Name: Lean on Me
Released: 1989

Peg Harlan

+7 clout

Sep 2, 2026

I put Lean on Me on the other night after supper. My husband had the paper open but he set it down once Morgan Freeman started walking the halls. We both remembered the movie from when it first came out, though neither of us had seen it straight through in years. It holds up better than I expected. Freeman plays Joe Clark, the principal they bring back to Eastside High after the place has gone to pieces. Gangs, drugs, graffiti everywhere, kids who can barely read. The opening stretch shows you the mess without speeches. Teachers look exhausted. One of them just stares at a broken window like she has already given up. You notice the cheap fluorescent lights and the scuffed linoleum. It does not look like a movie set trying to impress you. It looks like a school that stopped caring years ago. Clark does not waste time. He expels the dealers right in the cafeteria in front of everybody. He padlocks doors so outsiders cannot stroll in and sell whatever they are selling. He makes the kids learn the school song and wear something decent. He is loud and he is hard and he does not care whose feelings get bruised. My husband muttered once or twice that the man would get sued six ways from Sunday if he tried half of that today, and he is probably right. In 1989 the story still treats that kind of backbone as necessary, not something to apologize for. The supporting faces are solid. Beverly Todd plays the vice principal who argues with him and then stands beside him when the board starts circling. Robert Guillaume is the superintendent who wants results but also wants Clark to stop making headlines. The kids are a mix. Some of the young actors look stiff in the early scenes, the way high school extras often do, but a few of them settle in and you start rooting for them to pass that basic skills test. The movie never pretends every student becomes a scholar overnight. It just shows enough of them sitting up straighter and opening books that you believe the place can be saved. What works is how plain the whole thing feels. Nobody gives a big speech about systems or trauma. Clark wants the school off the state takeover list. That is the goal. He drills math and English and common sense. When a mother shows up furious that her son got tossed out, he does not soft-pedal. He tells her the boy was dealing and that is the end of it. The camera does not cut away to make him look cruel. It just lets the moment sit there. Later, when the students start singing and the test scores climb, the lift feels earned instead of sticky. I watched the lighting a lot. The early hallways are flat and gray. Once Clark gets a handle on things the frames brighten a little, nothing fancy, just cleaner. The music swells when it should and stays out of the way the rest of the time. You can tell the budget was not enormous. A couple of crowd scenes look thinly populated. It does not matter. The point is the principal and the kids who either shape up or get left behind. My husband asked halfway through whether we would have lasted under a principal like that. I said I probably would have hated the yelling and then quietly appreciated the results. That is the honest reaction the movie leaves you with. Clark is not warm. He is effective. The movie never asks you to love every choice he makes. It only asks whether the alternative of letting the school rot is better. By the time the board tries to oust him and the students rally, you have already decided. There is a short stretch near the end where the political pressure piles up and the film risks turning into a town-meeting argument. It pulls back before it gets preachy. The focus stays on the classrooms and the locked doors and the simple demand that kids learn something. No one lectures the audience about larger society. The larger society is just the mess Clark inherited and the mess he refuses to keep. I would watch it again with my husband. It is the sort of picture that makes you talk about schools the way they used to run and the way they run now. The performances do not feel like they are chasing awards. Freeman is tired and angry and still hopeful in the stubborn way that gets results. That is enough. The movie ends without promising miracles. It just shows a school that is a little less broken than it was, and a principal who paid a personal price to get it there. That felt honest sitting in our living room, and it still does.

+1 −1+1Flag as problematic

Comments and reviews

Peg Harlan
+7 clout
Sep 2, 2026
I put Lean on Me on the other night after supper. My husband had the paper open but he set it down once Morgan Freeman started walking the halls. We both remembered the movie from when it first came out, though neither of us had seen it straight through in years. It holds up better than I expected. Freeman plays Joe Clark, the principal they bring back to Eastside High after the place has gone to pieces. Gangs, drugs, graffiti everywhere, kids who can barely read. The opening stretch shows you the mess without speeches. Teachers look exhausted. One of them just stares at a broken window like she has already given up. You notice the cheap fluorescent lights and the scuffed linoleum. It does not look like a movie set trying to impress you. It looks like a school that stopped caring years ago. Clark does not waste time. He expels the dealers right in the cafeteria in front of everybody. He padlocks doors so outsiders cannot stroll in and sell whatever they are selling. He makes the kids learn the school song and wear something decent. He is loud and he is hard and he does not care whose feelings get bruised. My husband muttered once or twice that the man would get sued six ways from Sunday if he tried half of that today, and he is probably right. In 1989 the story still treats that kind of backbone as necessary, not something to apologize for. The supporting faces are solid. Beverly Todd plays the vice principal who argues with him and then stands beside him when the board starts circling. Robert Guillaume is the superintendent who wants results but also wants Clark to stop making headlines. The kids are a mix. Some of the young actors look stiff in the early scenes, the way high school extras often do, but a few of them settle in and you start rooting for them to pass that basic skills test. The movie never pretends every student becomes a scholar overnight. It just shows enough of them sitting up straighter and opening books that you believe the place can be saved. What works is how plain the whole thing feels. Nobody gives a big speech about systems or trauma. Clark wants the school off the state takeover list. That is the goal. He drills math and English and common sense. When a mother shows up furious that her son got tossed out, he does not soft-pedal. He tells her the boy was dealing and that is the end of it. The camera does not cut away to make him look cruel. It just lets the moment sit there. Later, when the students start singing and the test scores climb, the lift feels earned instead of sticky. I watched the lighting a lot. The early hallways are flat and gray. Once Clark gets a handle on things the frames brighten a little, nothing fancy, just cleaner. The music swells when it should and stays out of the way the rest of the time. You can tell the budget was not enormous. A couple of crowd scenes look thinly populated. It does not matter. The point is the principal and the kids who either shape up or get left behind. My husband asked halfway through whether we would have lasted under a principal like that. I said I probably would have hated the yelling and then quietly appreciated the results. That is the honest reaction the movie leaves you with. Clark is not warm. He is effective. The movie never asks you to love every choice he makes. It only asks whether the alternative of letting the school rot is better. By the time the board tries to oust him and the students rally, you have already decided. There is a short stretch near the end where the political pressure piles up and the film risks turning into a town-meeting argument. It pulls back before it gets preachy. The focus stays on the classrooms and the locked doors and the simple demand that kids learn something. No one lectures the audience about larger society. The larger society is just the mess Clark inherited and the mess he refuses to keep. I would watch it again with my husband. It is the sort of picture that makes you talk about schools the way they used to run and the way they run now. The performances do not feel like they are chasing awards. Freeman is tired and angry and still hopeful in the stubborn way that gets results. That is enough. The movie ends without promising miracles. It just shows a school that is a little less broken than it was, and a principal who paid a personal price to get it there. That felt honest sitting in our living room, and it still does.
+1 −1+1Flag as problematic

Lean on Me

Comments and reviews

Report a mistake

Woke labels