Is the Bechdel Test Useful?

[Goodfella]

La vita è bella?
I don't really remember either.

Oh no, I was talking about It's a Wonderful Life.

Yeah, probably some more movies among those 40 do. I really was looking for the movie (or movies) on that list that a) doesn't pass b) is not full of graphic violence and/or crime c) wasn't made before say 1965. I ruled out movies one way or the other, whatever came first to my mind.

Oh I gotcha.

 

[Chimera Kitty]

Movies have a tendency to fail this test for 3 reasons:

1) Every conversation in a movie will either involve the protagonist as a participant, or will be about the protagonist.

2) protagonists are usually male

3) If the protagonist is female, she will be surrounded by incompetent men to emphasize how awesome she is and how incompetent men are

After all, doesn't that great masterpiece of feminism, G.I. Jane, fail the test because Demi has nobody but men to talk to throughout the movie? If we specify "women" instead of "female", then even Aliens would fail the test if not for a brief exchange between Vasquez and Ferro (the dropship pilot). Meanwhile, the uber-macho Chronicles of Riddick manages to pass the test because of an exchange between Judi Dench and Dame Vaako.

So basically, the test tells us nothing about the movie's attitude toward women. It's just blind luck.

 

[Leoreth]

I've just remembered a horribly sexist movie that passes the Bechdel text: Sucker Punch.

 

[Chimera Kitty]

I've just remembered a horribly sexist movie that passes the Bechdel text: Sucker Punch.

Was it sexist, or a satire of sexist movies?

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/vid...247-You-Are-Wrong-About-Sucker-Punch-Part-One

 

[Traitorfish]

Was it sexist, or a satire of sexist movies?

Yes, it was.

 

[Leoreth]

Oh, right, the old satire excuse. I don't buy it for a second.

(Zack Snyder for example said that it was meant to "empower women" )

 

[Chimera Kitty]

Yes, it was.

Indeed. All of the female characters are portrayed as noble heroines, and the only male character who isn't an abusive, lying, perverted scumbag is a figment of the characters' imaginations.

It was horribly sexist against men, and somewhat undermined movies that exploited our culture's newfound obsession with sexily-dressed female action stars. I think that was the whole point of the video.

Oh, right, the old satire excuse. I don't buy it for a second.

Neither do I. Satire is supposed to be funny or at least make a point, and SP didn't.

At the very least, though, you have to admit that it did not portray women in a negative or stereotypical light.

 

[Traitorfish]

Indeed. All of the female characters are portrayed as noble heroines, and the only male character who isn't an abusive, lying, perverted scumbag is a figment of the characters' imaginations.

It was horribly sexist against men[.]

 

[Chimera Kitty]

The emote is not a valid counterargument except against Cutlass.

 

[Traitorfish]

Not everything warrants engagement.

 

[Chimera Kitty]

Not everything warrants engagement.

Like I said, that's why it's valid when arguing with Cutlass.

 

[Leoreth]

None of your 43 posts even interact with Cutlass. Do you admit being a sockpuppet?

 

[dutchfire]

Did you actually go through all his posts? Wow, that 10 minutes of your life and 5 IQ points gone right there.

 

[Ayatollah So]

I don't follow; why would we want to reduce the pack? Isn't that missing the point? ("There's hardly any cockroaches if the building, if you ignore all the cockroaches.")

Or even "there's hardly any insects in the building, if you ignore all the cockroaches."

2) protagonists are usually male

Wow. The only thing wrong with the Bechdel Test is that the much simpler test, how many movies have female protagonists, would get right to the point even faster.

 

[Leoreth]

Did you actually go through all his posts? Wow, that 10 minutes of your life and 5 IQ points gone right there.

That's cruel, now I either have to admit to having done zero research on my claim or accept what you said there

 

[Traitorfish]

The only thing wrong with the Bechdel Test is that the much simpler test, how many movies have female protagonists, would get right to the point even faster.

While that's also an important consideration, I think that the Bechdel Test makes an important point in its own right, by stressing the importance not just of the representation of women, but of the representation of women as able to form relationships independently of men. A film which fails the Bechdel Test is one in which women interact exclusively through or in reference to men, and this may be the case even if the female characters are given prominent roles.

 

[metatron]

While that's also an important consideration, I think that the Bechdel Test makes an important point in its own right, by stressing the importance not just of the representation of women, but of the representation of women as able to form relationships independently of men.

Yet again: In the majority of movies that fail the test the "relationships" the men are forming are mostly about killing each other and/or exacting all sorts of brutality on each other, both of which is usually shown in a way that most of the audience would find unacceptable if it happened to women on the screen.

Oh, right, the old satire excuse. I don't buy it for a second.

The movie could hardly be any more clear in its sarcasm. It's like three layers thick, more butter than bread.
Well, they could explicitly tell you.
Oh, wait, they do!

[Not saying it's a good movie.]

 

[Leoreth]

The movie could hardly be any more clear in its sarcasm. It's like three layers thick, more butter than bread.
Well, they could explicitly tell you.
Oh, wait, they do!

[Not saying it's a good movie.]

Um, yes, it's sarcastic. I don't buy the argument that this excuses its blatant sexism.

 

[Crezth]

Yet again: In the majority of movies that fail the test the "relationships" the men are forming are mostly about killing each other and/or exacting all sorts of brutality on each other, both of which is usually shown in a way that most of the audience would find unacceptable if it happened to women on the screen.
]

But how does this qualification change the fact of the under-representation of women in cinema? It's all well-and-good to say "well women wouldn't fit into the plots of these movies," but perhaps that indicates a problem with the consistent lack of their meaningful portrayal in movies in general.

 

[metatron]

But how does this qualification change the fact of the under-representation of women in cinema?

It doesn't.

It's all well-and-good to say "well women wouldn't fit into the plots of these movies," but perhaps that indicates a problem with the consistent lack of their meaningful portrayal in movies in general.

It's not consistant.
It's limited to movies that a) pander to an exclusively male audiences (movies about sports for starters), which have their female equivalent and b) movies that involve a certain degree of action violence and, well, brutality.
In my view the latter is the actual problem. And it is a problem.

It's just that the knee-jerk reactions by self-proclaimed pro-feminists (as in this thread) don't help all that much.

Um, yes, it's sarcastic. I don't buy the argument that this excuses its blatant sexism.

It's social commentary.
Next thing you will claim a documentary about forced prostitution is sexist by misrepresenting it as an endorsement?