Judging by what I've seen recently, I think the answer is "yes." Yet even so, some of our (supposedly) finest critics still find reasons to celebrate.
Truth be told, I have a bone to pick with New York Times reviewer Manohla Dargis -- a big one.
In her maddening write-up of an execrable movie called Bad Teacher ("When The Teacher Gets High Marks In The Raunchy And Profane", 6/23), she not only gives a glowing assessment of Cameron Diaz's innate comedic flair, but suggests that the actress's portrayal of the title character -- a superficial, gold-digging, amoral woman who ignores her students and wants a breast enhancement so she can marry rich -- is somehow a step forward for feminism, in terms of the kinds of roles it makes possible for women.
Excuse me?
Now I hold the Times, my hometown paper, to a pretty high standard, and have most always given their movie reviews, particularly those penned by A.O. Scott, the benefit of the doubt.
I've also followed Dargis, and while she writes well, I've had some reason to question her critical acumen before. (For instance, she grandly described the latest deafening Transformers installment as "the apotheosis of a type of contemporary industrial filmmaking... that combines commercialism... and militarism.")
Hmmm... is that a good thing?
This same kind of lofty, seemingly laudatory language is peppered throughout her totally wrong-headed Bad Teacher review. While in fairness she fell short of designating it a "Critic's Pick," her piece really was pretty admiring. Read it and see.
Still, I had another reason for being curious about Bad Teacher.
We're in the midst of a month-long tribute to Barbara Stanwyck on our website, profiling two classic screwball comedies she did back-to-back -- The Lady Eve (1941) and Ball Of Fire (1941). I also just introduced a wildly successful screening of Midnight (1939), another hilarious comedy written by Billy Wilder, and starring the gossamer Claudette Colbert.
In light of this, I asked myself the following intriguing question: what film actresses serve as today's answer to the likes of Stanwyck and Colbert -- or for that matter, Jean Arthur, Carole Lombard and Rosalind Russell?
Though I've never warmed that much to Jennifer Aniston, I'd always thought Reese Witherspoon might make the grade... but could it be that Cameron Diaz might also qualify? I had to find out.
So -- with my twenty-two-year-old daughter gamely tagging along, we ventured forth to see Bad Teacher.
Now, to reiterate: I'm not a traditional critic but an advocate for great movies. I try to find the best films available -- old and new -- to put on my site and promote in my writing.
So, like other discerning viewers, I hate -- HATE -- spending twelve dollars and two hours of my life to see unmitigated, total dreck, which -- excuse me, Ms. Dargis -- this movie is. (For the record, my daughter hated it too.) And yes -- I feel angry at being misled by The New York Times.
Frankly I'd be astonished if its stars -- Ms. Diaz (who was actually good in Being John Malkovich) and Justin Timberlake (who held his own in The Social Network) would not acknowledge the lameness of this picture, at least in private. Mr. Timberlake's role as a milquetoast was particularly strained.
But then again there's a lot of self-denial going on in Hollywood, particularly when mass distribution (approximately 3,000 screens for Teacher), splashy ad campaigns, and a woefully undemanding public cause the film to generate close to $90 million at the box office. It's all about the money, folks.
I led this piece by remarking that today's film comedy had gone into the toilet. This was in fact a not-so-veiled reference to another sad reality.
Beyond being pathetically unfunny, Bad Teacher is unspeakably vulgar. There are very few base and offensive areas not covered in this movie -- social (child abuse), sexual, and of course, scatological.
Have we forgotten -- gross does not always equal funny. Or maybe today it does.
Bad Teacher is not the sole offender here... there's a coarse little entry that's currently number three at the box office called Horrible Bosses, which gleefully traffics in murder, racial stereotypes, sexual perversion and jokes about obese and handicapped people. A.O. Scott, drinking the Kool-Aid, admits it's "foul-mouthed" but also "frequently funny."
Then there's the matter of Bridesmaids, probably the best Hollywood comedy I've seen in a while, and the movie that finally showed me a worthy successor to Stanwyck and Lombard in producer/writer/star Kristen Wiig.
Even in this instance though, the film's pervasive charm is occasionally undermined by obvious, over-the-top gags involving bodily functions, oral sex, foul-mouthed parents and their kids.
These "gross-out" detours -- so expected in movies like this (one reason I marvel that A.O. Scott of all people still finds them funny) -- aren't really what make this comedy memorable. Rather, it's the moments that almost could have happened in the classic screwballs of yore- in particular a scene on board a plane (with expletives softened) -- that elevate this work. Or at least I think so...
I continue to be nostalgic for the type of comedy that doesn't require constant profanity or a surfeit of fart gags to succeed, that relies instead on subtle, clever scripts and witty dialogue; movies that in the end give their audiences some credit for brains and taste -- a quaint notion perhaps.
I suppose it's unavoidable that I sound a trifle prudish and out of step here. But as the great Billy Wilder famously said in 1976: "They say Wilder is out of touch with his times. Frankly, I regard it as a compliment. Who the hell wants to be in touch with these times?"
To find great films on DVD, visit www.bestmoviesbyfarr.com
To see John's videos for WNET-Channel 13, go to www.reel13.org
Follow John Farr on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jfarr02
Nothing like jumping into the pool after most everyone else has already left.
Anyway, thanks for the article about a long-simmering pet peeve of mine. I call it the Apatow Affect and it permeates seemingly all comedy of the last five to six years. At least it appears to; I never made it through more than the first 20 or so minutes of many of those films and long ago quit trying.
