Carpe Diem, Eventum Fer*

“Dead Poets Society” (1989) – movie review
Today’s review is for the coming-of-age drama “Dead Poets Society” (1989), starring Robin Williams as John Keating (a charismatic English teacher whose unorthodox methods challenge conformity and awaken passion), Robert Sean Leonard as Neil Perry (a gifted student struggling under the weight of parental expectation), Ethan Hawke as Todd Anderson (a painfully shy newcomer who finds his voice), Josh Charles as Knox Overstreet (a romantic idealist chasing love and courage), and Gale Hansen as Charlie Dalton (the group’s rebellious spark).
Background:  I first saw “Dead Poets Society” about a decade ago, long after its theatrical release, and this viewing was with fresh eyes.  I remembered the iconic “O Captain! My Captain!” moment, but not the quiet ache that permeates the film.  Williams, known for his comedic brilliance, delivers a performance here that is restrained, magnetic, and deeply human (the lighter side of his character in “Good Will Hunting”).  Watching it now, I was struck by how much the film leans into idealism without losing sight of consequence.  It’s not just a story about inspiration — it’s about what happens when inspiration collides with institution.  The film remains a cultural touchstone, often quoted, often misremembered, and still relevant.  The film won the Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay and was nominated for Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Actor (Williams).
Plot:  The film is set in 1959 at Welton Academy, a fictional elite boarding school in Vermont, and explores the tension between tradition and transformation, obedience and authenticity, and the cost of living deliberately.  Welton Academy is a bastion of discipline, tradition, and academic rigor.  Into this rigid environment walks John Keating, a former student turned English teacher, who urges his pupils to “seize the day” and view poetry not as a subject, but as a lens for life.  His students — Neil, Todd, Knox, Charlie, and others — form a secret club, the Dead Poets Society, reviving a tradition of verse and rebellion.  As Keating’s influence grows, so does the students’ willingness to challenge authority and pursue their passions.  Neil auditions for a play without his parents knowledge and then performs in the play against his father’s wishes.  Todd begins to speak.  Knox pursues love.  Charlie pushes boundaries.  But the cost of defiance is steep.  The film builds toward Neil’s tragic death, the school’s scapegoating of Keating, and a final gesture of solidarity that is both heartbreaking and hopeful.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  exceptional;  atmospheric and poetic;  a few tonal imbalances;  absolutely.
Any Good?  Yes.  “Dead Poets Society” is a film that asks what education is for — obedience or awakening?  It’s a story about the power of words, the fragility of youth, and the danger of dreams deferred.  The script balances inspiration with introspection, and while some scenes lean into sentimentality, the emotional core remains intact.  It’s a film that doesn’t just celebrate rebellion — it mourns its sometimes inevitable consequences.
Acting:  Robin Williams is extraordinary.  His Keating is not a caricature — he’s a man who believes in his students, even when the system does not.  Williams delivers his lines with warmth, wit, and quiet urgency.  I haven’t seen all of Williams’ “serious” works, but this is the best I’ve seen outside of “Good Will Hunting“.  Robert Sean Leonard’s Neil is luminous — full of promise and pain.  Ethan Hawke’s Todd evolves from silence to strength, and his final scene is a masterclass in emotional release.  Josh Charles and Gale Hansen add texture and tension.  The ensemble cast — young, earnest, and believable — carries the film’s emotional weight with grace.
Filming / FX:  The film is rich in autumnal tones — Welton’s campus is framed with reverence and restraint.  The film favors long takes, soft lighting, and deliberate pacing.  The film allows the performances and poetry to breathe.  There are no flashy effects — just atmosphere, rhythm, and emotional resonance.
Problems:  Few and minor.  The film romanticizes Keating’s teaching without interrogating / considering its risks.  The pacing in the first act is slow, and some supporting characters — particularly the faculty and parents — are painted with broad strokes.  The final resolution, while emotionally satisfying, leaves institutional accountability unaddressed.  These are things I thought about only by looking back.  Other than the “slow” pace at the start, I’m not sure most viewers would notice or care about them…
Did I Enjoy the Film?  Yes.  “Dead Poets Society” is a film that reminds one (me) of the power of language, the urgency of youth, and the quiet rebellion of choosing authenticity in the face of structured / institutionalized authority.  Watching Todd stand on his desk — not to defy, but to honor — is a moment you remember.  The film doesn’t ask you to agree with Keating as much as it asks you to remember him and the intellectual freedom in the future which he represented in the students’ lives.
Final Recommendation:  Strong recommendation.  “Dead Poets Society” is a poetic, provocative drama that explores the intersection of education, identity, and personal courage for a group of young males approaching graduation from an elite boarding school.  If you’re a fan of character-driven stories, literary themes, or performances that blend inspiration with introspection, this film is worth viewing.  It’s rated PG for thematic elements and brief language.  For its performances, tone, and cultural resonance, it remains one of the most quietly powerful films of its era.  Watch it.  Then read a poem aloud — not for a grade, but for the sound of your voice reading poetry.  That too will stir memories…
Final Thought:  Neil’s character is “Puck” from Shakespeare’s play:  “A Midsummer Night’s Dream“, which I had viewed earlier this year.  Had I never seen the movie / play, I really would not have know what was going on during Neil’s performance.  LoL.  I guess this “acquiring culture via cinema” is working (at least a little bit, anyway).
* Carpe Diem, Eventum Fer —  Latin for Seize the day, bear the resulting consequence
.
Click here (28 November) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

