SimonJack Before "Teacher's Pet," most movies showed the press in unflattering ways. Not that it wasn't accurate, or deserving. The sensationalist press of the early 20th century seemed to relish its often exaggerated reporting of events. Indeed, it thrived on such fodder. But, this movie for the first time takes a serious look at the newspaper field. It does that with a comedy romance that stars Clark Gable and Doris Day. He was 57. She was 36. Both were big stars and major box office draws. They had never been matched together in a movie before. But they had a chemistry that works perfectly for this story. This isn't a comedy filled with antics and running dialog of humorous lines. Rather, it's a sophisticated comedy with satire that is built around the newspaper trade – or profession, depending on one's point of view. Watch this film and you'll get the drift about the differences in those two descriptions. Gable is James Gannon, a hard-bitten city news editor of a major New York City paper. He came up the hard way and learned the newspaper trade by experience. He was a first-rate reporter who knew how to write. He knew how to edit and lay out a paper. And he knew the business. Day is Erica Stone, a college instructor in journalism. She grew up in the business with her father who had run a weekly newspaper and won a Pulitzer Prize. She had some experience and she knew the business, including how to teach journalism. Both have prejudices, but Gannon's is the strongest and weakest. He looks down on the college-trained employee the paper has hired and he relegates him to handling obituaries. He doesn't think people can learn to write or to be reporters in a classroom. Stone sees the street-wise, informally trained writer as a thing of the past. The beauty of this story is how they each influence the other's opinions, and how they get one another to see other possibilities. Of course, this is done over time and frequent contact that blooms into romance. It has good humor spread throughout the lessons of journalism and reporting. Along with this, there is a mild love triangle that becomes the source of much of the humor. Gig Young plays Dr. Hugo Pine who is collaborating with Erica on a book. They are also dating, and that rankles Gannon just enough to get him to try to show up Pine. But, unfortunately, Pine's knowledge and abilities prove too much for him – until they resolve it with a drinking match. Pine and Gannon become friends over time. When Gannon has second thoughts about his abilities, due to lack of formal education, Pine reassures him that he hasn't suddenly become inept. Pine, "You're confusing education with schooling. Education is the acquisition of knowledge. Knowledge is knowing, familiarity gained by experiences. Wisdom is defined as 'the possession of experience and knowledge.' Now, being experienced, you therefore have education, you have knowledge and you have wisdom."While the conclusions in the lines of an actor in a movie might surely be challenged by many, Pine's philosophical speech says a lot. I have known highly educated people (some as friends) and people who didn't finish high school (some as friends). A few of the former were not the brightest or wisest people I have known, while some of the latter are among the wisest. In Gannon's case, he was well read and he studied and learned his profession (or trade) well. But, he didn't have a diploma that said he acquired his knowledge through formal education.Grade school through high school teachers generally must have formal degrees. Most young people wouldn't be able to teach just based on experience. And, formal education usually includes some psychology and training in people skills and in being able to identify learning problems. But, by the college level of teaching, many fields don't require formal degrees. People with many years of experience and self- learning can be far more expert and knowledgeable than someone who has just graduated from college right out of high school. Such people might be found in writing, languages, philosophy, inventions, and some of the physical sciences. Others describe some of the plot, but I think most viewers will enjoy the film more by not knowing too many of the details beforehand. This is an interesting and informative film, as well as a satire and very good comedy romance. The performances are superb by all, including the several editors, reporters and others in the city room of Gannon's paper. I worked many years as a writer, including several on newspapers. This movie is a good picture of journalism and the press of the mid-20th century.Edna Kovac (Vivian Nathan) says to Gannon, "I don't care what anybody says, I like you!" And he didn't even flinch. Well, I don't care what others say, I like this film.

TheLittleSongbird Teacher's Pet is not absolutely perfect, but I enjoyed it very much. It is overlong, the gender politics I feel have dated and while it is excellent on the whole the script unravels a bit at the end. Still, it looks nice, is very well directed, has good music, a witty script and scenarios and great performances not only from Clark Gable and the lovely Doris Day as they play their parts with obvious boisterous enthusiasm but Gig Young as well as Day's other beau. I also loved the story, it was well written and rarely lagged or felt lame. In conclusion, while flawed, Teacher's Pet is a on the whole delightful comedy that is worth seeing for the leads. 7/10 Bethany Cox

junkregister This has the look and feel of a 1938 film. The anachronistic acting style is embarrassing. Since we know from The Misfits that Gable was a smart actor, the dialogs itself is witty, the fault must lie in the heavy-handed direction. It is surprising that George Seaton started in the mid 1940's. Look at Gable's gestures in the early scene in the class room. Awful. Doris Day, on the other hand, gave a very respectable performance. The relevance of the thematic conflict between the uneducated tradesman vs the educated professional lapsed in relevance in the post war GI bill era. In 1938 this movie would have been hip. By 1958 it is unintentionally funny.

David (Handlinghandel) The script is well done. The premise amusing: A hard-boiled editor faces off with a journalism teacher.The gender politics haven't aged well: Today, the Doris Day character would surely be an editor herself. In those days, though, being a nurse or teacher were what bright women did. And Day is a professor here (albeit in a night school.) She and Clark Gable, playing the newsman, don't exactly have chemistry. But they're not supposed to like or trust each other at first. They are both major movie stars in a system that was dying out.Speaking of dying, this was near the end of Gable's career -- only a few films before more famously ill-fated "The Misfits." And two of the major supporting players were to die at their own hands: Gig Young plays a brilliant psychologist Gable sees as a rival for Day's affections. (The scenes in which he's drunk are where it began, for me, to lose its charms a bit. They're slightly mean.)Nick Adams, too, died of unnatural causes. He plays a promising up-and-comer at the paper.Day is stuck with a very unbecoming hairstyle. It sort of bridges the gap between her days singing with big bands and her greatest (popular, if not critical) glory days in the movies with Rock Hudson. She gives a sturdy, likable performance.Mamie Van Doren is a nightclub singer of Gable's acquaintance. She too has a terrible haircut. (Please note: I generally don't notice actresses' hair but these two are notably unflattering.) The nightclub scenes recall "The Awdul Truth." And if, as she sings, she invented rock and roll, the song she sings in the club certainly shows no sign of that.The movie is long for a comedy. It could have been shorter and could have been better. Still, it's pure pleasure most of the way through.