you also have self-empowerment (Todd), love (Knox), and a whole bunch of teenagers who are thinking more independently than they were before.
4) Even if we can agree that Keating isn't responsible for Neil's death, does he do anything wrong? Is he blameless?
5) Fun symbolism Department. Birds. At the beginning there is a montage scene of huge flocks of birds rising and turning all together (they're wrens, in case you were wondering). Then there is an immediate cut to the kids going down the circular stairway all together (first day of school), the same directional flow as the birds in the previous shot, bringing out the "flock mentality" of the kids. Later, Knox rides his bike through a huge flock of Canada geese on his way to see Kris jump into the arms of Chet. Upsetting the flock! Also, two scenes of kids walking in the courtyard provide bookend symbols in the movie. First you have Keating encouraging his students to walk to the pace of their own drummer (a Thoreau line!) with the Latin teacher watching from the teacher's lounge above; then, at the end, you have the Latin teacher with his students in the courtyard, walking in unison, reciting something they have memorized, following already made footprints in the snow, with Keating watching from the teacher's lounge above (they wave to one another). If the style of walking is an indication, it's back to normal now in the school.
More later, but this should get you started.
3) Overall, I would say that DPS is a celebration of the carpe diem philosophy because each character did follow this philosophy and even though it supposedly led to some negative events, it also led to positive events as well. Without following this philosophy, Knox wouldn’t have pursued Kris, Todd would still be the shy kid who let other people walk all over him, and the second Dead Poets Society definitely would not have been formed. It is arguable that the second formation of this club was a bad thing because it was believed to have led to negative events the negative events in the movie, such as Neil’s suicide, Charlie’s expulsion, and Keating being fired. However, I believe that there will always be negative events and consequences to ones actions, but it is almost always necessary to risk having something go wrong in order to seek something positive. This thought is also one of the main beliefs of the philosophy of carpe diem. Life would be boring and hardly worth living if people did not take chances and solely focused on living a “perfect” life. This being said, I think that it was actually Neil’s lack of following the philosophy of carpe diem that led to his suicide. Many people may argue the opposite because Neil’s father was upset by Neil’s participation in the play (something Neil would not have done if he had not followed the philosophy of carpe diem), which eventually lead to Neil’s thoughts of suicide. However, I believe that if Neil had actually stood up to his father (during their argument the night of the play) by stating his beliefs and opinions, instead of having his father control the rest of his life, then he would at least have “seized the day’. Perhaps if he had stood up to his father, he would have felt a sense of empowerment, which would have thwarted all thoughts of suicide, or perhaps he would have wanted to kill himself even more. However, since Neil did not actually follow the philosophy of carpe diem, the negative events that followed which were pretty much directly related to the suicide, such as Keating getting fired and Charlie’s expulsion can not be a result of carpe diem. Therefore, DPS was a celebration of the philosophy of carpe diem because it most importantly led to students thinking independently, as opposed to conforming like the school hoped they would.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Sloan that DPS is generally a celebration of carpe diem, however, I do think that Neil’s suicide was a result of him following the philosophy of seizing the day, even if in an extremely selfish and horrible way.
ReplyDeleteTo answer question 2, I think that Neil attempts to glorify his own suicide but the movie does not. First, we see Neil sitting in his room looking anxious. Next, he undresses himself and puts his twig crown on his head as he opens the windows to the freezing weather outside. At this point in the movie, I knew he was going to do something dramatic like run away or kill his dad but instead he chose the lamest alternative, to kill himself. By committing suicide, Neil may have thought that he was “seizing the day” and making a statement to his parents but it would have been a much stronger statement had he told his father off and continued doing what he was passionate about, like Sloan stated. So instead of standing up for what he wanted to do, though he thought he was making a statement, Neil gave up and hurt countless people in the process. After watching the movie, I do not think there was anyone in our class who thought that the suicide was a rational way for Neil to handle the situation with his father. He had so many other options that could have made him the hero of the movie. From the beginning of the movie, I admired Neil for being nice to Todd, appreciative of Mr. Keating, and an all around a cool guy who wasn’t ashamed to try acting, but after his suicide, I lost all respect for him. I assume that this was the intent of the movie to make the audience contemplate the restrictions of carpe diem but I was extremely disappointed that Neil committed suicide especially in his own home since his parents were the ones to find him.
I think DPS glorifies individualism and carpe diem, but it shows that some people can handle it better than others. Some people, like Knox and Todd profited from their new way of thinking, while others, like Neil and Charlie were shot down. Charlie was portrayed as the wild child and most viewers felt that his antics were over the top. He may have brought his expulsion upon himself. Neil on the other hand, was not unruly and wild, he just hoped to follow his passion. When his father shot down his ideas, Neil could not handle it. He could not overcome the hardships that come with being unique in a society of strict conformists (his school and family). Had he continued to fight for his acting, he would probably be alive.
