Black Friday Is Almost Here!
The Inventory team is rounding up deals you don’t want to miss, now through Cyber Monday. Click here to browse!

Critics Divided On Whether Bad Teacher Sucks (For Women)

Illustration for article titled Critics Divided On Whether emBad Teacher/em Sucks (For Women)

Based on the trailer alone, friend-of-Jezebel Manohla Dargis issued a verbal eye-roll in the direction of Bad Teacher. "Evidently nothing says new motion picture entertainment better than a female movie star in Daisy Dukes bending over and sudsing a car as if she were in a 2005 Jessica Simpson music video," she said earlier this month, suggesting fans of women at the movies see Bridesmaids again instead.

Advertisement

Then she saw it. In today's review, she sounds positively delighted, noting that Cameron Diaz "taps into her inner thug. It's a beautiful thing," and calls out several funny women in the ensemble. She concludes,

With "Bridesmaids" still doing gangbusters at the box office, Hollywood apparently thinks it's time for the ladies to get their hands and other parts dirty. Well, if that's what it takes to get women out of the house, off the pedestal and into the same serious comedy club where the boys frolic and play, I say let her rip.

Advertisement

Contrast that with Karina Longworth's scathing takedown in The Village Voice:

The general argument holds that because studios produce so few films built around strong lady protagonists, Hollywood must hate women. But be careful what you wish for. Here, a "strong woman" means a lazy, lying, scheming, slutty, and obstinately materialistic one, whose sole redeeming virtue is her hard body (which the camera shamelessly ogles, as if the men watching need their hand held to look at an actress's ass), who is so delusional that she thinks her ostentatious assholery is rock-star sexy, and whose delusions are essentially validated by narrative resolution.

She wondered how Diaz and her co-stars really felt about "punishing material based on the worst male-invented stereotypes of the way women deceptively control men and compete with one another."

But was she holding it to too high of a standard? David Edelstein suggested the reviewers chill out and see Bad Teacher for what he thinks it is: "a good, raunchy, gonzo comedy in the spirit of Bill Murray pictures like Meatballs and Stripes, but with a woman." And Daniel Walber writes in IndieWire,

I wouldn't argue that "Bad Teacher" is the kind of female-driven film that Hollywood so desperately needs. But it also can't be so easily dismissed as being part of the problem.... It seems to be less sexist so much as it is the inevitable result of a film consciously about despicable people.

Advertisement

But here's the most damning indictment of all: "Elizabeth isn't so much a one-dimensional stereotype of the manipulative bitch as she is a one-and-a-half-dimensional product of bad writing." Roger Ebert basically agreed. That could be reason enough to pass, although a better test might be whether or not you laugh.

Bad Teacher Is Bad, But Not Necessarily Bad For Women [IndieWire]
No Apple For This Teacher [Sun Times]
Cameron Diaz Is Deliciously Good As Bad Teacher [NYM]
When The Teacher Gets High Marks In The Raunchy And The Profane [NYT]
Related: The Living Is Easy, The Women Are Missing [NYT]
Bad Teacher And The Downside of Equal Rights In Hollywood [Village Voice]

Share This Story

Get our newsletter

DISCUSSION

When a steaming pile like Tha Hangover II is released, it's just another summer popcorn flick. No one from that movie woke up the day after the opening and worried that their career was over or "what does it all mean for Hollywood?!".

But Bad Teacher? Heavens to mergutroid! With all the chatter, you would think it's a referendum on: almost-forty actresses, comediennes, female protagonists, unladylike raunch and a host of other potential excuses to shut it all down.

And, it may very well be. Hollywood is still acting like the jury's out, that Bridesmaids ($136 million and counting) could have just been a fluke. They'll fork over $200 million to make some laughably bad special effects extravaganza over and over again, no matter how many fail to recoup their investment. For pete's sake, even SATC2 (which bastardized the entire series but still featured four over-40 actresses) made almost $300 million, worldwide. But this cost just $18 million (according to Sony) and it's all "this is a test!" Yes, ladies, we're all, apparently, on some kind of double-secret probation.

What else do the studios want from us before they get the memo? I love movies but I really fucking hate the industry some days.