When I first watched Ladies First, I thought it could become one of those films people would keep talking about afterwards. The concept immediately reminded me of Barbie. Both movies play with gender roles and imagine a world where women hold more power than men. From the beginning, the film seemed like the perfect setup for a clever satire and maybe even a larger conversation about sexism. Unfortunately, the more the story progressed, the more confused I became about its message. At times, it felt less like a thoughtful critique of sexism and more like an extended version of the “women in male fields” trend on social media, where women mirror stereotypically male behaviour to expose how absurd it can be.
The film follows Damien Sachs (Sacha Baron Cohen), a successful executive at an advertising agency who constantly objectifies and disrespects the women around him. After an accident, he wakes up in a world where gender roles have been completely reversed. Women occupy the highest positions in society while men are expected to be attractive, agreeable and submissive. Men are catcalled, objectified and overlooked in the workplace. At first, this exaggerated role reversal is entertaining and even manages to make a point. The film wants to show that what many women experience every day would be considered a nightmare if it happened to men. And for a while, it actually works. However, once Damien enters this alternate reality, the film quickly begins to rely on the same joke over and over again. What confused me most was the way the movie portrayed women in power. Even though the roles are reversed, the women in leadership positions are written almost exactly like the men at the beginning of the film. They make sexual jokes, objectify men and misuse their power. Is this really what a world led by women would look like? I don’t think so. As I watched, I realised that I had never heard of a man being hired because of a quota or having his opinion dismissed because he was a man. That made the film feel less like an alternative society and more like a reversal of the inequalities women face today.
One scene captures this problem particularly well. At the country house of Glenda (Kathryn Hunter), the woman responsible for choosing the company’s next CEO, Damien tells Louis (Bill Paterson), who works there as a butler, that he could easily run a company like Guinness. According to Damien, women have convinced men that they are not capable of leadership. While the scene is clearly meant to be empowering, it also reveals the film’s limited understanding of power. Success is still defined through traditionally masculine ideas of leadership and status. The contradiction becomes even more obvious when Damien argues that the advertising agency should choose its first male CEO because of the publicity it would generate. Moments later, he insists that people should be chosen based on talent rather than gender. The film wants to criticize discrimination, yet it repeatedly falls back on gender as its central argument. In that sense, the film often feels like the “women in male fields” trend. It seems to suggest that equality means giving women the chance to behave just as badly as men. To me, that never felt like progress. What works as a short joke on social media feels much less convincing when stretched across an entire film.
The film occasionally introduces genuinely interesting ideas but never fully develops them. One example involves Ruby (Weruche Opia), a Black woman who works as Damien’s assistant. In the male-dominated world, she wears her hair straight, while in the matriarchal world she wears her natural afro. It is a small detail that hints at larger questions about beauty standards and identity, but the film never develops it further.
An even stronger example is Alex (Rosamund Pike). In the matriarchal world, she is being considered for a major promotion and has a real chance of becoming the company’s next CEO. Yet she still remains the primary caregiver for her daughter. When her child needs help, it is Alex who leaves an important meeting and sacrifices a professional opportunity. Unlike many of the film’s exaggerated role-reversal jokes, this situation feels surprisingly realistic. For a moment, the story acknowledges that gender inequality is more complicated than simply switching men and women.
The same issue appears in Damien’s character development. By the end, it is unclear whether he has actually learned anything about sexism or whether he simply changed because he fell in love with Alex. The ending is where the story really lost me. Throughout most of the movie, I was rooting for Alex to become CEO. She seemed ambitious and genuinely committed to her career. What bothered me most was that even in a world where women are supposed to hold power, Damien still ends up becoming CEO instead of Alex. After spending so much time showing why Alex should become CEO, the movie suddenly asks the audience to celebrate Damien’s success instead.
To be fair, one could argue that this exaggeration is exactly the point. By reversing the roles, the film allows male viewers to experience situations that many women deal with on a regular basis. The catcalling, the lack of respect in the workplace and the constant objectification are all meant to feel uncomfortable. In that sense, the film succeeds in highlighting how absurd and frustrating sexism can be. However, the role reversal works better as a starting point than as a conclusion.
What makes Ladies First disappointing is its lack of imagination. The film asks viewers to imagine a world in which women hold power, yet it never seems able to imagine power itself any differently. Instead, women are given the same attitudes and behaviours that the film criticizes in men. While Ladies First succeeds in showing how frustrating sexism can be, it never fully explores the larger questions it raises. In the end, I was left feeling that the movie came very close to saying something meaningful but never quite got there.
Kommentar verfassen