[Dead Poets Society] Isn't Mr. Keating at least partially responsible for the tragedy, and if yes, does that not undermine the philosophy of the film (Carpe Diem)?
I watched the Dead Poets Society for the first time today and overall, I absolutely loved the film. I found all of the main characters interesting, and I especially liked Mr. Keating. His message of how the boys ought to seize the day and live their lives to the fullest resonated with me (and I definitely agree with the general sentiment).
But I found the message of the film to be quite blurry (and generally unsettling) after Neil commits suicide. As I see it, Neil wanted to pursue acting (in the spirit of Carpe Diem) but also be a good son. This was mutually inclusive, and he could not accept a compromise (where he either gives up acting or isn't a good son for pursuing it). Although the passion for acting was not instilled in him by Mr. Keating, I think it's safe to say that Mr. Keating created a sense of urgency that left a deep impression on all the boys - especially Neil. And this is where I start to have a problem with the film and its message.
I'll be the first to admit that Neil's dad is a deeply flawed and tedious character. But I can't help but think that Neil would've objectively been better off being a doctor at 27 and alive (albeit probably unfulfilled) than taking his own life at 17. He would still have most of his life ahead of him, where he could enjoy theatre and maybe even act on the side. Obviously, the best outcome would have been if Neil's dad had been more understanding and supportive of his son's ambitions, but that wasn't the case.
Mr. Keating even says in his first lesson that medicine, law, business, etc. are noble pursuits, but poetry and art are what made life worth living. But if Neil was forced to become a doctor, he would not have been entirely deprived of the things that make life worth living. And he ultimately was deprived of his friendships, ever finding love, having a family, an established career, and any enjoyment of theatre through his suicide.
In the beginning of the film, Neil is full of beans but still very obedient to his stern father. It was Mr. Keating that filled him with what ended up being a very dangerous sense of urgency (indirectly through the lessons) which essentially made him think that he had to be an actor or life would otherwise not be worth living. And it's this sense of urgency which makes me feel that Mr. Keating is partially responsible for this tragedy (obviously alongside Neil's dad's unwillingness to understand, and Welton's restrictive educational regime).
This begs the question, to what extents should we go when following our dreams? If Neil acted with less urgency, his life would've been a bit more ordinary, but that wouldn't make it a life not worth living. In the final scene, it is clear that the remaining main characters are grateful for Mr. Keating and his lessons. Carpe Diem is a positive message - but Carpe Diem at what cost?
[link] [comments]
source https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/zwml30/dead_poets_society_isnt_mr_keating_at_least/
Comments
Post a Comment