has kept us unaware. It's one of those "click" moments. (Isn't that what we called it in the 70's?. . "click"?)

cracks


edited because I was typing again

http://bechdeltest.com/

awaiting the arrival of men's rights apologists in 5 ... 4 ... 3 ...

strikes me as one of those "glass always half empty" people.

and always will.

...in all matters cultural and political.

What's on the surface is just not enough, yet most of the attitudes, behaviors, and choices that are made are based on surface level understanding.

Small wonder I never go to the movies anymore.

K/R

A few episodes in it occurred to me: Wow there are a LOT of women in this thing, women doing a lot of different things, different ages, etc. And how unusual this is.

Now when Gozer the Gozerian shows up in, "Ghostbusters," she more than likely communicates telepathically with Dana who has been transformed into a devil dog... and okay, I've got nothing.

TlalocW

Just sayin'.

...'When Harry Met Sally' and 'The Princess Bride' for example.

Such a simple test, too.

Does Harry talk to another male character about things having nothing to do with women?

It's a romantic comedy. I would expect all the dialog that isn't between the leads to end up being about the leads and their relationships.

He really got it one day when we were watching an old film noir, and the hero's girlfriend turned out to be a woman with mutism.

There were probably plot reasons but for some reason this was the day the BF just lit up like an angry bee and turned to me and said "She literally never talks. The woman has no lines. Her character is totally silent."

Especially timely with the rise in awareness & discussion about women, violence, the perspective of women...

I have a few scenes with the MC's wife and her housekeeper, and they don't discuss men. This is largely because I wanted to establish their personalities, which are critical to later plot twists, and the novel (a sci-fi adventure in a fictional, male-dominated world) was in danger of becoming a sausage fest.
This was a very illuminating test for me. Thanks for posting it.

"chick flicks".

our definitions of chick flick might be different but its usually a love story/romantic comedy (my definition) where there entire plot revolves around a love interest (man).

depressing.

I don't want to judge a movie solely by this test, but it is food for thought.

The graphs at the "stats and graphs" link at the bechdeltest website show that only about half (53%) of the movies in the sample pass the test. That's pretty sad.

I'd like to see an additional comparison. Compare the number of movies that don't meet the test for women, movies that don't meet the same test for men, and movies that meet the test for both sexes. If the Women in Movies test list was disproportionately long (and I think it would be), it would make for a stronger argument than simply presenting one of the three conditions.

The video here is enlightening, and corresponds with my impression of movies I have seen, but the scientist in me wants to see the comparison to the other conditions.

If they aren't there for sex or the potential of sex they are "the bad guys".

Fine example: The crazy woman in "The Mist".

Often it seems they took a male role and simply stuck in a woman.

It's like when women dress for the office. They don't dress for the men, they dress for the other women,...and the critics can be BRUTAL.

The list of movies that the woman in this video shows is a least a little bit misleading. Either that, or I do not have a clear memory of the X-Men movies. The list included at least a few of the X-Men movies. As far as I can remember in most of the X-Men movies had two or more women who talked to each other about something other than men. Did not the characters of Storm and Jean Grey talk to each other in a number of the movies?

...in X-Men 2 (Jean and Storm) and they *DO* talk about something other than men (i.e. finding a mutant, avoiding getting shot down, etc.). Mystique also makes a snide remark to Rogue about her hair.

I believe in all the other X-Men movies, the women talk almost exclusively to men, not to each other, though their topics of conversations with those men are about many different things.

Thanks for posting this, Mira. I'm a long-time feminist and one would think I'd have seen this. Nope.

I forwarded this link to a friend who evaluates films for film festivals.

Of course, the films she evaluates are mostly international films. It's prob'ly American films that suffer the most from this malady, but not entirely. For example, I'll bet Iraqi films by men don't have much to offer in the line of thoughtful female characters. Correct me if I'm wrong , anyone.


Cher

Lots of women talking to each other about lots of things. And the plots often turn on the actions of the women and the understandings arrived at among the women -- even in cases where there is nominally a male viewpoint character.

