Dead Poets Society (1989)

Oh Captain my captain

By Paul Birch 

Peter Weir had a great 1980s. This could be the understatement of the year. In the same decade he made Gallipoli, The year of living dangerously, Witness, The Mosquito Coast, and a little film called Dead Poets Society. That’s not a bad run, and few would have thought that Dead Poets would be the film that would define him. When you look at the film, and his resume, you can see why he was tailor-made to make this. A mixture of seasoned actors, and young up and comers…check. A dramatic tale that can only be told in the way someone like Weir can tell… check. Surrounding yourself with experts in nearly every field…absolutely check.

Back to the film though.

Set in 1959, Dead Poets Society is a simple story. There is really not much that happens. I mean at all. I’m not saying this is a bad thing, far from it. We get to live with the students in the fictional boarding school. We breath the air they breath, and by the end we cry the same tears. The film starts with the beginning of a school term. Parents fuss over students, with the slightest hint of the stresses that lie ahead. The soundtrack is only bagpipes. We all know the epic soundtrack by Maurice Jarre, but music is surprisingly lacking. The first small background track doesn’t even come into play until the 18th minute. When that music does come in though, it blows you away. Back to the film though.

We first meet Neil Perry (Robert Sean Leonard) and Todd Anderson (Ethan Hawke) as respective parents are laying out the ground rules for the year ahead. Todd, quiet and shy, Neil, outgoing and dramatic. They instantly bond as new roommates, with Todd bringing him into the crowd of young scholars. The group itself all manage to be different enough, with a lot of work being done outside of the script. Peter Weir is well known to let his actors improvise and change things. One of the most poignant moments at the end was not in the original script (will come to that later) and he will let the camera role after a take is finished just to see what will happen. 

                          

One of the best moments in the film is when Neil and Todd are talking alone. It is Todds birthday, and the only present he has been given is the same present his parents gave him the year before. The original script had a very different, overly emotional conversation. The genius of Peter though, is that he lets his actors change things. Todd would never be that emotional, it is not how the character works. PEter Weir agreed with this, and the scene was changed to what we see now and the present being thrown from the roof.

                                  

As great as the young stars are (Josh Charles, Dylan Kussman et al) it I Robin Williams who absolutely steals every scene magnificently. Nowadays we hear how it was such a brave choice, but if you look at his cinematography, you’ll see he was made for this. Good Morning Vietnam and The World according to Garp are both hilarious yet dramatic. Robin Williams has this skill, a skill skill that almost no one else on the planet has ever had, to make anything funny. The infamous wife farting monologue in Goodwill Hunting being the best example. 

In Dead Poets Society, Robin is allowed to let loose every now and then, some great impressions and you can see he goes off script a lot. What he does though, is know how to rein himself in. He always has that twinkle in his eye, where you know that anything could happen, but he also has more humanity in a smile than most actors could muster in a lifetime. Interesting fact, Liam Neeson was always first choice to play the role of Mr Keating, only changing when Peter Weir came on board. At one point, Dustin Hoffman was going to star and direct. Both would have worked, but I think we got the right choice in the end.

Back to the film…

                                    

There are many different stories going on at the same time, but the main one is about the growth of Todd and Neil. This is a true coming of age story. We see the characters grow and change throughout (the film was shot chronologically which helped us follow the growth)

Neil wants to be an actor, something his father does not. Todd wants to remain silent, something Mr Keating does not want. In these two paths, we see the complete opposite approaches that the elder statesmen make. For Keating he wants freedom, he believes that every person makes there own path. The scene in the classroom where he covers Todd’s eyes and Todd becomes the poet he always has been shows us the type of teacher and parent we always want. 

For Neil it is completely different, with consequences that change everyone forever.

I’m not going to say what happens. If you are reading this, then you probably already know, so there’s no need. If you haven’t seen the film, then stop reading, grab a copy and get watching.

Dead Poets Society will always be remembered for the final scene. We think everything is over. Mr Keating has been dismissed, and the students are back to being force fed education instead of absorbing it themselvEethan Hawke really shines as an actor. Defying the teacher, he speaks out loud, telling Mr Keating how much this is not his fault. Ahe calls Oh Captain my Captain and stands ont he desk, the music grows even louder. Other students join in. All standing as Keating looks on, proud of ‘his boys’ and what he has helped them become (interesting fact number 2. One of the characters, Richard Cameron, does not stand on the desk. This was the actors choice, as he did not believe that his character would do this. This makes his character look bad, but is such a genuine touch it makes everything else feel even more real)

                          

A lot more happens, there are other side stories, and I really have not done the film justice. To do that would mean writing a book. 

Looking back, the film can be seen as a little cheesy. Which it is. There is no denying it. There’s nothing wrong with that though. Sometimes what we need is something like this. 

It truly is an uplifiting film, even though you know that any subsequent scenes would not be positive for anyone involved. It’s also an important film and growing up, and becoming who you want to be, not who you are expected to be.

