Wow, you really missed the entire point of this film, didn't you?

Maybe I did! What have I missed?

Keating was a scapegoat, not the culprit, and everyone looked for blame to assign because it's easier to be angry than to deal with grief. And contrary to your analysis, it was ultimately Neil who made that choice for himself.

I would argue that it is partially his fault. That's why he's asked to resign, as I recall. It's presented as (and indeed is) Keating being punished for opening the boys' hearts in a society that rewards only discipline, but there's something to be said about discipline as a coping mechanism for the difficulty of puberty.

I don't really think this undermines the philosophy of the film, because the pro-discipline crowd ultimately shirks their responsibility onto Keating, the ultimate hypocrisy. But as I'm a teacher at the school that inspired the screenplay, I think it's important to look at all the contributing factors. The culture was primarily at fault, but a teacher sending mixed messages confused the student further.

Ok, I'll bite. I've watched this film many, many times. I would have to say that Neil is ultimately responsible for the choices he made. Keating did encourage the boys to follow their dreams (much to the chagrin of their parents, who put them in the expensive and exclusive school for boys in order to help them get into the best colleges and beyond to be doctors, lawyers, etc.)

However, in this life we are all responsible ultimately for our choices. In situations like this one where it is a youth and has a tragic end, the parents especially are looking to blame someone else for their failings. They destroyed Neil's will by taking away the one thing he loved to do more than anything. He didn't feel he had any other choice but to take his own life because his life wasn't his anyway. Mr. Keating and acting made Neil realize that possibly more quickly than he would have otherwise, but Neil had no other choice - either be a slave to his father for another 10 years probably, or choose to take his life - and that's what he chose.

I had a friend who committed suicide in HS and his parents were on a rampage trying to find someone to blame or lash out on. It didn't take long for me to figure out how circumstances he was in would lead him to it.

In the end Mr. Keating may have encouraged Neil to explore his romantic/poetic/creative side, but he didn't type a fake letter for him, or lie about quitting, etc... Neil made that bed. Keating was just a scapegoat in the end. He tried to tell Neil to talk to his father, not lie to him. He encouraged Neil to do the right thing at the time. I don't think Keating was a good fit for the school, actually - the only reason he came back there was for sentimental reasons, I suppose. And, Keating would have been better off as a Drama/English teacher where he could expose the kids to that kind of creative thought and expression. His biggest mistake was thinking he could teach those concepts at Helton with impunity.

It's never anyone else's fault someone commits suicide, maybe sexual assault or something traumatic being an exception, but he didn't make him do it; he just gave him the ability to think for himself and that's what he ultimately decided for himself. He gave him the freedom to choose for himself. Just gonna say himself again.

I understand where you are coming from with this interpretation. I won't even say it is incorrect. But ultimately what happened with Neil is a tragic issue of mental illness at a young age.

Even in the film Neil never says he plans to not become a doctor. He promises his dad he can do both and by all accounts it seems he is successful.

It was his dad making the choice for him that he could not have these things that drove him to do what he did. Of course he could have just waited another year and would be a legal adult at that point, able to make his own decisions.

I took Neil's decision as more of a commentary on how powerless some children feel underneath their parents and how instead of seeing that there is a light at the end of the tunnel they feel they will always live under their parents shadow.

Great discussion!

I totally get that Keating was the scapegoat in the film. But I don't think the vast majority of viewers see Keating as a contributing factor to Neil's choice at all. I don't think it's fair to say Neil (and Neil alone) made his choice. He was an impressionable teenager who was greatly influenced by his seniors. That goes for his father just as well as it goes for Mr. Keating. And I think if it weren't for Mr. Keating's insistence on following one's dreams to the fullest, Neil wouldn't have ended it all.

At the end of the day, I'm not entirely focused on who is to blame and exactly how much they contributed to the tragedy. I'm more confused about the message. If we can say that Neil took Carpe Diem too far (in my opinion it was influenced by the dangerous urgency I mentioned earlier), what is the underlying philosophy that the boys thank Mr. Keating for in the end?

Thanks for the input!

If it was Neil and Neil alone who took it too far in the end (is that safe to say?), what are we supposed to make of Carpe Diem? Should we want to live our lives to the fullest no matter the cost?

Thanks!

What role do you think Keating's philosophy plays in the film? Is it something the viewer should aspire towards/or avoid?

Is the main moral of the story that extreme discipline is very destructive?

I think you mean ‘mutually exclusive’. Not inclusive.

But Neil lied to Mr. Ketting about getting his fathers permission. He knew Ketting wouldn’t approve. It’s tragic but Neil is responsible.

[deleted]

As I recall, Keating told the boys when things went too far in the auditorium that "sucking all the marrow out of life doesn't mean choking on the bone". What he was saying to them was yes, seize the day - but don't lose sight of reality or consequences as you do it. There is a balance to be had. Seizing the day at the expense or harm of others is not acceptable. We cannot do whatever we want to do to please ourselves without considering the cost. In the end, Neil wasn't willing/able to pay the cost, i.e. standing up to his father.

Keating is an idealist in a harsher reality than he realizes. His philosophy is a good aspiration, but must be approached with the temperance of discipline. I do think the main moral of the story is what you said, but I think a more thoughtful consideration of the events would identify a different core issue.

The real problem was that Keating's mindfulness and the academy's temperance were at odds, each side pitted against the other and taken to the extreme. If each side embraced the other--Keating telling the boys to take their biology as seriously as poetry and the administration embracing Keating's style as producing a balanced young man--the student character would have found support and a model for living the life you mentioned in the OP.

Our school now strongly supports the arts in addition to athletics and traditionally prestigious academic routes.

[deleted]

I meant that to Neil, it couldn't be mutually exclusive. I.e., he had to pursue acting and be a good son, otherwise he couldn't live anymore.

It seems to be the consensus of the thread that at the end of the day, it was Neil's responsibility (I'm not sure I fully agree, because he's an impressionable teenager, and his role models will naturally have a massive influence on his beliefs and choices). But either way what do you think we should ultimately take from the film? Is there a moral to the story that upholds the philosophy of Carpe Diem and somehow also explains Neil's death?

I think you already got the best answer here. https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/zwml30/dead_poets_society_isnt_mr_keating_at_least/j1vr7ac/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3

I agree it is partly his fault though the movie has the subtly of a sledgehammer and frames Keating positively. Its uncomplicated sentimental schlock.

the movie stacks the deck against us here by framing Keating as a rebel fighting against the crushing traditionalist forces of conformity at Welton. Case in point, the textbook scene, fun but manipulative. The textbook the boys are using is absurd. It has an introductory chapter about graphing the quality of poetry which Mr. Keating has them gleefully rip out. Of course we're going to root for him telling the boys to subversively rip out the dumb chapter. What if the scene was more realistic though? What if he had them rip out the imperialistic poetry of Kipling and instead study the beat poets? There is an argument to be made here, but its a messy and complicated one and Dead Poet Society strives to be simple. Its playing to a broad audience who want to feel like non-conformists and so it constantly presents you with a straw man instead.

Notice we never see Keating actually "teaching" in a traditional sense. He's more interested in influencing how the boys think, specifically that they think like him. Keating acts more like an Welton Oldboy (which he is) who went off on some grand adventure and wants to share his travels with the younger boys. He's that guy who comes back to teach at his old high school to relive his glory days and impressive impressionable teenagers (it ain't hard) rather than deal with his actual peers. However, he treats them like his university peers when arguably they're not ready for that. Picasso had to be trained classically, he needed to know what the rules were before he could break them. Keating clearly does not understand that. He received foundational knowledge about poetry and literature at Welton and then went to university where he learned how to break those rules. Now he is back to teaching to break the rules they have never learned because he SHOULD be teaching them.

I agree with OP, Keating gives an unnecessary and unrealistic sense of urgency to a bunch of high school rich kids. A more interesting movie would be willing to frame Neil's death as partly Keating's fault for manipulating the boys to think like him rather than actual teaching them to think for themselves. If you want to see a movie that actually does that well, see The Prime of Ms. Jean Brodie.

I'm a high school English teacher who asks students to read poetry, including the works of realists like Robert Herrick, so I'm a bit biased here. With that out of the way, I think there are a bunch of issues to dig into in this question, and I hope to just tackle a few:

1. Charisma and Agendas. Without question, Mr. Keating is a problematic teacher-figure in film. He takes a job working with children, trying to breathe life into them before they shuffle out the door, conforming to the values of their parents and the institutions that have carried them--generationally--into success. His self-appointed mission is to interrupt that process by communicating to them, Day One, that they are following their parents down a Wrong Path, and that literature is a means of switching onto the Right Path. The ethics of this are dubious.
2. Literature As Problematic. There's no shortage of people in the world right now who want nothing more than to keep literature out of the hands of children. The quality of literature is that we do not merely consume it, but that we interact with it. Poems and books can shape our thinking, and when we're vulnerable, we're vulnerable to literature, too. Realists dealt with the isolating nature of the industrial world, and it's too common to assign blame to artistic expressions of problematic circumstances rather than the problems themselves. Neil absolutely sees himself in the art because it's true. So it follows that asking teachers to shield minds from literature is equivalent to shielding them from truths like "We're all mortal," and "Do things, now."
3. Expecting the Unexpected. If I've learned anything in almost two decades of education, it's that talking to teenagers in figurative terms or moving into the philosophical discussion of the abstract means that those who are actually listening and processing what you say are very likely to apply what you say unexpectedly. Placing responsibility on Keating--or more specifically, blame--requires us to say that either (a) he should have expected this could happen, or (b) regardless of if he expected it, he owns a piece of it. I have to work with pretty subtle degrees or shades of the term "responsibility" to accept the notion that an English teacher bears responsibility for rash decisions of children who are suffering from isolation borne from familial pressures.
4. Characters as Vessels. If we consider Neil, Keating, the administrators, the parents, all the characters as fictional figures rather than real ones, it helps us see them as vessels representative of the values of the time, rather than simply as make-believe people with motivations. If we assign Keating blame, as a vessel of anti-authoritarianism, in the decision of the Self Destructive Victim of Authority character, then that's highly problematic--it establishes a theme of the story that empowerment is dangerous and the right road might just be to acquiesce to Authority and to bide time. The urgency of Keating here, not as a literal one but as a symbolic one, speaks more broadly to the need for people to develop their identity early in life as part of the formation of their character before they are swallowed by the Leviathan. The truth is, the Father figure is also in crisis: he acquiesced to his own father, and his father before him, and the institution of the school reflects the broader society that isolates people to the point they don't recognize the value of their own children or the value of education itself as anything more than a path to financial excess and placement within the machine. Fundamentally, something the American realists saw in their poetry.

Guess we're just gonna ignore the obvious gay subtext going on in the film.

In addition to everything else, I'm thinking about Neil's potential future patients. I wouldn't want my doctor to be a person who always wanted to be something other than a doctor.

I have long since thought that Mr. Keating is a toxic narcissist who leaves catastrophe in his wake because he needs to lap up adulation as the big fish in the small pond, and from insecure lonely teens who don't yet see his mediocrity and corniness. The evil dean wasn't the real villain of this tragedy

I hear you, and the phrase is absolutist but I don’t think most people employ it that way.

Most short bits of advice are harmful when taken in an absolutist and narrow way.

This is my favorite take any has in this thread. I like the idea that these actions and themes have real consequences even indirectly. There is no doubt that the father plays some role but these things are rarely black and white.

I sense a great deal of cynicism towards educators in general, as well as some pretty big assumptions about the film and its characters. (Full disclosure: I have been a high school English teacher for over 20 years, an DPS was one of my favourite films back when I was in high school.)

First, the question of Mr. Keating's teaching: We see maybe 3-4 scenes in his actual classroom--over what appears to be several months of the school year--and he makes several references to assignments, tests, and papers. It is not like he is burning down the entire educational system of which he is a part. Granted, he has several unorthodox methods and approaches, but there is no indication he has abandoned the content or skills the students are expected to know. As someone already noted, Keating never once tells them that what their parents do--or what the students plan to do--as professions are somehow wrong or devoid of meaning. He is trying to get them to see art (in this case, literature) as a companion to the necessities of life (job, family, bills, taxes, etc.), not a replacement for them.

Second, the kids were already rebelling (albeit in a pretty tame fashion, like smoking) against the norms of their conservative parents' generation. Perhaps they were emboldened in these pursuits by a misunderstanding of what Keating was trying to get them to see/understand about life, but recall the one "phone call" prank from God that got one of them in some trouble with the headmaster. He expects praise from Keating, but while Keating does (eventually) make a light joke about the incident overall, he first calls out the student for being reckless with the opportunity he has been given to attend the school. As Keating tells him, "Sucking the marrow out of life doesn't mean choking on the bone."

Again, he is trying to teach them that art and life (or passions and responsibilities) can be a both/and relationship, rather than and either/or one.

Lastly, look at the sequence of events around Neil and the play: He auditions without telling anyone, and gets the part. He tells Mr. Keating that his father will be upset and he doesn't know how to broach the subject with him. Mr. Keating (who never once tells Neil to lie or hide the information or go against his father's wishes) encourages him to speak about what the play means to him with as much passion as he as done when speaking to him (Keating). Neil follows up a few days later by lying to Keating, telling him his father was initially upset, but agreed to let him stick with the play. Keating (you could argue wrongly, I suppose) takes what Neil says at face value and assumes he is telling him the truth.

Yes, there are a lot of topics and conversations and "takes" on the film, to be sure. But I don't know that one can reasonably hold Keating responsible for >!Neil's suicide!<.

Farewell, Mr. Bunting

I’m actually really relieved to find some comments here that don’t side with Mr. Keating. I re-watched it recently and found myself feeling less like he was freeing their minds, and more like he was being reckless and inviting chaos into their lives. I thought it was a cynical view, but if you cut through the schlock, I think this is what you start to notice.

Great insights, thank you for sharing them.

No, it was not his fault. Neil’s father was abusive. That’s what caused his death.

This is an incredibly insightful and well-thought-out comment. Your students are lucky to have you if you bring this same level of depth to your teaching!

Yea that’s a big part. Neil’s father isn’t violently rejecting acting so much as a son he suspects might not be straight.

he knew he was lying. It was obvious it was one of the scenes on my 2nd rewatch i noticed for the first time and it was so obvious he knew Neil lied.

Someone else posted below but:

Niel wouldn’t have a family as you suggested. Not in the traditional sense. There’s a lot of implication that he’s gay. It’s not only about acting. Neil’s father disapproves of everything about Neil.

Mr. Keating gave Neil the hope that he had agency over his life and happiness.

Neil’s father reinforced the notion that as long as Neil was Neil, he would have none. It wasn’t just about acting.

I’m not so sure about that. Ketting went up to them after the play and seemed pretty shock by the dad’s reaction.

Even if he did that is irrelevant to OP’s concern. The fact that Neil felt the need to lie meant that he knew Ketting wouldn’t approve. Neil understood what the limits to Carpe Diem were as Ketting was teaching it.

And if Ketting DID know as you claim what should he do? Call Neil’s Dad? Then the same thing happens to Neil except now he feels betrayed by Ketting.

Neil found there to be no solution that involved him continuing to live. Many people are aware of the enriching qualities of the arts and still choose a traditional career. Neil did not feel he had this choice. I think the only influence from Keating was opening his mind up enough for him to do the play, which led him to realize that he needed to be an actor or he couldn't go on.

Millennials' generation, stereotypically and otherwise, was raised by Boomers who were living in an unprecedented era of security and ate the message of this movie up. It was a lucrative theme for movies of the time. You are unique, you are special, you can do anything. That is the narrative of people who have not had to worry about survival for decades. Now you see more and more depression and disillusionment as a result. So you are correct. Carpe diem is one side of a duality. Survival is essential. Nurturing your creative spirit is important as well.

Spoilers below

I had a similar reaction the first time I saw the film, and I think it comes from fear. Let me try to explain.

You are holding Mr. Keating responsible for Neil's suicide, and by extension, for Neil's suffering. But those things aren't his fault.

Keating could not have known what Neil would choose do. He might have know that the philosophy of "carpe diem" would lead to suffering of some kind, but he told them as much. He told them to not be afraid to follow their joy. He didn't need to explain what consequences might follow; they were nearly adult men, and they knew.

But Neil's death is so tragic that it makes us wish we could have stopped it. We rack our brains looking for how things might have ended differently.

The truth is, sometimes bullies win. Sometimes horrible people get their way. Sometimes decent people pursue their happiness, yet find nothing but pain.

It would be easy to blame Mr. Keating for that. To say, we shouldn't pursue our desires, we shouldn't take risks, we shouldn't rock the boat or make those big powerful people unhappy. But that would be exactly the wrong message. That would lead to a life lived in fear. A kind of living death. That's exactly what he told his students to fight.

Unfortunately, one of them fell in battle.

It wasn't Keating's fault, but it is the uncomfortable result of carpe diem. Life doesn't come without risks.

The right lesson, I think, is to prepare yourself for those fights. To strategize, and make sure you have good support along the way. Not to just give in to fear.

I like to think that as sad as it was that Neil died, at least he had one glorious night when he was fully alive.

That was my takeaway. The rigid and oppressive nature of the school and Neil’s father was what made the biggest impression on me. I would feel trapped if I were Neil.

nah I think he knew he was gonna act that way (Ketting on dad's reaction) so that's why he overcompensated and sort of "overreacted" to Neil's performance. Which the Dichotomy and the forged internal conflict could've triggered (no pun intended) Neil's demise. No one is innocent here imo. Honestly. It's not the limits it's more like actually he didn't want to disappoint his second father, Ketting.

If he did know, I think he should've'nt pushed Neil so hard imo towards the path of Carpe Diem but let him find it in his own time.