Robin Williams (1951-2014)

A subforum to discuss film culture and criticism.
Message
Author
User avatar
hearthesilence
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC

Re: Robin Williams (1951-2014)

#76 Post by hearthesilence » Tue Oct 02, 2018 4:04 pm

I agree, over the course of his film career, he was reigned in and sanitized and he revealed some unwelcome saccharine tendencies. Watching his specials, you can see the potential that was rarely tapped - at times, it was like watching Chuck Jones's Duck Amuck come to life.

flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Re: Robin Williams (1951-2014)

#77 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Wed Oct 03, 2018 2:34 am

If he channeled that energy into a threatening, antagonistic character with the right material, he could have done something pretty extraordinary.

flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Re: Robin Williams (1951-2014)

#78 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:47 pm

I read Dave Itzkoff's book on him this week. The way it puts his film career in context, and as well as the internet's largely negative reaction to him (because of things like Patch Adams and his reliance on old *or even stolen* bits), was a bit sad for me. I can only imagine the kind of hard time he would have now criticizing Trump and getting an even more annoying strain of troll after him.

It was overall a kind of disappointing read, the most interesting stuff within I already knew to a degree. There are a few interesting items like the making of some of his films and reading about his times hosting SNL (especially the first time he visited the set in 1979, being threatened into dropping a joke about the Hell's Angels by a member who was there in the Grateful Dead's entourage). It's surprising he only did it three times and never again except a few odd appearances here and there.

User avatar
bottlesofsmoke
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2021 12:26 pm

Re: Robin Williams (1951-2014)

#79 Post by bottlesofsmoke » Mon Jan 11, 2021 5:23 pm

Apologies if there is a better place for this. I watched Dead Poets Society for the first time in over a decade (my wife had never seen it, she liked it) and found it to be a very different experience to see now, as opposed to when I was just recently out of high school.

Since then my approach to thinking, learning, and education has changed quite a bit, from “man I’m getting tired of this learning stuff” to “in order to become the fullest version of myself, I want to dedicate as much of my time to my own education” or something like that. In that light, I found quite a bit that was meaningful to me in the movie that I hadn’t before; mostly that education, when done right, doesn’t train you to be just like everybody else (a common thought in my high school days) but instead gives you the tools to become the person you really are.

To me education (and I am mostly self-taught) is exposing yourself to other ways of thinking and perspectives, so that you can determine for yourself what you believe and who you are, how you treat others, etc. In high school, learning was goal-based, (read this, know that, pass this test) and I never had a teacher to show me that education wasn’t just a means to an end (of a well paying job) like the parents in the film do, but an investment in discovering who you truly are and what matters to you. Obviously, education is important to me and so I was predisposed to like parts of this movie, though I don’t know where it stands now for most. It reminded me of one of my favorite episodes of the Twilight Zone, “The Changing of the Guard” which is also about an English teacher and his influence on his students going beyond getting good grades and a job.

It was hard not to think, with the current events in America today, that education that emphasizes critical thinking and growing in understanding of yourself and others, (rather than checklists to get you a job) would make a difference. Sorry if this is all coming out a bit muddled, the movie stirred up a lot of thoughts in me, things I’ve only been slowly coming to realize about myself.

It was surprising to me that Robin Williams is in the film so little, as he was the main thing (and the ending) that I remembered most about the movie. Despite it being known as his first big dramatic role (I think?) and earning him a Best Actor Nom, the group of boys are really the main characters in the movie, getting a much more fleshed out arc and backstory. I think much of the film’s success can be contributed the actors playing the boys, since I think they are all very good, despite the film being best know for Williams.

Funnily, Keating sort of reminds me of Mary Poppins, showing up and helping some kids, then disappearing at the end, of to do who-knows-what next, presumably help more kids. Like Poppins, he teaches the kids to look at life differently, but doesn’t use any of himself in the effort. Most teachers I’ve had have used personal anecdotes that slowly reveal their past to you along the way. Keating doesn’t really do that, all we know about him is what’s in the yearbook, that he came from teaching abroad, and that he was apart of the dead poets society, but even that he just gives a vague description. His character, when not teaching the boys, is mostly reactionary, meaning we don’t get scenes of him selling out conversation, just reacting to other people coming up to him. It gave the film to me the feeling of a memory (possible of Hawke’s character) in the way that we can think back about people that made a big impression on our lives but that we didn’t really know that well, and details about them apart from their influence on you begin to fade.

There were definitely still moments in the film that still felt, for lack of a better word, corny to me, though there were moments of undeniable power also. Ultimately, as a whole I liked it and didn’t love it on rewatch, and was more interested in some of the characters and themes than the overall movie itself. Though how much I’ve talked, thought, and written about it in less than 24 means something I suppose.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Robin Williams (1951-2014)

#80 Post by domino harvey » Mon Jan 11, 2021 6:53 pm

Welcome to the board— great first post! I’m afraid while I agree with many of your thoughts on education as a whole, I found evidence of that kind of learning lacking in the film. I do think you’re into something with the Mary Poppins comparison, but I don’t think it’s a positive one! Here are my thoughts from a few years back
domino harvey wrote:
Wed Nov 06, 2013 10:25 pm
Dead Poets Society Like most films about "inspiring" teachers, this film confuses instruction and learning with charismatic cults of personality, the central figure a coach leading his charges on with rallying cries of coffee cup-ready aphorisms that decontextualize great works of literature to fit narrow, mindlessly affirming fluff. This is a dangerously stupid film, one that has no interest or insight into the teaching process, and it's a sad fact that I've encountered more than too many fellow teachers who consider this film an inspiration and impetus for their teaching careers. No wonder the educational foundation is crumbling. I hold no auspices of the saintly art of teaching, though, and grow weary of any film that lionizes the noble, self-sacrificing teacher-- it's a sad fact that few films will ever bother to depict an effective teacher at work because it's not the kind of thing that can be easily gleaned from a two hour narrative (and the real thing will never be as glamorous as throwing candy bars at ghetto kids or bravely teaching the Holocaust via notebooks). It's a series of challenges, defeats, and small wins. At no point in this fictional tale of The World's Greatest and Most Misunderstood Teacher did I ever believe that its subject knew his subject in any real way. Rather, he was flashy and personable and gave kids what they want to hear rather than give them the tools to fend for themselves. Had Robin Williams actually taught his kids, they'd have been fine in the hands of the stern headmaster now leading their English class at the end of the film: after all, they'd have the ability to think critically and use even a bad situation to their continuing development and advantage. But that's the problem with cults of personality: remove the personality and there goes the cult.

Outside of the uplifting central adult figure (who of course is coded as a wise older brother at best/eldest), the film is stuffed with mawkish outrages and emotional impetuses that are as heavily signaled as an old woman doing her Sunday driving and about as pleasant to sit through. When our future suicide victim dons a holly-wreath 'round his head and it bears a closer resemblance to a crown of thorns, I wanted to jump on a desk myself, if just to stand high enough to no longer be able to see the TV displaying this moronically manipulative shit. Carpe nihil.
(To which I must attach an addendum: Mulligan’s Up the Down Staircase offers up the realistic film portrayal of teaching I was looking for above)

User avatar
bottlesofsmoke
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2021 12:26 pm

Re: Robin Williams (1951-2014)

#81 Post by bottlesofsmoke » Mon Jan 11, 2021 7:35 pm

Thanks! Yeah, I actually share a lot of your problems with the film, and ultimately what I enjoyed about it most was how it got me to reflect on education and the little stories of the boys, rather than actual teaching parts, which were most of the corny moments I noticed. The films is all about the idea of getting the kids to think for themselves, but nothing shows them actually being taught to do it, or ever really doing it.

I hadn't really thought of Keating as cult of personality, but I probably should have. Growing up around a lot of evangelical Christians, I saw a lot of people whose faith and beliefs were wrapped up in the charismatic leaders that practiced a lot of the tricks Keating does, getting his kids interested in flashy displays - making religion "cool" for the kids - but once they separated from them (or the leader was "disgraced" in some way), the beliefs crumbled, as their whole identity was in the person rather than the beliefs. Probably because religion isn't cool in that way, it's hard and challenging. Similarly, education and learning to think for yourself is hard work, for both teacher and student, but that isn't what makes for dramatic movies or particularly inspiring coffee cup slogans, I guess. How do we get kids to want to learn, to better themselves in that way? I don't know, but thank goodness for teachers, they've got all my support, because I really believe that better education and critical thinking is the way out of this mess we've found ourselves in America.

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: Robin Williams (1951-2014)

#82 Post by knives » Wed Apr 21, 2021 6:34 pm

For whatever reason had the urge to watch Williams and couldn’t find any of my favorites and watched Cadillac Man instead. It’s mostly an okay film in the ‘90s misanthropic vein with Shakes the Clown and Fight Club, but it serves a perfect example of how Williams could be like champagne gently shaken till blowing. He really owns the show as a man trained to be a villain and unable to accept the consequences of the world he chose to live in.

flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Re: Robin Williams (1951-2014)

#83 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Wed Apr 21, 2021 9:07 pm

He has some good chemistry with Tim Robbins in it too. I'd have to see it again but I liked The Best of Times as a mid-day cable time-waster.

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: Robin Williams (1951-2014)

#84 Post by knives » Wed Apr 21, 2021 9:16 pm

Yeah, they’re a lot of fun together clearly trying to outdo each other and having fun with it.

I saw The Best of Times a couple of years ago and wasn’t so hot on it, but day cable time waster is about the right description.

Post Reply