Very interesting.

...I saw "Skyfall" a while back and it certainly has at least two female character that are principle to the plot and talk about something other than a romantic interest in men. They talk about killing one. If 007 can pass, or at least hold up to some scrutiny, that's something to note.

Clarification: When she says that they talk about something other than men, she must mean other than with a romantic interest. "Talking about men" when men are characters and part of the plot is too general.

I think the test used in this video is a bad test. A number of the movies listed portray strong leading women. Wanted and Lara Croft: Tomb Raider (both staring Angelina Jolie) feature strong leading female characters. I have not seen the movie, but I far as I know Batman: The Dark Knight Rises features the character of Cat Woman who goes toe-to-toe with Batman.

Why must movies feature two women who talk to each other about something other than men? Why is it not enough to have strong female characters who interact with men in movies? It seems to me that it is more important to have strong female characters in movies as opposed to having multiple women talking to each other about something other than men. I would not have a problem with a movie that had multiple female characters talking about something other than men. However, as long as there is a strong female character in a movie I am fine.

...because if there is only one then she ends up standing for all women. Just like if there's one black man in a movie he ends up standing for all blacks. It doesn't matter if she's kick-ass, just as it doesn't matter if the black-man is cool, the fact that the film is totally male but for that woman, or totally white but for that black man makes them into a symbol for all their gender/race rather than into a character.

We view men (white men) as human beings. Meaning they can have all the human characteristics of the human rainbow--they can be petty, generous, mean, kind, brave, cowardly, smart, stupid. But if you watched a movie with only one man in it, or only one white person in it, you'd be more sensitive to how they were portrayed. You'd ask, "Why is the only man in the movie not smart?" or "Why does he have to be an asshole?" Suddenly, that one man wouldn't be a human being, a character, he'd be a symbol of the male gender.

As for speaking to each other, if the women only talk to men, it implies that men are more important--that women (especially those kick-ass women) see men as their equals, but not other women (the non-kick ass women usually). If they talk to each other, then both women edge into being characters (human beings) rather than symbols (kick-ass woman/non-kick-ass woman), and if they talk about things other than men, then they're nearly on par with all those male characters who talk to each other about things other than women. It's a matter of equality. Do the women get to talk to each other like the men get to talk to each other?

When you imply that all that matters is there be a strong female lead, what you're really saying is that we should be happy with a token gesture rather than the real thing. The real thing is a well-integrated movie that features both genders in many roles, and all of them speaking to each other as they would in real life. Why should a single Catwoman be enough? You offer a "be happy with what you've got" scenario. That's like telling a person struggling on minimum wage that they should be happy they got a job and not strike for higher pay.

No. Sorry. I want more.

You said that I was saying that women should be happy with "a token gesture", that is not true. What I wrote is what I was really saying. I only care if the woman is competent and performs her job well. It is also not the same as telling someone on minimum wage to just be happy that they have a job. There is a big difference between working a minimum wage job and there being only one woman on a movie screen. Any person should be able to make enough money to provide for his or her family.

Bechdel is more of a system to establish if a film is a "chick flick" ...

... or has a critical mass of elements that attracts women. I guess.

In that long stream of movies were a lot of really good dude flicks, such as the Bourne Series. But there were movies in that list with a lot of strong female characters that dominated the show. They simply didn't talk to other females.

You may now stone me as an infidel.

(The EDIT was to change the title of my reply to make it less of a magnet for scorn. After a bit of reflection and a rhetorical beat down from my SO, I can see that my response was not well thought out.)

It passes the test. There is the female scientist and her assistant, both women, both named, who, while they do talk a lot about Thor, talk about other things as well to each other. There is also the two female goddess of Asgard (Thor's mom and Sif) who, brief though the dialogue is, talk to each other about something other than men (they talk about loss).

Thor passes the test. So. Does that mean it wasn't a really good dude flick?

My point being--it can be done without removing a movie's appeal to dudes. And the point isn't to appeal to women at all, but to give all movie viewers, dudes included, a different perspective on women--i.e. that they're human beings.

