Capturing the Friedmans

Directed by Andrew Jarecki. Starring Arnold Friedman, Jesse Friedman, David Friedman.

Bottomline: Capturing the Friedmans is, simple put, an amazing documentary.

4/4

                  

Capturing the Friedmans is about the Friedmans; an upper-middle class Jewish family in upstate New York. One day, the police come to the home of the Friedmans and search for child pornography. The police uncover a number of magazines belonging to Arnold Friedman. A retired high school teacher, he, with the help of his son Jesse, hold computer classes and piano lessons for young children. Once the police realize this, they start investigating Arnold for child abuse. Before long, he and his son are charged with around a hundred counts of sexual assault.

I have a lot of fun watching documentaries; I can spend roughly two hours watching a movie on the grounds that I am learning something. Over time I’ve come to realize that it isn’t just what the documentary is saying but how. Sometimes documentaries are clearly biased.

If you are a fan of documentaries, there is a website called Documentary Heaven which has lots of documentaries you can watch for free. I remember one that was about secret government cloud seeding experiments. Cloud seeding is, more or less, controlling rainfall and weather patterns. For that documentary, there was just the director, one person that was interviewed, and only about a dozen pictures that faded in and out of the frame. Towards the end of the hour and forty-five minute snoozefest, the director comes out from behind the camera and shouts to the camera, “If he has had so much success cloud seeding, why isn’t the government spending millions doing further testing!?” It detracts from the feeling that you are learning something. Instead it feels like you are spending time hearing propaganda.

The only other documentary I’ve seen more than once was Werner Herzog’s Grizzly Man (2005) and that was because I saw it for a film class. I watched it once at home and once in the class. I don’t usually watch documentaries more than once because, well, hearing it once is usually enough. It’s like attending a lecture more than once. You don't unless you have to. I saw Capturing the Friedmans twice so far because, again, I saw it for a class. But I will, however, most certainly be seeing it again. Capturing the Friedmans is an example of amazing storytelling.

The plot thickens at every turn. With documentaries about crimes, I read them like a detective novel. You decipher the film maker’s bias and then anticipate the details of the crime to make up your mind. In this case, whenever I solved the mystery, if you will, the movie would cut to another interview that threw me off.

Jarecki juxtaposes interviews to create fascinating dialogues. For example, we hear from the District Attorney about the process for conducting interviews with children. He explains that the children may be frightened so one doesn't want to put words in their mouths. Instead of saying “we know he assaulted you,” one should say, “what happened next?” The movie then cuts over to one of the detectives who conducted many of the interviews for the Friedman case: “We went through the whole line of questions...’We know you were in these computer classes and we know that there was a good chance he sexually assaulted you...” the camera then fades out. It's an example of how the movie can steer us toward reaching a particular conclusion. Better still, the movie can make us realize how we could never know the truth of the Friedman case. Towards the end of the movie, Jesse and his attorney provide radically different accounts of the same event. Who can we trust?

A major source of information comes from the Friedman’s home movies. The family shot a lot of home movies particularly around the time of the investigations. The footage provides a great balance to the interviews. Some shots from their ordinary cameras are eerily good too which add to the experience. At one point, Arnold is playing the piano and his son moves in for a close up. We listen to upbeat music (though it is made darker given the circumstance) and watch his glasses which reflect his hands on the piano keys.

I highly recommend you see Capturing the Friedmans. The subject matter is solidly depressing but it is a really well done documentary.

Downton Abbey

Downton Abbey is a TV drama set in 1912 that centers around the residents of the Downton Abbey estate: the Crawley family and their servants. The series begins with the news of the sinking of the Titanic. The only male heir of the Crawley estate was killed in the sink. Also killed in the disaster was the fiancee of the eldest Crawley daughter, Mary (Dockery). We soon learn that years before a legal document was drawn which bestowed the estate (the family fortune and the grounds) to the next male heir. The next male heir is a “middle class lawyer”, Matthew (Stevens), who lives with his mother (Logan). Matthew is the second or third cousin once removed of Robert Crawley (Bonneville).