I Suppose I Will Settle

Today’s review is for the 1999 “comedy” film: “A Midsummer Night’s Dream” staring Christian Bale as Demetrius, Dominic West as Lysander, Anna Friel as Hermia, Calista Flockhart as Helena, Michelle Pfeiffer as Titania, Rupert Everett as Oberon, David Strathairn as Theseus, Sophie Marceau as Hippolyta, Kevin Kline as Nick Bottom and Stanley Tucci as Puck.  Yeah, a pretty big name cast.
This version of the “renowned” Shakespeare comedic play finds the world of humans crossing over with the realm of magic, fairies, and love potions.  The lovely Hermia is being forced to marry Demetrius, but she truly cares for Lysander.  Her best friend, Helena, is in love with Demetrius.  Both Lysander and Demetrius are in love with Hermia.  Meanwhile, Duke Theseus is supposed to marry Hippolyta in a few days and Oberon and Titania are having a spat over something (I never figured out what).  Last, but not least, there are a group of common workers (men) from the town who are developing a play to perform at the marriage of Theseus and Hippolyta.  Bottom is one of the workers and Puck is an impish servant of Oberon.  Puck and Oberon are involved in some magic which leads to the comic misunderstandings in the play.
Background:  Every now and then, I get this urge to become more “cultured”.  This results in me learning a little about “Art” (painting, drawing, poetry, literature or music).  When I recently re-watched (and reviewed) “Renaissance Man“, I was struck I was very much like the “dummies” who had no appreciation for literature – specifically Shakespeare.  Of course, I’m familiar with some of the general outlines of some of the famous plays:  “Romeo and Juliet”, “Hamlet”, etc.  But, I can’t honestly say I’ve ever watched one of the plays all the way through.  The closest I’ve come is having seen “West Side Story” – which is an adaptation of “Romeo & Juliet”.  So, I’ve decided to try to correct this…  And now, it’s chicken or egg time.  Do you read a play and watch a movie or movie and then read.  Normally, I’d go the read then movie route, but I’d heard before the admonition that Shakespeare wrote to be heard (seen), not read.  After all, the play’s the thing…  (“Hamlet“)
Basically, the movie starts off with Theseus being asked to force the marriage of Hermia to Demetrius, but she refuses because she’s in love with Lysander.  A duel is threatened, but Theseus says she has the night to decide between the father’s wishes, joining a convent or death (as per the “old” laws of Athens).  Hermia and Lysander choose to flee into the woods to escape the decision.  Demetrius and Helena follow.  Oberon tasks Puck with using magic to make Demetrius fall in love with Helena, but Puck mis-identifies Lysander as Demetrius.  Meanwhile, Oberon seeks to punish Titania for their spat and he uses magic to have her fall in love with Bottom, who has been turned into a donkey (an “ass”).  Blah, blah, blah…  Everything gets sorted out and all live happily ever after.
So, is this movie any good?  Is it good comedy?  Are the special effects good?  Is it entertaining?  So-so, not really, yes, somewhat.
Is the movie any good?  In fairness to Shakespeare, not really.  It is slightly updated from the 1500s, but not shot as a modern day movie.  It retains the “old English” speaking and there is very little exposition to get you into the “play” before it starts.  In my younger days, I would have looked up the play’s background so I would know what’s going on before viewing.  I didn’t do that this time around.  As per the admonition above, I wanted to “experience” the play as someone coming to it in the original.  It didn’t “work” for me.  I felt like the first time I read “Lord of the Rings” and I had to learn and remember all these strange names for characters and locations.  I’d say it took 10-15 minutes before I felt like I knew who was talking about who.
Is this a good comedy movie?  No, at least not as I understand the genre.  There are some unusual situations in the movie which might have been / supposed to have been funny.  But they weren’t…  Not a laugh.  Not a chuckle.  Not even an amused smile.  I have since gone to Wikipedia to find out what was going on and my reaction was:  “Okay.  I guess I can kind of see where it was supposed to be “funny”.  But it still wasn’t.  Not to me anyway.“
This movie is beautifully shot and the special effects are pretty good considering it’s NOT a F/X movie.  So, that’s a big plus…
Is the movie entertaining?  Yes, but with reservations.  I was mostly entertained.  For me, the entertainment value came from the special effects and seeing well-known actors in “stage” roles – as opposed to the “movie” roles I’ve seen them in.  If you judge “entertaining” by “I have NO idea what’s going to happen”, then it was a definite yes.”  Would I ever pay money to see this as a real, live stage performance?  No.  Would I ever watch the film again?  Probably not.  …Maybe if it was recast and in a different time (either today or back in the 1500 / 1600s).  The movie was $5 to own or $3 to rent.  If I ever do watch it again, I’m ahead.  Otherwise, a slight loss.
Final recommendation:  moderate.  If you want to see any of these actors in an unusual role – maybe higher.  If you want to be able to say you’ve seen this work (it’s a movie, not a play) – just moderate.
Final comment:  I’m reminded of the dialogue in “Pretty Woman” when Richard Gere is describing opera and he says:  “People’s reactions to opera the first time they see it is very dramatic;  they either love it or they hate it.  If they love it, they will always love it.  If they don’t, they may learn to appreciate it, but it will never become part of their soul.”  I guess for this play, I’ll have to settle for appreciation.
.
Click here (26 February) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »