Will Smith is Ben Thomas the IRS agent with the power to dramatically alter the lives of seven people. Thomas whose intentions are not made clear until as late as possible in the film behaves in an unpredictable and secretive way throughout the film. As it seems to be frowned upon to reveal the "twist" of the film, I won't do that. But, then there is not much framework to build a review on.
I think there is an unwitting pun in Will Smith's ability to alter the lives of seven people "dramatically," because from start to finish, the film is set to look like a thriller, unnecessarily. I feel that without the elaborate way the story is told, there is enough emotional strength in the idea to keep the film going. I also feel that the trailers gave me an expectation that there would be seven stories tied together, but in the end it was one story with seven elements to it, the biggest being the final revelation.
The film explores a karma-based worldview and the idea of meriting good and having to make up for evil. Firstly, the guilt and remorse which drives Smith's character and his desire to make amends for his past. Secondly, Smith weighs up whether someone is good enough before he does his act of kindness to them. Do people have to deserve kindness? Smith seems to make an exception when it comes to giving his heart to a woman.
Overall, I was not very satisfied with this film and thought it overly tense to the detriment of the real emotional struggle which could be explored. Although I generally like the style of telling a story in a different order, I think this film, (like Slumdog Millionaire) did not benefit from the way it was advertised.
Plot Spoiler Warning:
It's extreme organ doning basically, isn't it?
Saturday 7 February 2009
Dead Poets' Society
Robin Williams stars in one of his best roles as he guides a group of teenage public school students towards exploring issues of free-thinking against a rigorous and constrictively traditional school system. Williams plays the poet and teacher, John Keating, whose ideas revolutionise the way the young boys think about school, about girls and about life.
The boys in Keating’s English class sneak out at night to entertain themselves with a secret poetry society in full boyish rebellion. This very emotive and powerful film follows the journey of one boy in particular, Neil Perry and his relationship with his demanding, military minded, but well-meaning father. As Perry begins to find a passion in acting, one of which his father heavily disapproves, the tension in their relationship drives him to suicide.
As well as showcasing some excellent poetry (a lost art), the film raises questions about the value of tradition, how open-minded teenagers should be allowed to be, and parental tension, which are penetrating and relevant twenty years on from the production of this film. At some points, a viewer sides with Keating in his enjoyable breaking of the endless meter of living up to parental expectations. At others, however, when Keating’s attempts to broaden their horizons leads them to reckless behaviour, questions are raised about how to balance teaching open-mindedness without restricting and repressing the boys, yet helping them to see the consequences of their actions.
A memorable scene shows the English class in a beautiful courtyard and three of them are asked to walk around. They eventually end up marching in exact step with one another, the whole class clapping along. The film at this point raises the question, why do we take our cue from everyone else? Why not forge our own path?
Yet, the individualistic message of Keating’s questions, leads to insensitivity towards the traditions of the school and, although the teachers are shown up as enjoying the authority a little too much and being disconnected with the boys they are teaching, the real question we are left with, as Neil Perry is found shot in his father’s study, how can we balance these two worldviews? Can we please everyone? Should we do what feels good? How do we live in a system we disagree with?
As a final comment, I think we are ‘supposed’ to side with Keating and his anti-authoritarian free-thinking. But the film does very well not to suppose that too strongly.
The boys in Keating’s English class sneak out at night to entertain themselves with a secret poetry society in full boyish rebellion. This very emotive and powerful film follows the journey of one boy in particular, Neil Perry and his relationship with his demanding, military minded, but well-meaning father. As Perry begins to find a passion in acting, one of which his father heavily disapproves, the tension in their relationship drives him to suicide.
As well as showcasing some excellent poetry (a lost art), the film raises questions about the value of tradition, how open-minded teenagers should be allowed to be, and parental tension, which are penetrating and relevant twenty years on from the production of this film. At some points, a viewer sides with Keating in his enjoyable breaking of the endless meter of living up to parental expectations. At others, however, when Keating’s attempts to broaden their horizons leads them to reckless behaviour, questions are raised about how to balance teaching open-mindedness without restricting and repressing the boys, yet helping them to see the consequences of their actions.
A memorable scene shows the English class in a beautiful courtyard and three of them are asked to walk around. They eventually end up marching in exact step with one another, the whole class clapping along. The film at this point raises the question, why do we take our cue from everyone else? Why not forge our own path?
Yet, the individualistic message of Keating’s questions, leads to insensitivity towards the traditions of the school and, although the teachers are shown up as enjoying the authority a little too much and being disconnected with the boys they are teaching, the real question we are left with, as Neil Perry is found shot in his father’s study, how can we balance these two worldviews? Can we please everyone? Should we do what feels good? How do we live in a system we disagree with?
As a final comment, I think we are ‘supposed’ to side with Keating and his anti-authoritarian free-thinking. But the film does very well not to suppose that too strongly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