This show has been around since 2010 and I believe a fifth season was recently announced. I don’t usually watch TV because, one, I don’t get cable and, two, it is such a time commitment. I have a hard enough time getting myself to write reviews as it is, I don’t need seasons of a show to chain smoke. I don’t play video games for that reason. That said, the first three seasons of this show are going down...probably this week.

The cinematography of Downton Abbey is rather quite good. The lighting and color makes the experience easy on the eyes and the focus shifts are spot on. At times, though, the blur can be a little too much. There are a couple scenes in the first few episodes set at night that have a large blurred border. I’m sure you’ve seen those shots of the heroine in old, black and white movies that have a blur to soften her appearance. It’s kinda like that. The acting is pretty good too. Each of the characters are fleshed out with their own back stories which, I’m sure, we’ll hear. I am also a big fan of the costumes.

I think, at some point, the different points of drama will run out. I’m betting sometime around the third season. One of the first few episodes, for example, had the situation where the cook hands a bowl of an ingredient to the assistant. The assistant was already holding a bowl of rat poison. The assistant runs out of the room, hands one of the bowls to someone else and gives them instructions about how to add it to the soup. Of course, she accidentally hands them the bowl of rat poison. Does someone die? Nope, it all works out. It reminds me of a bit on The Mitchell and Webb.

I wouldn’t have started watching this show had it not been for my fiancée and I must say that Julian Fellowes really knows her audience. The first kiss of the show is between two attractive men. The teaser for the second episode features a “dreamy” man moving in to kiss another “dreamy” guy only to have the camera cut over to a scene with said dreamy guy kissing one of the daughters. My fiancée and I summarized this is as period drama where the women dress up and plot while the men make out.

 

Would I recommend Downton Abbey? At this point, the hijinx in which the characters become involved has not run out of steam so, sure, if you are looking for a new program to follow. I probably won’t ever watch this program more than once but once is enough. I think I will go finish the rest of season 1 before it gets too late.

edit: I drafted this review before I finished Season 1...and now I’m done with Season 2. Given that I have two seasons down, let me reflect on my initial thoughts. Some of the plot lines are starting to run a little thin and I am getting a little annoyed with some of the characters but it is still an addictive show. I’m enjoying it as far as it goes but I think, next time, I won’t watch five episodes in a row.

Film Noir and You

For the longest time, whenever I heard “Film Noir,” I thought Casablanca, Humphrey Bogart, black and white, and fast-talking but I never knew much more. It was one of those “I’ll know it when I see it” things. I recently watched the 1941 version of The Maltese Falcon starring Humphrey Bogart. With its examples of harsh lighting, moral dilemmas, and the relationship between the protagonist and a femme fatale,The Maltese Falcon is the epitome of film noir. I write this post to help better understand the genre and explore how a couple instances of “neo-noirs,” or modern film noirs, Romeo is Bleeding (1993) and Chinatown (1974), have adapted the classic formula to the modern age.

A predecessor of film noir was German expressionism. German expressionism was big in the 1920’s and 1930’s. The art direction was an outward manifestation of the thematic focus of internal madness and turmoil: painted sets, jagged angles, and fantastic construction are some of the things one might notice. Famous films of this era include Nosferatu and The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. Check out this image from The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari:

Another feature you might notice is the harsh lighting. In this film, the shadows were actually painted into the sets to provide a better, more striking distinction between light and dark. Now, consider your mental picture of film noir with the above image.

Roger Fromm notes that the film noir genre appealed to the disillusionment of post-war America. The nation had had enough of the romanticized Patriotism found in movies produced during the war. These films are dark in every way. These movies are so dark, if were filmed in color, they would still be in black and white. In much the same way as German expressionism, film noirs project the thematic struggle onto the world. The harsh lighting, for example, creates menacing shadows. In The Maltese Falcon, a couple of police officers visit Sam Spade to question him about a recent murder. The camera sits between the two officers looking straight at Spade who sits alone on his bed. The officers become walls on each side of the frame giving an appropriately claustrophobic feel to the conversation; they suspect Spade of murder and will gladly arrest him at the slightest chance.