ReplyDeleteKnox was more successful in handling the hardships, in chasing his love. He was beat up and threatened, but he persisted and finally accomplished his goal. Todd's main struggle was becoming confident and independent. It is apparent in the signing scene that Todd's family discourages him from standing up for himself. Much like Neil's parents, Todd's hope for him to attain material success. They made all decisions for him and hope for him to be a robot, working hard in school, but not thinking and acting for himself. Todd struggles with his parents wishes throughout the movie, and finally stands up to his parents and teachers in his moment of glory.
Todd and Knox slowly and safely worked past the barriers that Charlie and Neil could not. They were less extreme in accomplishing their goals, but were able to in the end. Neil and Charlie could not handle the freedom given to them by the carpe diem mindset.
I agree with sloan that the movie celebrates carpe diem, but I don't think that Neil commits suicide because he did not understand the true meaning of the philosophy. Keating teaches the students to do what they love and to ignore the judgement of others. He thinks that life is useless if you aren't doing something you love. I believe that Neil understood the concept of carpe diem more than any other student. It was his idea to start the dead poets society and his friends followed him afterwards. Like Keating, who states that he loves teaching more than anything in the world, Neil has a passion for acting. After he is given the leading role in an upcoming play, Neil becomes euphoric but unfortunately his father completely disapproves of this and orders him to quit. In the end, Neil decide to kill himself because he too thinks that life is pointless if you can't follow your heart.
ReplyDeleteTo answer number 4, I think that keating holds no responsibility for the suicide of Neil. He only teaches the kids to be more self confident and to be themselves. Some people say that if Keating had not taught the students about carpe diem, Neil wouldn't have had the idea of becoming an actor, and therefore he and his father would not have fought. Connecting events like these and believing that keating had any fault is ridiculous. It is just as reasonable to say that if the boys hadn't found the yearbook in the cafeteria, they wouldn't have found out about the dead poets society and so forth, so the person who left the book in the cafeteria is at fault for everything. Another reason why I believe that keating is innocent is that he encouraged Neil to communicate with his father. He tells Neil that he is not "trapped." He can get out of the tight situation without disobeying his orders, but he must first confront his father and tell him about his passion for acting.In the end, Neil ends up ignoring keating and his father.
Hello to all members of the best class ever! I hope everyone had a fantastic weekend! :)
ReplyDelete1.) Nwanda? Hero. He is the only member of the DPS who, in the end, stands up for Keating and his innocence. Keating and what he taught and believed infinitely changed the boys, but Nwanda was the only one who didn’t conform to what Nolan and the school wanted him too. His actions only hurt himself in the end. Had all the other DPS members stood up for Keating as well, it would have been a lot harder for the school to blame him for the suicide on top of expelling all of the boys. Of course, Nwanda exhibited some punk-like behavior but who says a punk can’t be a hero? Punks are the outsiders who don’t conform and don’t accept the norms of society. So in a way, heroes are just outspoken punks.
2.) I agree with Jenny that the suicide is “glorified” by Neil, but not by the movie. The way Neil goes about it almost seems like a ritual, or a sacrifice. Suicide is not seizing the day; it is ending it. And ending every other day left in your life. Neil just gave up, when there were so many other options. The issue of suicide in teens has been a big problem recently, which made this movie even more relevant. There have been many recent suicides of teens recently from being “bullied to death,” which was also the reason for Neil’s suicide. His dad bullied him to death. Mr. Keating never would have accepted suicide as a rational escape to life’s problems.
¾.) I think that as a whole this movie serves as a celebration of free thought and the carpe diem philosophy that Mr. Keating, Emerson, Thoreau and Whitman advocated. However, after Nwanda’s phone call from God prank, he clearly tells the boys that there is a line between seizing the day and doing something irrational. I guess the fact that he trusts the boys to find that line partially puts him to blame. I love Mr. Keating, so that is hard to say. I obviously don’t think that he is the reason for Neil’s suicide, because his oppressive, tyrannical dad was the real reason, but Mr., Keating does plant the carpe diem philosophy in Neil’s head without telling him where to draw the line. Mr. Keating specifically advises Neil to talk to his dad, which Neil decided not to do. In the end, Mr. Keating does not hold any responsibility for the suicide in my mind.
oh and by the way.....
YAWP
hey period 4... I only see 5 comments.
ReplyDeleteYou guys are slacking
Sincerely,
Period 1
hey period 1...Period 4 believes in quality before quantity.
ReplyDeletesincerely,
Gonzalo Gallardo Echeverria Guzman Rubio del Valle
Who let Tony into this party?
