Ras les profs!

Except for the shock of JoBeth Williams idiot-level strip tease, plus a few other sharp digs about school teachers you and I have hated or loved, I can't think of a single reason to pay any attention to this Arthur Hiller glob of pretentiousness. Whatever Hiller did to elicit what Judith Crist said was "arguably George C. Scott's finest screen performance" in The Hospital, he didn't do it here for Nick Nolte or Williams or anyone else involved. What we're left with is a stale attempt to expose the darker workings of an American high school, but unlike The Hospital and its wonderfully scorched-earth approach to the runnings of a major healing center, Teachers just makes you want to vote for vouchers--and get your money back from the place you rented this dreck.

"Teachers" really doesn't do justice to show us the real world of teaching in a school. But I found it to be a funny and touching movie anyway. An excellent cast came together to create this satire about the lives surrounding teachers, students, and faculty members of an Ohio high school. The main plot of "Teachers" is about a former student (who's never seen) who plans to sue his alma mater, and the pressures the faculty is forced to take. Nick Nolte is very good here as a popular social studies instructor who doesn't play by the rules; Judd Hirsch is also good as the Vice Principal who's a longtime friend of Nolte's. Other cast members include Jobeth Williams as a lawyer (and former student of Nolte's) who's firm is defending the person suing the school; Ralph Macchio ("The Karate Kid") as a troubled student who develops a friendship with Nolte; Oscar winner Lee Grant as the school's superintendent; and the late Emmy winner Richard Mulligan (TV's "Soap" and "Empty Nest") as a mental patient who passes himself off as a subsitute teacher for a history class and acts out all of the historical events by dressing up in costume. Even Morgan Freeman, Laura Dern, and Crispin Glover are featured in small roles before going on to bigger projects (Freeman in "Driving Miss Daisy" and "Shawshank Redemption"; Dern in "Jurassic Park" and "Rambling Rose"; and Glover in "Back to the Future"). All these actors are well cast. "Teachers" isn't a great film, but a good one. I was entertained by most of it, although there are a few preposterous moments. For one thing, I don't buy for one second that a teacher can win three consecutive teaching awards for the most orderly taught class, and then spends every class session everyday reading the newspaper and falling asleep while his students do their school work in class. That's not teaching. This character should not have been included in the script, or at least make him teach. This is absolute nonsense. But I loved the early scene when this instuctor (using some kind of paper machine in the school offices) gets blue ink squirted in the face by the school psychologist who wants to use that same machine (this comes because of his refusal to let her use the machine and as a result the woman flips out). Also, the scene where a woman walks naked down a school hallway is ridiculous. "Teachers" is nonsensical at times, but nevertheless I found it entertaining as I watched it.

*** (out of four)

I saw this movie again recently and even though it was exaggerated a little, I thought it was pretty good. I went to both public and private schools in the 70s-80s and saw many of the same sort of teachers and administration in both types of school. I had teachers who didn't care, who just couldn't teach, and those who actually did try to engage the students and do a good job, and all of those types, although exaggerated a little, are portrayed here. I've also seen clueless principals who just hid out in their offices all day and were in their car driving away 5 minutes before the final bell rang.

Around the time the movie was released, I read a news story about a girl who was valedictorian of her school, in the National Honors Society, but flunked out of college due to being unable to read because of dyslexia and she ended up suing her school.

This wasn't clearly the case in the film, but should a student who can't perform to a minimum academic standard or doesn't even show up for class and turn in work still pass and get a diploma?

The fact the school was more concerned with with its image than with addressing the issue is something I also saw in school growing up and even now. In my area recently, a local doctor sued his son's former school over unrefunded tuition money. He claimed his son was bullied there for a couple of years and complaints and meetings with school officials didn't help, so he enrolled his son elsewhere. When he unenrolled his son, the school would only refund the unused portion of tuition if the father signed a confidentiality agreement stating he wouldn't discuss what went on there. Sound familiar?

Although a bit over the top, Teachers is an example of what went on, and probably still goes on, in schools and is worth seeing.

As a former teacher, I see a lot of useful information from this movie. It shows many stereotypes that you see in everyday classrooms and schools: absent minded principals, matronly secretaries that truly run the school, highly idealistic teachers that have burned out, paper-hogs like Ditto and buttinski superintendents that won't let school progress like it should. For the comment by another poster about Ditto being absurd, not so fast my friend. I did my student teaching with a real life Ditto. That's all he had his students do and that's all he would let me do. These teachers do exist. Are they good? No, but they do still exist. I agree with many here that say it could be a good teaching tool for aspiring educators. I also think, today's educational institutions that prepare teachers would be too afraid to show it to prospective teachers because they are trying to make the "perfect" teacher. I think this would be a good example of showing different stereotypes of teachers that we saw in school and how to keep from falling into one of those holes as educators.

I love this film. My father, a teacher for 37 years, loved this film. It's not the greatest cinematic effort in the world, it's not even the best film about teaching (see "The Blackboard Jungle" or "Goodbye Mr Chips"). It is, however, a fine effort and an entertaining film.

There are some great comedic moments in this film: the school psychologist flipping out and squirting Ditto in the face with ink, Richard Mulligan as a mental patient who becomes a substitute history teacher, the theft of a teacher's desk, the whole "Ditto" character. There are problems, however.

The chief problem in this film is the inability to strike a balance between comedy and drama. The film tries to raise vital issue facing schools: funding, apathy amongst staff, lack of parental involvement, safety, administrators who worry more about image than the education of their students, teen angst, conformity vs. individuality. Much of the comedy is used to highlight many of these issues, and some of it works quite well. At other times, it devalues the issue at hand.

There are fine performances from Nick Nolte, Judd Hirsch, Morgan Freeman, Jobeth Williams, Crispin Glover, and Laura Dern. Richard Mulligan and Royal Dano are hysterical. Ralph Macchio is Ralph Macchio; not much depth, but some good moments.

I don't think this is an insult to teaching, as it tries to show different styles. Nolte is the idealistic teacher who tries to reach his students and get them involved, but has lost his passion in an uncaring system. Royal Dano, "Ditto", is a teacher who has removed any responsibility in actively teaching his students and just marks time until retirement. Allen Garfield tries to teach his class, but doesn't seem to be able to reach them and is reduced to an object of ridicule amongst his students. Richard Mulligan is a mental patient, who through an absurd set of circumstances, becomes a substitute history teacher. He literally brings history to life, by dressing up as various figures of history, and acting out their achievements. He uses different methods to engage his students and they respond.

In the end, this film is a mixed bag. It tries to illuminate the struggles of education, offers some solutions, and entertains; but, its message gets a bit lost. Still, it's definitely worth viewing.

Incidently, one reviewer remarked about the scene where Ditto is squirted with ink, saying he is using some kind of paper machine. For you younger viewers out there, that is a ditto machine. In the ancient days before photocopiers became standard, teachers had to prepare their tests and hand-outs on ditto machines. It was a kind of simple printing press. Many were hand-cranked and required a lot of effort to churn out a stack of tests. God help you if you had several pages to print. The ink had a very distinct smell and was often the center of student jokes about getting high off of the tests. Ah, those were the days! Nowadays, the best students can hope for is getting a little toner on their hands from the copier, or a faded screen on their computer. And we used to have to walk ten miles to school, through fifty feet of snow, uphill, both ways; and we liked it!