From a thematic perspective, the internal turmoil translates into an outward conflict. In the case of The Maltese Falcon, we have the ace private detective, Sam Spade. He is a hard-edged man trying to survive in a gritty world caught in between criminals and the police. Spade isn’t the classic, good guy hero who gets the girl at the end. He falls in love with the girl but he saves himself, not her. Spade, as is the case with all film noirs, is an anti-hero. At the same time, although it seems like he considers dealing with criminals, ultimately, he doesn’t. According to the trailer, Spade is a man who “make crime career...the most ruthless lover you’ll ever meet”. Ruthless is a bit of an overstatement. He is more concerned with self-preservation than getting ahead. It isn’t so much that he works against the law but that he is willing to work outside the law. He is fundamentally true even though he commiserates with criminals.

Alongside the male protagonist, is the black widow of a woman, the femme fatale. Beautiful but dangerous, she leads the protagonist into certain peril. In The Maltese Falcon, we have Brigid O’Shaughnessy (Astor). In the words of Spade’s receptionist, “she’s a real knockout.” O’Shaughnessy comes to the office of Spade and Archer explaining that she is looking for her missing sister. She pays an exorbitant amount for the service. Her payment is a red flag in Spade’s mind, and rightly so. She is lying. She is looking for the impossibly valuable Maltese Falcon. Over the course of the rest of the movie, we watch Spade and O’Shaughnessy dance a veritable tango of deception. She lays “the schoolgirl act on thick” and he makes even the truth sound like a lie.

Film Noir faded into the shadows with the advent of color. People had had enough of the dark, cynicism and wanted bright musicals. At times there have been modern efforts to create film noirs. How does one adapt film noir to the present age? I’ll look at two (comparatively) modern film noirs that stand out to me; Romeo is Bleeding (1993) and Chinatown (1974).

Romeo is Bleeding is about Jack Grimaldi (Oldman), a NYC Sergeant who plays both sides of the law; the Mafia pays him to provide the locations of individuals under police protection. He “gives a name, gets the money, and puts the money in the hole” (he hides the money in a hole in his backyard). Before long, his dealings become less about the money itself and more about having the money. The accumulation of wealth, even though he never spends it, becomes his obsession. Jack may not be the hyper-masculine Bogart but he is a corrupt individual whose immorality ultimately consumes him. True to film noir fashion, the beautiful, dangerous, Russian assassin Mona Demarkov (Olin) seduces him. Instead of giving her over to the police or the mob, Jack releases her when she promises two hundred thousand dollars.

We have a couple film noir staples in Romeo is Bleeding, the femme fatale, the morally questionable protagonist, and the plot driving by deception. Visually, Romeo is Bleeding movie is not black and white but it tries to stylize the characters to adapt the genre to color.  The most notable character is Mona whose attire seems to be entirely overcoats, garter-belts, stockings, and deep red lipstick. She’s a little over the top and that’s a risk of modern film noirs or “neo-noirs.”

The original waves of film noir films were timely. It was stylized but it wasn’t saying “this is stylized”. The films, at least the famous ones were cohesive experiences. In something like Romeo is Bleeding, the movie is trying to be a film noir rather than a standalone movie which we would retroactively classify as a film noir. Consider Inglorious Bastards to a movie poorly imitating Tarantino. The imitation becomes obsessed with the Tarantino-style and, in effect, loses substance. Another noteworthy neo-noir is Coppola’s brilliant Chinatown.

Chinatown is set in California at the beginning of the 20th century. You might be thinking, “California? Film noir is supposed to be dark, gray, shadowy; the opposite of California.” A drought has hit the state making the color palate an appropriately saturated set of browns and tans. Roman Polanski stylizes the world but he does so in a way that doesn’t bring attention to itself. Another strong quality of this film is the protagonist, private detective J.J. Gittes, played by Jack Nicholson.

The introduction of Gittes is similar to Spade. He is a private detective. A beautiful woman providing a false story and a lot of money approaches him. Throughout the film, Gittes emphasizes that he just wants the money owed to him so he can leave the problematic case. This establishes him as an individual concerned with self-preservation in a similar way as Sam Spade. Gittes is also rather sexist and racist. Jack Nicholson is incredibly good at giving his characters a frightful temper. Where Spade might come up with a quick story, Gittes might give a threat with a snarl. In terms of tone, hopelessness permeates Chinatown in much the same way that disillusionment filled original film noirs.

The finale is a solid example of this tone. Evelyn Mulwray (Dunaway) and her daughter/cousin tries to escape her incestuous grandfather. She drives away as police (paid off by the grandfather) order her to stop. The police fire and the car halts. We hear the car horn blaring. The camera is sitting just above the on-looking crowd. In the super long shot, we can barely see the stopped car. It is a lengthy cut, so we have time to process the enormity of the situation. Everyone runs towards the car to see Evelyn’s dead body and her screaming child. Gittes is held back by his partners who say, “It’s Chinatown, Gittes. There’s nothing you can do.” Defeat washes over Gittes’ face. He turns and walks off into the night.

From its inspiration in German Expressionism, Film Noir is a genre of darkness. The art direction, lighting, and subject matter serve as an outward manifestation of the thematic focus of cynicism, disillusionment, and hopelessness. By examining more recent efforts of film noir with Romeo is Bleeding and Chinatown, we have a glimpse of the lasting features of film noir and how they translate to modern day cinema.

Beetlejuice

Directed by Tim Burton. Written by Michael McDowell , Larry Wilson, Warren Skaaren. Starring Alec Baldwin (Adam Maitland), Geena Davis (Barbara Maitland), Michael Keaton (Betelgeuse), Lydia Deetz (Winona Ryder).

Bottom line: Classic Tim Burton film that makes for a solid evening around Halloween.

3/4

                  

Adam (Baldwin) and Barbara (Davis) Maitland are a young, recently married couple. They are vacationing at home and make the quick trip to the local hardware store. On their way back they crash off a bridge into a river. Somehow, they walk back to their house (though they don’t exactly remember how) and, drenched, they try to dry off and warm next to the fire they don’t remember starting. They soon realize they drowned in the river and are now ghosts. They still want to try and live, or exist, happily in their home. Unfortunately, a new family (the Deetz’s) from New York buys the house and starts to move in. The Maitland’s decide to haunt the house to scare away the unwelcome residents. After repeated failures, they resort to calling Betelgeuse (Keaton), a freelancer who turns out to be far more trouble than he’s worth.

Beetlejuice is, for me, one of those movies that you actually sit down and watch once but you see it in parts here and there. I first saw Beetlejuice when I was little and I thought it was creepy and somehow depressing. After re-watching it just the other day, I still think it is creepy and depressing but I will say that it is good.

The acting is really rather good. I had forgotten that it was starring a very young Alec Baldwin. As soon as he spoke, I did a double take and thought, “I think I recognize that amazing voice.” Michael Keaton does a really good job at creating Betelgeuse a unique character. I didn’t realize it was him until I looked at the credits. It was like learning that Tim Curry played Pennywise the Clown in Stephen King’s It. It is a combination of makeup and acting to create something new. Winona Ryder fits perfectly into the aesthetic of the film. It made me wonder why she didn’t do more stuff with Tim Burton.

