earnest awakening Dead Poets' Society Film starring Robyn Williams
Reviewed by Valerie
Coultas Dead Poets' Society is one of the few recent films that I've seen twice. Set in a disciplinarary American preparatory school in the early 1960s it portrays the earest awakening of a group of 17 year old boys, as they are tutored in poetry to 'seize the day' by unorthodox teacher John Keating, played by Robyn Williams.
The pupils decide to re-establish the Dead Poets' Society (a creation of John Keating when he was a pupil at the school) and the poetry reading sessions inspire each boy in tur to take more control over their lives.
Neil, among the most pas sionate and responsive to his new teacher, defies an overbearing and ambitious father's instructions not to participate in extra-curricular activities by playing Puck in A Midsummer Night's Dream. The angry father decides to remove Neil from the school, and Neil, unable to foresee a future where he will be able to choose his own way of life, makes the ultimate gesture of free will and shoots himself with his father's gun.
The film ends memorably as Keating, scapegoated by the school establishment and the parents for Neil's suicide, is saluted at he leaves the classroom by his ex-pupils.
Both Neil's suicide and the final scene illustrate the main theme of the film, which is to show that the individual has free will and that men (sic!) should "take the walk less travelled by others. 'Only in their dreams can men be truly free', argues Keating in a conversation with another more conformist colleague.
The film has been criticised for its individualistic philosophy. But I didn't take this as the main point. The individual charisma and non-conformity of the teacher, wittily played by Robyn Williams, does inspire the pupils SOCIALIST OUTLOOK no 18, October 1989
Francois Duhamel/ Touchstone Earnest scene from Dead Poets Society to organise themselves in the Dead Poets' Society and gain strength from this. The minirebellion at the end has a political edge to it. The boys are standing up for justice and against injustice in their school. The sugges tion is that at this point the school has lost control over them and will be unable to punish them effectively. SOCIALIST OUTLOOK Teachers' unions hold the key
I've been reading Ken Jones analysis of education since the days of Radical Education in the early 70's, so it was with some interest that I turmed to the "Tory Classroom Offensive' (SO 18).
As usual, much of his analysis is to the point. But I felt that the question 'which way forward?' is not as sharply posed as it might have been.
For example, Jones is correct to argue that the national curriculum, so far, seems to have been more of a victory for best practice in the teaching profession than Tory ideology. But we cannot assume that MacGregor will be content with this. The interference with the proposals of the History Working Group is probably a sign of things to come. Nor can we rely, for a strategy, on the subversion of the various Tory 'reforms' from within. This may SOCIALIST OUTLOOK no 18, October 1989
LETTERS
The actors, scenery and dialogue capture the enthusiasms and insecurities of the young men well. Dead Poets' Society recreates the cultural revolt of the beatnik era and will strike a chord with those who were also at school at that time. But I still couldn't really work out why Joln Keating chose to go back and teach in that particular school. turn out to be possible of course, but much will depend on other factors.
So, for example, Jones is right to suggest that trade unions are not enough to deal with the challenges that face us. But trade union organisation will be the core and the key. Links with the community, with pupils and parents will be best built from a position of confidence engendered by successful union organisation.
Equally, the Labour Party at local at national level should be pressured. But we shouldn't be too optimistic about the probable results. At a local level, (Richard Hatcher please note), the Labour Party, whatever the intention, are managers who will have to manage the Tory measures.
Secondly, to hope that the Labour party nationally will suddenly start to pay attention to questions of content and control in education, as opposed to provision, seems rather to ignore what Kinnock is up to with the policy review.
Resistance to Macgregor and change for the better can be achieved. But they will have to come from below, and through, initially, the unions. Surely one of the lasting lessons of the radical education of the 1960s and 1970s is that the system cannot really be worked with any lasting success. To defend and advance we will have to rely on the forces we ourselves can build.
Keith Flett
Tottenham
Think again on PR.
In his thorough piece on "len years in the life of the Labour Party' (SO 18), Pete Firmin maintains that in 1981/2, the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy (CLPD) was 'caught in the trap of its own policy of conference sovereignty'
It is difficult to understand why he uses the word "trap'. Conference sovereignty is the bedrock of a socialist party, and this means we cannot pick and choose which decisions we will follow.
Conference sovereignty is now under its greatest ever attack as a consequence of the GMB-sponsored proposals outlined by Jane Wells in her article (also in SO 18). Having a consistent record on this issue, CLPD is in a better position to campaign against these proposals.
Finally, the article by Jane Wells gave a good insight into the agenda of the Labour Party Annual Conference, and correctly pointed out that it is the right who are organising for PR within the Party. Unfortunately, in contradistinction to this, the last paragraph contained the usual ritualistic plea in favour of PR.
It would be helpful if Socialist Owlook would set out in detail why it is at this particular moment in the class struggle - when the LCC and the right wing (eg EETPU and AEU) within the Labour Party are organising for PR; when the bourgeois press (and Marxism Today) have had a coordinated campaign for PR; when this is precisely the lifeline that Owen and the ratbags in the so-called Centre so desperately need - that at this very moment the supporters of Socialist Outlook should be so willing to assist them in this enterprise.
Surely those who purport to be marxists should assess institutions like PR in terms of the existing concrete social conditions, not in terms of some long term a-historical project?
For historical reasons, the class divisions in this country are clearer then elsewhere in westem capitalism, and voting patterns reflect this. There is a party for the ruling class and a party for the working class. PR would undermine class-based voting, would massively strengthen the so-called centre parties, and would prevent a socialist party from forming a majority govemment.
Socialist Outlook should go back to the drawing-board on this one!
Pete Willsman
CLPD
We welcome letters
Sup to 400 words.
Write to Socialist Outlook, PO Box 1109,
London N4 2UU Page 33
Rates (whole weekend): Waged: £12; Students: £8; Unwaged: £6 (E1 off if you register by 13 November)
MAJOR FORUMS AND DEBATES INCLUDE: • The crisis of Stalinism in Eastern Europe and China • A socialist approach to 1992 • Women's