Superbad? Yes indeedy and how apropos.
The Huffpo site has been giving me fits the last week or so. All kinds of glitches. You never know if what you post will show up until you see it, and the ol' heavy-handed moderation is still in effect.
"Superbad." You're right. They really should be careful what they title their films, if they're incapable of making a good one.
Some of the younger posters here have called us old fuddy duddies, and I guess I am somewhat. but they should understand that I can remember when I also laughed at what passes for comedy these days. I think I was somewhere between 10 and 14 years old.
Hopefully they'll get enough exposure to the classic stuff, so they can one day be old fuddy duddies too. :-)
Anyway, good to see you.
FDs indeed!
A few of us still swimming around. I've been having some of the same fits Aaron mentioned. I guess it's like the flu: hits all of us sooner or later.
I'm with you. 20 minutes is the maximum we'll devote to a film that we just aren't enjoying. Life is - or is getting, at any rate - too short, and I think that's "fair shake" enough. But it's a sad state of affairs when the single most commonly heard remark in our "screening room" is, "Wanna bail?"
Better fashionably late than never, as I'm always happy to see you, and hope all is well with you.
Everything's going as it should be. Trying to keep my head in a spiritual place and remain serene despite the pressure felt from an almost completely liquidated reserve.
How are you? Have you returned to the Wild blog? Contributing some of your vast knowledge of music?
Nice to see you, as always.
and please- tell your movie-minded friends..
Last year, my cousin sent me a VHS tape (yes, one of those artifacts for which I still own a player). She attached a post-it note that read, "Happy Birthday! Knock yourself out!" The tape turned out to be a copy of "Mr. Hulot's Holiday." I had heard of it, but had never seen it. I actually had to stop the tape and rewind it in places because I laughed so hard that I missed some good parts.
porky's is idiotic, and guffman is brilliant...
you are not alone!
Why am I reporting this? Because it occurred to me that I probably STILL had more "fun" this afternoon, than you did enduring "Bad Teacher." And I actually got something accomplished as well as to show for my money spent. ;-)
If it makes you feel any better, when I envision the scene you describe, I'm seeing you as Melvyn Douglas, trying his best to maintain both aplomb and mastery over machinery. Or maybe you'd prefer Jimmy Stewart as "Mr. Hobbs," conquering that... whatever it was.
Sadly, any project I tackle, is more like Larry, Moe and Curly showing up on the job. Yes, all three.
My SO usually abandons the house, and gathers up the neighbors and their children to lock themselves in a root cellar until I give the all clear.
Only a slight exageration. :-)
Your friend,
Chris Nyby
; )
here's to the power of cinema!
you pick on me for my age? that's pathetic.
have you seen the movie in question? what did you think of it? let's debate the film, not whether i'm too old or out of touch...
and btw, I have a website with over 2,300 movie recommendations so the idea that i have no fun going to movies sounds pretty foolish. but then since it's coming from you, that makes sense too!
it's like Southpark.....sure, some humor, some creativity, but way too much reliance on cheap potty shots, hillbilly 12 year old boy stuff......far less so than the much better
FUTURAMA !
it didn't used to be the case.
WAKE UP Hollywood!
Or Wilder's You Can't take it with you.....a masterpiece.....sexy yet charming .....
Hitchcock could be funny too with his drama.....Rear Window !
I'm glad you bought this up.
Because this had been one of my major complaints about film comedies for the last 15 years or so.
Yeah. In the 70s and 80s, we had our share of low-rent comedies. But there were loads of smart ones that didn't take the lowest common denominator approach either. A lot in those days were very smartly written themes involving human nature and society's many foibles. Hell. I was just watching "BLAZING SADDLES" on DVD a few weeks ago. My GrandFather took me to see that film in the 70s when I was eleven. And it's still funnier than all of today's comedies combined.
But I decided some time ago not to see comedies on the big screen anyway.
Too many of them are no different than network/cable TV shows.
Why pay $12+ (New York prices) for that?
i just wait for the DVDs now if interested.
BTW...
I shocked a lot of my friends who consider my film tastes too "high-brow" when I told them how much I loved "TRANSFORMERS: DOTM", and plan on seeing it again.
I never liked the cartoon or the movies. But this film was so over the top that you had to appreciate the fact that Michael Bay took an insane "last stand" approach to this franchise. And it was a visual feast in IMAX 3D.
the long BBC version of Pride/Prej. done around 1996.....over 6 hours I think
and worth every minute.....
yup, vulgar is "in" and that's pretty sad.....
I think some WW 2 vet's even pointed out the excellent Band of Brothers
had too much, that crude language really only picked up in use around
Vietnam.....in WW 2 they might not even say damn !
But cultural evaluations of earlier eras against that of today are always "good news/bad news" ones. For example, the humor that's the general topic here: the good news is that writers can now say virtually anything they want. The bad news is that such freedom doesn't encourage the kind of creativity that - somewhat ironically - was forced upon earlier writers. Today, any writer can employ a certain five-letter word beginning with "w," but in 1933, they had to communicate it with a line such as:
"As long as there are sidewalks, you'll always have a job!" (delivered by Joan Blondell to Claire Dodd in "Footlight Parade")
I'll leave it to you to decide which is the more entertaining: the five-letter word, or that line.
John, I respect your criticism and your intelligence, but c'mon man, it's been all about the money for well over 20 years now, everybody knows that!!!!
We may not love it, but that's the world we live in today.
thanks for asking!