Beetlejuice is one of the few movies that ends with a dancing sequence that I don’t particularly find offensive. Lydia received an “A” on her Chemistry paper so the Maitland’s possess the house so it plays Harry Belafonte’s “Jump In The Line” and possess Lydia to make her float in the air and dance. Many of the dancing sequences I’ve seen use the opportunity to cycle through the characters as they dance to show their status. In Beetlejuice, we cycle through the characters but they aren’t dancing. They are just doing what they would normally be doing: Lydia’s mom is sculpting some modern art and Lydia’s father is reading. It is mildly silly but it isn’t going for a zany ending.

Overall, I’d recommend Beetlejuice if you haven’t seen it before but, considering it has been on TV about a million times, you probably have. Would I recommend you see it again? If it is Halloween time, sure, why not? It isn’t a scary movie and in terms of humor, it’s alright. I didn’t laugh out loud but chuckled here and there.

Network

Directed by Sidney Lumet. Written by Paddy Chayefsky. Starring Faye Dunaway (Diana Christensen), William Holden (Max Schumacher), Peter Finch (Howard Beale),Robert Duvall (Frank Hackett).

Bottom line: Brilliant satire about the role of television (and media) in our society today and, despite being from 1976, it is painfully relevant.

4/4

Howard Beale (Finch) was, at one point, the leading newscaster for UBS (Union Broadcasting System). After the death of his wife, he became an alcoholic and never completely recovered mentally or emotionally. His ratings dwindled and he was eventually forced to resign. In his next broadcast, he announces his resignation saying, “In two weeks, I will blow my brains out on live TV so tune in!” Not surprisingly, pandemonium ensues. Beale calls his long time friend, UBS news division president Max Schumacher, to give him another chance. Beale wants to apologize and go out gracefully. As soon as he gets on live TV, he rants and raves about the news corporation. They pull him off the air. The zoo of a news program is the headlines for the following day. It is a publicity spike that catches the eye of the head of broadcasting, Diana Christensen (Dunaway).

Christensen is a workaholic whose dream in life is to have a hit show. She sees the marketability of Beale’s eccentric ravings and develops the idea of turning it into a prime time show. She wants to mold Beale into a modern day messiah. He is vocalizing the anger and discontent felt by the average American. To get approval from the show, she meets with Schumacher. The two become “emotionally involved” despite the fact that Schumacher is already married.

The Howard Beale Show is made and it becomes a hit. The very nature of the show, however, Beale’s madness, is a source of anxiety. How will the UBS team keep the public interested? What types of things will Beale say? The executives may control him enough to put him on the air but how could they control what he will say?

Network is a powerful satire about the role of television in our society today. The acting is positively phenomenal. Each of the characters has a personality that creates a fleshed out world. There are no real individual villains or heroes but rather there is a general cast that builds up to a cynical, tragic end. We demonize the overall institution of the network instead of individuals. During a lunch meeting, John Hackett (Duvall), Christensen’s boss, is explaining the idea of the Howard Beale Show to his counterparts. One stands up and objects. He says this goes against all ethics of news reporting. Hackett basically says, that’s very noble and I’ll accept your resignation tomorrow but this network is millions of dollars in debt; we need this so sit down. The man sits down. Hackett isn't to blame, nor is Christensen. They are each cogs in the UBS machine.

Dunaway’s performance as the frigid Christensen is painfully fun to watch. We know she can never really be truly happy outside of her work and that, in the scheme of things, she will never be truly happy. She even tells us this. She has always had trouble in relationships but never in her work. Even though she is partaking in the exploitation of Beale, we kinda feel sorry for her.

Howard Beale becomes an interesting figure by the end of the movie. He is fed up with how society is going. He is “as mad as hell and [he’s] not going to take it anymore.” This sentiment is felt by his audience watching the news broadcast but also the audience in the theater watching the movie. Network is able to use Beale and everyone associated with him, from Hackett to Schumacher, to make the audience question themselves. Even though we might want to criticize the network executives and even the audience of the Howard Beale show, we still want to watch. That is, we too are participating in the exploitation of Howard Beale.

There is just one thing that irked me about Network but I don’t think it warranted taking out a whole half a point: the voice-over. I never like voice-over narration because, can’t the movie just show me instead of telling me? I understand the significance of the ending and I could’ve gathered the clout Beale once had. I don’t need some faceless narrator telling it to me. That said, I don’t think a minute or two of dialog detracts from the experience too much.

I highly recommend you watch this movie because it is so well executed. Just by watching this movie you become involved in its discussion. It isn’t just saying “television is bad”, it is calling us out on the exploitative culture that we, ourselves, help propagate.

Dead Poet Society, Motivation, and Me

I really liked Dead Poet Society. It hit the spot in terms fuel for motivation. There’s something about motivational movies that bothers me.

In the Dead Poet Society, we have a prep school that stands for conformity using the rose tinted word “tradition”. Robin Williams plays the newly hired English teacher John Keating. In his time at the same school, he was the top of his class. He was the captain of some sports team and the editor of some journal. He  is an unconventional teacher who tries to teach his students the importance of poetry. That is, he teaches them the importance of living.

Neil Perry, played by Robert Sean Leonard, is one of the students in the class. He wants to be an actor. No, he doesn’t just want, he needs to be an actor. Up until he learns to live, up until he learns to “seize the day”, he has followed the plan set before him by his domineering father. He was supposed to go to prep school, then go to medical school, then become a doctor.

Neil finds an open casting call for a rendition of Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream. He forges a letter of permission and gets the leading role. Not surprisingly, his father finds out. Instead of standing up for what he believes, Neil tries to deceive his father again; he performs in the play. He receives a standing ovation and, following the play, Keating says, “you have the gift.”

This brings me to what I want to discuss. Why did Neil have to do so well? I ask you, wouldn’t it be nice, if they tweaked it a little bit to fit something you or I might expect to experience? Imagine a Dead Poet Society where, instead of getting a standing ovation, he just kinda stumbled his lines. Maybe Neil didn’t even get the leading role, but a side character. When you think about it, that be even more inspirational.  He is finally beginning to live so what difference does it make if he does it “poorly”? Just being on that stage is a life changing victory. I think it would mean a lot more to someone watching it too. What happens when you watch a motivational movie? You try something new, right? Did you rock the house the first time?

Exactly.

I’d be willing to bet that it’s because we, the audience, don’t want to see a “failure”. We want to see someone who breaks from the mold and succeeds. You remember Cool Runnings? It’s the movie starring John Candy about the first Jamaican bobsled team. At the end of the movie, in their final run, the bobsled crashes. The team stands up, picks up the nearly 1,400lbs bobsled and walks across the finish line. Did that happen? Negative, Ghost Rider. In their Olympic debut, the team finished twenty-fifth. “Oh come on”, you might say, “it’s just a movie.” I know it’s just a movie but it would be nice to balance some more reality with.

Now, after this scene, his father pulls him out of school and orders him to go to military school. Neil proceeds to commit suicide. So, yeah, I know it doesn’t have a happy ending but there is something different about this type of sadness. It is the type of obligatory sadness that’s “all part of the show”.

If you’ve ever watched a Disney movie, you’ll know that there is a set plot structure. In a nutshell, it goes: sad, happy, happy, happy, sad, happy. Consider The Little Mermaid. She is a mermaid and falls in love with the human prince (sad), she becomes human (happy), she gets to be with the prince (happy), the prince falls in love with her (happy), Ursela, the sea-witch attacks (sad), she marries the prince (happy).

So, granted, Neil kills himself but, somehow, it feels like it was a necessary casualty. In a way, he had to die to illustrate the importance of seizing the day. The real question, though, as my fiancee pointed out, is the role of innate ability. Does it mean that Neil is meant to act because he is good at it? Is he good at it because he wants it so badly? Perhaps, he didn’t fail not because we only want to see success, but it would hurt our support of him. If he got on stage and bombed, then we might be willing to side with his father on the grounds of security. Neil’s suicide may very well be a way for the film to avoid addressing this issue. It’s a romantic sentiment that he “just couldn’t live without acting”, but realistically, he had other options. He could’ve left home to become an actor, for example.

To summarize, it would’ve been nice if Dead Poet Society or any motivational movie could present a situation in a more realistic fashion. Not only would be easier to relate but it would be even more inspirational.

Before I posted this, a friend commented on the review for Dead Poet Society. He mentioned Good Will Hunting. I haven’t seen all of that movie but I know it is a good one. It does, however, suffer from the same tendency as Dead Poet Society. Matt Damon’s character is a janitor at MIT but he is also a brilliant mathematician. I could never relate to that because, one, I’m not a brilliant mathematician and, two, I am not a janitor (yet anyway). It because it isn’t that I am rejecting what I love, I’m just not particularly good at it.

Dead Poet Society - Review

Directed by Peter Weir. Written by Tom Schulman. Starring Robin Williams (John Keating), Robert Sean Leonard (Neil Perry), Ethan Hawke (Todd Anderson).

Bottom line: Dead Poet Society is a powerful and unique motivational movie that I will almost certainly see again.

3.5/4

We open to an opening ceremony held in the chapel of a very old, very traditional, all male, prep school named Welton Academy. Led by a young man playing bagpipes, a line of boys walk to the front of the chapel. Four of them hold banners which state the four pillars of the school: tradition, honor, discipline, and excellence. This staunch tone is reflected in the students (and their parents) of the school. One student, Neil Perry (Leonard), has a domineering father who dictates the course for his son’s life; Neil will go to Welton, then to medical school, then become a doctor.

A new English teacher, John Keating (Williams), was hired to replace the one who had retired. His methods are unorthodox. For one of the first few days of class, he has his students read an excerpt from the introduction of the official poetry textbook. It states that one might plot a graph whose x and y axis is meter and importance, respectively. The “greatness” of a poem can be defined by its placement on that graph. Keating vehemently opposes this notion and, in the spirit of rejection, he has his students tear it out of the book. They are dumbfounded but comply.

Poetry isn’t something you can measure like a height and weight, Keating says, poetry is life. So to teach them about poetry, Keating is teaching them how to live and how to seize the day. His students, in each their own way, are touched by his teaching. Neil Perry, for example, comes to realize that he has always wanted to act and he works to make his dream a reality despite his father’s opposition.

I thoroughly enjoyed Dead Poet Society. This is a motivational movie that hit the spot and departed from what I’ve always associated with motivational subject matter. That is, it wasn’t about an athlete persevering despite physical, emotional, or political obstacles. Not that there’s anything wrong with athletics but Dead Poet Society is refreshing. The use of poetry to develop the idea of living is lovely. It isn’t about them writing poetry, mind you, it is about the students breaking from their repressive molds by learning to appreciate poetry.

Generally, I have mixed feelings about Robin Williams. Sometimes he can be a little much, but his performance as John Keating is fantastic. His antics are silly but not distracting. The acting overall is solid. It is really uplifting to see the students’ eyes light up as they develop a new outlook on life. I also really liked how the movie didn’t feel the need to give much if any epilogue. The students have a new perspective on life and that’s that. The movie doesn’t say “Student X went on to <insert ‘great’ thing>.”

I really liked the music and the cinematography. There is a shot of a fall morning with flocks of birds taking off. The camera cuts over to flocks of students filling the stairwells of the academy on their way to class. Later, after a couple weeks of Keating’s teaching, one of the boys rides his bike down a hill through a flock of birds, disrupting them and causing them to fly. It is a simple yet effective visual metaphor.

The only thing I didn’t really like is how, until obligatory sad portion, everything works out so perfectly. This isn’t anything major but I’ll describe why this is a pet peeve in my discussion post. Other than that, I had no issues with this movie. It got me pumped up and, I suppose, that’s the point of a motivational movie. I’d recommend this for any time, especially if you are feeling a little down.