My wife and I were just dating when Dead Poets came out. We were deeply in love but when the movie ended she swears she almost broke up with me on the spot because we walked out and I said, "That movie was so flawed!!!" Meanwhile, she and the rest of the audience had tears running down their cheeks.
Want to know why I did not like Dead Poets at the time? Everyone who "followed" Keating's ideas ended up worse, much worse, for doing so.
Neil (Robert Sean Leonad) kills himself
Keating (Robin Williams) is fired
Charlie, aka "Nwanda" (Gale Hansen), is kicked out of school
The rest of the Dead Poets Society have black marks on their high school record and are last seen openly disobeying the headmaster of the school (which will likely impact their grades if not lead to suspensions and perhaps even expulsions).
Is anyone who embraced the ideals of Keating's "Dead Poets Society" bettered by it?
That is what I thought as I left the theater. Given the chance to think about the film a bit longer, I came to the conclusion that it is possible that some of these young men would be better off for their time with Keating, if not right away, then down the line as they grew into adults and had to deal with all the challenges of life. I would imagine that most teachers would say their ultimate goal is to create better people down the line, not just perfectly behaved and educated kids right now. So, in that light, I can see how Keating migt look at those young boys who are all in a ton of trouble and think that he had accomplished something special.
Still, his two most ardent followers are dead and expelled. Not exactly a good outcome for either of them. Even if Nwanda turns into a fabulous person at whatever school he attends after being kicked out of Welton Academy, Neil is still dead. Can one argue that Neil was fated to kill himself as a result of his father's oppression? Perhaps. Was it better for Neil to truly live those few moments he was on stage than it would have been for him to suffer a lifetime of repressing his true nature? Maybe. But death is a pretty harsh outcome for a teenager, no matter how awful his home life may have been.
Of course, the responsibility for knowing how far to take the "seize the day" attitude of the Dead Poets Society does not rest solely with Keating. Neil should have known there would be consequences for his performance in the play against his father's wishes. He is just months away from being free of his father's yoke by attending college (likely at one of the premiere schools in the country) so if he could have just held on a little longer, he could have had the life he wanted without having to worry about his horrible father. But, he chose suicide.
Anyway, I am getting off point -- bottom line is that it takes a bit of a leap of logic to say that the impact of Keating's teachings were truly positive. The movie is about an attitude in life but the people who take that attitude are resoundingly punished for it. And that is why I have always had a bit of a problem with the film.
That said, I think all of us in the audience see the value in the Keating philosophy and the "seize the day" way of approaching life. We watch the movie and sorta ignore how bad it turned out for everyone in the film because we know that if we acted that way in our life, it would be a largely positive change. So, the lesson we take from the film is in how it affects our view of ourselves, not in how the film actually depicts the impact of the philosophy on the characters in the story. That's ok, but I hope you can see why I still consider the film flawed in a pretty significant way.
-Jason "Well, that took a long time and was awfully rambling at times. Sorry. Hope it made sense. Now you know why I voted for Good Morning, Vietnam
" Evans