I expressed to my SO the opinion I wrote in my post. She sneered at me in disgust, and proceeded to shred my argument.

I surrender. My opinion was very poorly thought out.

[img][/img]

(btw -- I didn't see the movie Thor. However, his character in The Avengers struck as being pure eye candy. I have nothing else to offer about that.)

I would be interested in seeing a list of films or television projects which pass the test, rather than failing it. Can a story pass the test, but still fail to be supportive of women? If a male is discussed, must that male be a character in the film, or can it be any male? I imagine a story in which two or more women meet to discuss serious political or economic matters, or history, some larger part of the characters' world where males may be more prevalent than women, currently or historically. And how much, umm, lesbian porn (if there could be such a thing with some actual story which might contain a conversation) targeted to males could pass the test while likely not being supportive of women at all? It ends up feeling like the test may be too simple, good for making a point but possibly at risk of undermining that very point if taken too seriously or over-applied.

I am going to go out on a limb here, and rather than just typing the safe "men suck" response I am going to try and put my thoughts out there....

The answer that the video seems to be suggesting is that movie companies are owned and controlled by misogynistic women haters. I think this argument falls apart when you consider it more carefully. Movies are a product. Movie companies are nothing more than an entertainment business that produces that product. They exist, not to drive an agenda, but to make money and hopefully create a little magic for their viewers. How successful they are is directly proportional to how well they satisfy the demands of their customers.

She wants to know why Hollywood isn't making movies like this. In business, the answer to every question that begins with the word 'why' is MONEY. It really is that simple.

But perhaps you are reading this and thinking: If Hollywood isn't making movies that pass this test then women viewers have no other choice but to watch the films that these companies produce. This is false for two reasons. First, people do not watch movies that don't appeal to them -- they stay home instead. Second, Hollywood IS making movies that pass this and any other test you can dream up. The American movie industry produces and distributes about two-hundred movies a year, covering every theme you can imagine. Everything from 3D chainsaws to gay cowboys, and the agenda for movie makers always remains the same:

ENTERTAINMENT!

People want to see adventure, they want romance and comedy. We want the conflict to be larger than what we experience in our everyday lives. We don't want to watch someone spill their soda and reach for a paper towel, we want to watch the Titanic sink. Despite this, we want a story that makes it easy to suspend our disbelief. We might pay to see a movie about female gladiators (good idea actually), but we probably won't bother with a movie about an all-midget NFL team winning the Superbowl.

Finally, we want a story with a motor on it. In movies or plays anything that doesn't advance the story ends up on the cutting room floor. In my mythical all-female gladiator movie the heartwarming scene where Tiffany shares her childhood ballet dancer dreams with her gladiator roommate is probably going to get cut. Unless they are wearing chainmail lingerie and having a pillow fight while they talk. And even then, it's got to be quick.

Movies that don't follow these basic rules still get made, but with only a few rare exceptions you didn't watch them. No one did. They usually weren't entertaining.

Thelma and Louise was not only entertaining, it a huge success, as was Silence of the Lambs (Academy Award for Best Actress), and Monster (Academy Award for Best Actress).

Complaining that Hollywood doesn't make more "Women Talking, But Not About Men!" movies is as silly complaining that there aren't enough sleepy seniors starring in porn.

And I think people are not getting it. It isn't about whether the movies are supportive of women, or whether a movie is negative toward women. It just asks if women are really present (more than one and full characters with names) and whether they serve some purpose other than in relationship to men - whether they have a reason to talk to each other, and about something else.

It seems to be looking more for whether women are really present in the movies in a meaningful way, and whether their purpose is for reasons other than their relationships with men.

And yeah, in romantic movies the men talk about women too. But not necessarily just about women. And that's the only genre of movie where it seems like men would spend much time talking about their relationships. Whereas with women, they're finding that if there are two of them in a movie, they almost never talk to each other unless they are talking about men.

I don't think it's as much an an indictment as pointing out a blind spot. I was blind to this as well.