I’ll end with a Keating quote “No matter what anybody tells you, words and ideas can change the world”

Remembering Varda: La Pointe Courte

By Arijit Paul

The grand old matriarch of the French New Wave, Agnès Varda's debut feature La Pointe Courte has a distinctive quality from the French films of that era. She moves apart from the more grandiose, traditional style to a simple, grounded one where she captured the everyday little things in life with a poetic vision. It isn't everyday that you watch a film which infuses documentary ethics with a fictional narrative so well to achieve an utmost level of simplicity. 

The story is seen from two different sides - one explores a married couple's complicated relationship, where they ponder upon their journey that they have travelled till now. The other is a story about a common fisherman family who are economically poor but are extremely sensitive about their prestige. The story unfolds on the small fishing town of La Pointe Courte which had first attracted Varda from her early photographer days. It is intriguing to note that although she had no prior experience with filmmaking, the framing and composition of La Pointe Courte absolutely didn't give that vibe. In fact, while exploring both sides (feminine and masculine) of the personality elements she projected the characters' face perpendicular to each other. In contrast, she also captured the day to day activities of the fisherman with patiently crafted long, static shots injecting some casual symbolic visuals in between. Her close friend, Resnais obviously kept pace with the narrative and edited the sequences in that manner. She made this five years before Jean-Luc Godard and Truffaut jumped into world cinema with their timeless debuts, but technically this film announces the onset of the French New Wave. 

This is one fantastically woven tale that tells a story of the most common people in a society in the simplest of manners. Trivia: While editing the film in Varda's apartment, Resnais kept annoying her by comparing the film to works by Luchino Visconti, Michelangelo Antonioni and others that she was unfamiliar with until she got so fed up with it all that she went to the Cinémathèque to find out what he was talking about.

It (2017)

By Saša Avramović

Alternative titles: It: Chapter One a.k.a. It: Part 1 - The Losers' Club

Director: Andrés Muschietti
Screenplay: Cary Fukunaga, Chase Palmer, Gary Dauberman
Starring: Jaeden Lieberher, Bill Skarsgård, Finn Wolfhard, Jeremy Ray Taylor, Sophia Lillis, Chosen Jacobs, Jack Dylan Grazer, Wyatt Oleff, Nicholas Hamilton
Cinematography: Chung-hoon Chung
Music: Benjamin Wallfisch

Stephen King's 'It' is one of the ten defining books of my life. The enjoyment it gave me when I first read it as a kid, plus on every subsequent re-read was immense. Its blend of coming of age and horror elements is done with great skill and passion for the themes and you can feel that from every page of the book. That special feeling when you read a book and the book starts to behave like your friend or guide to the unexpected is one of a kind. It helped also that I lived (and still live) in a village with surroundings not very different from the one described in the book. The woods, the river, the passages underneath the land surface, and gullies and streams at the surface. I and my friends were camping in the woods, making wood tents out of pine trees and other available materials. It was great. But most importantly, when it comes to themes, I find King's work universal in terms of perfectly capturing the growing-up process, while experiencing the first traces of death and the rotten world before your eyes.

The first adaptation of 'It' came in the form of a mini-series directed by Tommy Lee Wallace in 1990. I always held it dear to my heart, although it's evident that mini-series have lots of problems (sloppy direction in the second part and downer ending being the most obvious ones). Tim Curry was wonderful as Pennywise and the kids were excellent too, but this story needed a film format as much more fitting for its themes.

Enter Andrés Muschietti, the director of the pretty weak horror movie 'Mama'. That was the main reason for my initial concern about the quality of the movie. But with every new promo material my expectations grew, and I am really happy to say that I was initially wrong. Very wrong!
First thing I need to say - the new kids are amazing - so spontaneous, so natural. Yes, the young cast from the mini-series was very fitting in their roles, but the new ones are so great that I now cannot imagine anyone else in their parts. I completely believed them and trusted in their friendship, in front of my eyes were not actors but Bill, Bev, Stan, Ritchie, Mike, Eddie and Ben, the whole Losers Club. I cheered at their successes, I feared for them, and I wanted them to win. Also, I shed a tear during a couple of really emotional scenes. 'It' alternates very successfully between hard-hitting, tear-inducing scenes (and manages to never feel cheap or manipulative in a bad way during these scenes) and scenes of happiness and pure terror. All the supporting actors, both kids, and adults are inhabiting their characters completely and without pulling back. And Bill Skarsgård as demonic Pennywise took a different but very interesting path, playing the performance of a hypnotizer who leads children to their death, with more creepiness and horror than humor, but still taking enough of both. The very good script helps the actors a lot in that process.