ReplyDeleteDear Gonzo,
ReplyDeleteOn the subject of quality, you forgot to click on "spell check" before you submitted your paper. You have some capitalization errors and noun-verb disagreement. Also, the content... let's not go there
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1) Nwanda is definitely both. He reminds me of Theorau is the sense that he is very honestly attuned to his instincts, thoughts, and feelings, and that takes so much courage to do. With all the misleading external influences in any society, its difficult to know what your opinion really is or even claim your opinion. What I mean is, Nwanda had the guts to tell the powerful school administration he did not agree with them, even knowing in doing so he would risk expulsion or suspension. Similarily, Theorau told that tax collector what he thought of funding Mexican-American war and refused to pay, all the while knowing he was risking being sent to jail. I also know students don’t admit their true feeling because they fear exploitation, sometimes by people who don’t care about them, and other times by people who do. Being able to accept those difficult consequences is pretty impressive. So, Nwanda is a punk from a superficial standpoint, but a courageous hero from a deeper standpoint.
ReplyDelete4) I really appreciated a comment Gonzo made in class the other day. It was something along the lines of, “If you blame the death of Neil on a few comments Keating made about seizing the day, you could blame anyone for anything they do or say.” Keating had no way of predicting what results his lessons could produce with each individual student. So, so, Keating does not do anything wrong. Keating was a teacher and he was teaching what he thought was most relevant. He taught his students something he thought was important knowledge: carpe diem.
One could potentially argue that by teaching all of his students to ‘carpe diem’ he influenced one of his students to act in a play which eventually led to his suicide. However, I would argue, Keating realized he could not teach his students exactly which day to seize. Seizing the day he encouraged, but he knew he could not necessarily teach it. He realized it was up to each one of his students to determine where the line is drawn. He purposely left the options up to his students because, like Whitman and Thoreau suggested, determining how "seizing the day" should affect your life was part of individual decision and development. Keating never recommend that Neil lie to his father. The lie later proved to cause a fight that was the breaking point for Neil. Further, Keating even recommended Neil to seize the day by suggesting Neil confront his father about his passion for acting. Maybe, by reacting accordingly to Keating’s encouragement, Neil’s life would have not only been saved but more fulfilling.
HI class! i am surprised so many of you remembered to do this, since I dont know about you, but I've been only focused on bio all day!!
ReplyDeleteAnyways..
I definitely see the suicide as being glorified. The movie leads us to see Neil's father as extremely selfish and unsympathetic. He ignored Neil's dreams and desires. Throughout the whole story he is portrayed as being the villain, and his only redeeming quality is that he wants his son to have a good future. The portrayal of the father leads us to root for Neil. I think that the suicide was glorified because the movie tried to sway us into believing that Neil had no options, that his death was almost selfless in that he was relieving his father of the burden that was his ambitions. When we see Neil lying on the ground, cold and lifeless, we immediately feel sympathetic towards him and I saw the suicide as being his only way out. It was also sort of a "HAHA see what you did?" moment where we felt almost satisfaction at seeing Neils dad cry over his son's body, because it made him see exactly the result of his strictness and brutality. It was a moment where the audience did not feel sympathetic towards the dad for losing his son, but rather it was a taunt towards the father and we were glad to see him sad, because it showed him the consequences of what he did to Neil by taking away his dreams. The suicide for these reasons was definitely glorified, and Neil was seen as completely the victim of his father's evil. It wasnt until after the scene had passed that I realized how selfish it was for Neil to commit suicide, how his father couldn't have possibly known the reaction Neil would take, or how many options Neil had instead of taking his own life. I found Neil to be incredibly naive and self-absorbed because I began to see his suicide as a way of getting back at his dad. "Haha, Dad, see what you made me do? Are you happy now?" was sort of the attitude I felt from Neil. And I found this, if it was the true reason for his suicide, to be extremely immature and a horrible way to go about causing guilt or sympathy.
As I put on my guitar hero jammers and snuggle into bed, I get a text from a boy that I have known since the age of 5 years young. I put the blankets over me, exhausted after just finishing writing a seven page history paper(iwwwwww), and what does that text say! Dude, did u do da English blog?? my reply, YAAAAAWWWWPPPPPPPPPPPPPP...r u kidding me!!!! I'm not saying im not stoked to write this, im saying im not stoked to write this right now, even though I must. anyways back to DPS...sick movie.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Emilia in that the suicide scene is glorified. Throughout the entire movie, Neil's father was constantly warning his son and pressuring him to do well in school and school alone. Literally he puts his son in a straight jacket and prohibits him from doing basically anything besides studying in order to go to Stanford or Harvard, eventually becoming a doctor. Neil was like a firework about to explode and finally at the end when he sticks up to his father and gets immediately shut down, he feels like the only way to escape is to take him life. In the movie, the music is epic while filming in slow motion. When this happens you know something huge is going to happen. Instead of it being a dark and melancholy mood, this scene felt like something that was in a way refreshing and pure. Although I believe there were many other possibly outcomes that Neil could have taken, he was suffered under his father's tyranny probably all of his life. I completely agree on Gonzo's opinion of Mr. Keating. When Mr. Keating came to the school and began teaching, you can see that all of his students became happier, especially Anderson that came out of his shell. As for Neil, some people believe that Mr. Keating should have stayed out of things and he had no right to get into Neil's family business. That’s quite baloney. If Mr. Keating had no business in helping Neil, then why do we have psychological teachers at are school, or whatever they are called, to help us with problems at home or at school; its not much different. Neil is baller, Chris is baller/cute, Mr. Keating is baller, this movie is baller, and the DPS is baller.
baller: look it up at urbandictionary.com
baller: A thug that has "made it" to the big time. Originally refered ball players that made it out of the streets to make millions as a pro ball player, but now is used to describe any thug that is living large.
ReplyDeleteYou're Welcome
ANYWAY, in my humble opinion, judging purely upon transcendental philosophies, Nwanda is a hero. He "stood against the tide," if i may. Not only was he himself when he was alone, but he stayed himself when with others, and he stood firm in his beliefs, which would make Emerson tear up with pride. Sadly, we have to realize that society, that horrible thing that guides our lives, says that's incorrect to do at times, and Nwanda definitely ignored those times. To the schoolteachers in the movie, Nwanda was a punk. If i was a teacher, I would appreciate his independence and free thought, but I was also recognize that there is a time and place for such behavior, and it is called college. In my opinion, Nwanda, like Emerson, Whitman, and Thoreau, was before his time. At our age, which is what these boys were, we have to understand that at times, there's a reason to respect authority. However, I do applaud Nwanda for standing up for his beliefs, and I believe the other boys should have as well during the dealings with Mr. Keating's firing. There is no doubt in my mind that he did the right thing there, so in that aspect he was a hero. It all depends on the point of view.
For number 3, i completely agree with Zack. whenever there's a new way of thought is thrust upon people, some can handle it and some can't. It's like math. If someone shows us a new way to do a problem that could potentially be easier for us, some get it and are able to solve their problems much more easily. Others try to use this but just confuse themselves, sometimes getting the problem very, very wrong. Sorry, but I kind of suck at metaphors right now.
Why this is so challenging for me to write is beyond me. I watched the movie, I know what happened in said movie, but whenever I try to write an honest and truly felt response I simply cannot. I guess I was indifferent to the movie, or maybe my brain was frying, I don’t know. Either way, I just want to know one thing, what should I be getting out of this movie?
ReplyDeleteActually, I should phrase that better – what should I get out of this movie that I haven’t already heard? Individualism is one the theme of the course so far, so that’s not it. Seize the day? Maybe, I mean I haven’t heard it from school much, or at least enough for it to be a “spent” idea. By spent I mean things that have been talked about enough that we consider them to be a main message. I’m guessing that Student Well Being at Parker is going to end up like that, if it hasn’t already, for an example. Anyway, seizing the day is always a good idea, but it doesn’t quite seem to match up for me. Sure there are all the positive things that happen in the movie (like Knox and his “getting some”) , but there’s also Neil’s suicide.
You could argue that Neil’s suicide was glorified in the movie though, since he strips down and debates putting on the crown of thistles (Jesus reference), but then he decides against it, maybe thinking it’ll come off as blasphemous to other people. Would that be individuality? Not doing something because of what other people think seems to go fairly against the movie’s idea of seizing the day. So, no, I don’t think that Neil’s suicide was glorified much of at all. The effects of his suicide affect a lot of people in a negative way, which Neil probably didn’t want. So why did Neil kill himself? Well the seemingly obvious answer is that Neil was being held back (from acting) by his father, felt trapped, and escaped. Sure there were better ways of doing it, such as running away, but do you really think that he’d be thinking clearly at that point? His highest and lowest points came within probably an hour of each other, emotional roller coaster of doom basically. Running away probably didn’t seem like a good idea because his father would probably have found him eventually and done who knows what to him, so Neil picked a route that made it so his parents could NEVER get him, in spirit.
As for whether or not Neil was being ‘lame’ about it or not is merely a matter of opinion, which I’d rather not be pointed with. However, I’ll say this much: I’ve known people who feel that way, I’ve known people who come to me for help with it, I’ve helped whenever they ask me to, and they are some of the best people I know. Not because they’ve tried to kill themselves, but because of who they are afterward. They value the day, not for any particular thing that happened in the day, but because they are still there. They came closer than many people do to the idea of not having the next day, and they relish every day like their last. Carpe diem.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete