Change Your Image
erawillmoth
Reviews
What Women Want (2000)
Didn't Enjoy
I did not like this film at all, even despite the fact the humour was executed well. The main point of the movie seemed to be to show the main character Marshall, played by Gibson, that women actually did have feelings and personalities. The way women were portrayed in the movie, however, seemed to me to be counterproductive to this, since the majority of them (I won't say all because I don't have a photographic memory of the film) came across as shallow and as being mere accessories to the plot, rather than characters in themselves. The only women who had one iota of personality (excluding Marshall's teenaged daughter, who probably had a personality to make up for the fact that the filmmakers morally couldn't sexualise her) seemed to be the secondary main character McGuire, whose thoughts still managed to centre the majority of the time on Marshall and her opinions of him, or, conveniently, on some new idea Marshall could exploit.
The main problem of the film to me was that Marshall did not seem to learn anything at all. He apparently was so misogynistic that it didn't occur to him women were independent beings capable of thought and this 'myth' for him seems to have by the end been debunked, but the idea that he supposedly learnt that women were equal to men didn't come across. In fact, the film seemed to make valid his opinion that women were only there for sex with men (eg. the end, in which Marshall ends up having sex with McGuire). McGuire's personality, in fact, seems to have been written into the film purely to make her 'hard to get', and therefore further drives home the message that women are there for men's benefit.
This is the most misogynistic film I have ever seen.
Bad Education (2012)
Well, I thought Bad Education was Fantastic
Considering Bad Education is 'just' a sitcom and therefore not typically expected to have complex characters and plot lines, I think the writing and casting of the series was and remains fantastic. Not only is there witty and well-delivered dialogue, as mentioned in other reviews, but it touches on sensitive issues in an admirable way. Let me expand on this, because it is debated hotly and largely disputed, especially for this show.
Bad Education is called 'puerile' by a few reviewers online due to its rather rude humour. OK, this is a fair point... but it's well-written humour, even if a lot of it is dirty, and the majority of it is extremely funny. Even the clichéd jokes are delivered and inserted in new ways and the few that aren't still work in the context of the show. If someone was wanting highbrow humour, they shouldn't have chosen a sitcom: the way the humour is written is, yes, 'puerile', but it is funny and it works.
In addition to this, the characters each start stereotypically clichéd: this is another point reviewers touch upon in a negative light. But, again, in the context of the sitcom, they are lovable and well-written and consistent, which makes the show. And, even though they START stereotypically (eg. camp gay boy, clever Asian girl, class clown, etc.) they develop throughout the course of the show and develop personalities and hobbies and show sides that you wouldn't expect (eg. the tough bully turns out to be gay) and stereotypes are merged in new ways (eg. class clown turns emo/Gothic). On top of this, it is never explicitly mentioned, but it is implied that we, the audience, are seeing these kids through Mr Wickers' eyes and therefore are accompanying them on the journey of HIM seeing them develop from just cardboard cutout characters in a class he's got to control into real people who respect him and whom he respects. In episode 1 in the parents' meeting, he mentions their talents as aspects of them that nobody else notices, showing he notices and respects them as people - not just learners - and this is reflected in the last scene in season 3.
Other good points include the facts that: -Parents match up to their children, psychologically, in appearance, and are (except for the movie... sorry Mrs. Poulter) kept consistent even when in the background. I am especially impressed with the psychological accuracy in the portrayal of the parents and their children. Examples include Stephen Carmichael's ability to be confident and open, matched up to Mr and Mrs Carmichael and their acceptance of their son's personality and sexuality, and also Frank Grayson's mother, whose neglectful and abusive relationship with her son versus the pampering of her dog explains the constant need for her son to assert dominance alongside his need to hide his soft side and 'true self'.
-The morals are admirable and repeated: even though the humour is dirty and Wickers himself does not shy away from doing ridiculous and immoral things to reach his end goals, morals consistently include 'be yourself: you will be richly rewarded' (such as in Grayson's transformation from bully to confident and proud boyfriend of Stephen), 'people are people not just stereotypes' (each character is complex and respected and liked by the end of the series by every other character), 'things are illegal for a reason', 'sexuality is nothing to be ashamed of' and 'immaturity can be overcome'.
-Scenes are reflected subtly to show growth throughout the series, one particular example being (credit to the Tumblr user who brought this up) the first and last lines of each character being meaningful and summing up the character in question. Grayson's first and last lines towards Stephen are 'Hi ugly' and 'You look amazing'.
-Plus, representation is very inclusive: there are main characters who are disabled, from a large section of ethnicities, strong female characters meeting the Bechdel test (Gulliver and Pickwell talk to each other quite a lot about various issues), and there are multiple and complex queer plot lines which are not trivialised or made into a joke and get their own happy endings... mostly.
So, yes. Bad Education could be called 'immature' and 'puerile'... but it really isn't...