New 'It' is a wonderful coming of age horror-adventure. I am glad to say that Muschietti improved himself a great deal - he gave space to every character to develop, with all their inner torments, blending their inner horror with the horror of Derry perfectly, which is one of the main strengths of King's book too. King is great at blending real-life horrors with supernatural horrors (in 'It', but also even more in 'Pet Sematary' novel for example) and Muschietti made it work on the big screen very well. The boundaries between the ancient evil lurking inside the brain of the town and its (older) inhabitants are almost completely blurred in this case and it brilliantly fits the themes of the movie. In 'It', the monster(s) is/are everywhere, in the sewer, in the family, in the school, the whole town is full of them and our heroes are slowly realizing the true nature of the everpresent evil of the town and its inhabitants and deciding to fight It in all its shapes. Real life and supernatural, personal and collective, they blur together in the waking nightmare that paralyzes the whole town, alternating between the moments of terror seen and felt only by kids (the adults are already part of It) and the real-life terror of dysfunctional families, child abuse and the constant neglecting by the adults - by those who are meant to care for and protect the children in the first place ("Then, one day, you realize that's not true.").

Horror scenes are realized with great skill. What the mini-series mostly failed to achieve (especially in the second part) and Muschietti did very effectively is evoking horror by setting an ordinary situation that suddenly morphs into its nightmarish version. That's of course an old trick but Muschietti made it work perfectly. And since the titular antagonist feeds on children's fears, there are some very creepy scenes of them confronting the demons of their tortured minds. Some people complained about the amount and the quality of the jump scares, but I never felt that they are out of place or wrongly used. These scenes are shown from the point of view of the main characters, and considering that the monster "hypnotizes" them in these moments, creating the space for its attack, these scenes always felt justified and in place. Also, some other horror scenes, especially the ones near the end showing the psychological and literal battle between It and the kids are perfectly realized. CGI is smartly used (again especially near the end of the movie), never overused and it adds to instead of taking out of the final experience.

 The scenography is extremely well done (with the house of It being the most impressive) and creates another layer of creepiness or 80's style adventure look, depending on the situation. Cinematography is another strength of the movie. It's done by Chung-hoon Chung, best known as the director of photography for Chan-wook Park's movies. Many of the horror scenes are set during the bright day, which is a smart move that returns us to the golden 70s and 80s when the great masters of horror filmed some very effective horror scenes during the bright day. Also, when it comes to the look of the movie, the period of the late eighties (1988 and 1989) is perfectly reconstructed. The film also has a perfect sense of time and space and plays wisely with all its visual and verbal elements. Visual elements are fused with passing time and verbal parts are used in smaller but effective amounts. We have movie marquees for 'Batman', the fifth part of 'A Nightmare on Elm Street, 'Lethal Weapon 2', posters for 'Beetlejuice' and 'Gremlins' and a picture of a monster car on Eddie's T-shirt (possible reference to 1983 John Carpenter's movie 'Christine', adapted from Stephen King's novel). Also at one point, Richie says, referring to Bev: "Who invited Molly Ringwald into the group?” (one of the funniest lines from the movie), which is of course a reference to one of the main stars of John Hughes movies from the same era. Also, the music by various bands is cleverly used (with New Kids on the Block being very funny and nice touch :) ). The original score by Benjamin Wallfisch alternates between very creepy and John Williams-like, adding layers of very effective horror and 80's nostalgia.

I would have loved it if the movie contained bigger hints at the origins of Its evil, rooted in Lovecraftian cosmic horror. There are a couple of hints near the end of the movie, but I would have loved to see more of that, because it gives It the wider implications and makes its evil more Lovecraftian - that was another strength of King's book, making It part of the cosmic terror existing beyond any superficial and banal, being truly dangerous and universal. Also, as a part of that mythology, the turtle Maturin is referenced a couple of times in the movie, but not much. I would have liked to see more of that. All that is very well explained in the 'Ritual of Chüd' scene in the book (which was one of the scenes initially planned for the movie, but never filmed because of budgetary reasons). It would be great to see Ritual of Chüd and other similar scenes in the second part of the movie, in the form of flashbacks. Also, since the director's cut on DVD and Blu-Ray will be 15 minutes longer, there is a strong possibility of including more scenes of Its background (a background that does not destroy the character, which was often the case in similar situations, but enriches it). All in all, the goods that this movie delivers are too big so I don't consider this a big problem (and I am certainly not one of those "the movie must be faithful to the book" type of people, on the contrary), only suggesting a thing that can (and probably will be) more explored.

'It' is an amazing experience. I watched it with a friend at the cinema. Apart from five or six of us twenty- and thirty-somethings, the cinema was full of kids and teenagers. They liked the movie a lot (Bev got the biggest applause for her stabbing It in the head). When the movie was over, one kid stood up and said very loud, so that everybody can hear him: "This is the best horror movie I've ever seen!" While that's not true in my case, I can certainly understand where he is coming from. 'It' is one of the best horror movies of recent years and the success it enjoys is completely justified by its qualities.
 

"They're gazebos, mom! They're bullshit!"
Eddie Kaspbrak

4.5 / 5