The Bechdel Test

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

Zachary Amaranth:

Father Time:

A woman can give her perspective, be a central character and drive the plot all without speaking to another woman.

Of course, the Bechdel Test doesn't address whether she is a strong character, central to the plot, or anything. To say it fails because you don't understand what the premise is kind of asinine.

Pretty much every definition of the Bechdel Test, including the video in the very post you quoted, addresses this. Which, as the author intended posting it to put us all on the same page, makes it especially weird.

Does it not concern you to not understand what you're talking about, or is it intentional?

I couldn't see the video at the time so I just went by what others have said about it. And I've seen a lot of people talk about it means not enough games from a female perspective my condescending friend. Nevertheless I just decided to cover all my bases.

Anyway saying this shows the limited nature of women's roles is even dumber. The fact that a woman doesn't talk to other women tells us nothing about her role.

It's a useless test.

ninjaRiv:

I agree, she does get it better than most people. I'm one of the few who don't seem to hate her guts so I'm definitely not using it as an excuse to call her out at all. But it's almost like... "Close but no cigar."

If anything, I find it more frustrating that she seems to get it, then takes a HARD RIGHT off the road and into a tree. But yeah, I agree. Just airing my own beliefs there. And clarifying she's covered the Bechdel test a couple of times. More than a couple if you count tweets and stuff, evidently.

I don't follow her that close, TBH. I usually don't even pay her much mind until people start pissing and moaning about how horrible she is.

Father Time:

I couldn't see the video at the time so I just went by what others have said about it. And I've seen a lot of people talk about it means not enough games from a female perspective my condescending friend.

That's what you're going to use as your excuse? "I saw other people being wrong, so I decided to do so myself?"

I don't think this is base-covering. And if you think pointing out a pattern in your commentary on women's issues is condescending, then maybe you should try a little harder. I'm merely stating what you seem to do repeatedly, which is to jump in with arguments that are ignorant at best and disingenuous at worst. Apparently, questioning you on that trend hurts your feelings. I'm sorry that it does, as it wasn't my intent. Simultaneously, if you're going to get offended and complain that I'm condescending, maybe you should take a few moments to bone up on the issue you're talking about rather than complain that you are being called on ignorance.

Anyway saying this shows the limited nature of women's roles is even dumber. The fact that a woman doesn't talk to other women tells us nothing about her role.

It's a useless test.

Ah, word confusion. See, even though you accused me of condescension, I'm here to help.

He says it speaks to the limited roles for women. Not about the given woman's role. He then goes on to liken it to something said in a specific movie as sort of an analogy to the point, which might have been a clue.

Really, if you can't find named women who can have even a single conversation that's not about men, that does speak volumes about the roles of women in film. It speaks to a trend of very limited scope for women.

Now that you (hopefully) understand what the video was actually saying, perhaps you would care to rephrase your statement about uselessness. Certainly it is limited both in use and application, but that doesn't make it useless.

And you see, the fact that I am able to help you through your confusion comes from the very fact that I took the time to inform myself before I bothered to post on the matter. Not only did this attitude allow me to sound off on the actual value of the Bechdel test, but it encouraged me to actually go look at the context of the word role.

For further educational purposes, here's a brief summary of some of the key points from TV Tropes:

Now, by limiting yourself to shows/movies that pass the test, you'd be cutting out a lot of otherwise-worthy entertainment; indeed, a fair number of top-notch works have legitimate reasons for including no women (e.g. ones set in a men's prison or on a WWII military submarine or back when only men served on juries), or with no conversations at all, or having only one or two characters. You may even be cutting out a lot of works that have feminist themes (it's been revealed that Mulan surprisingly failed, although it does make a twisted sort of sense - she spends the majority of the movie as the sole woman in a male-only group of soldiers, with the rest of the time being around women who are fixated on her wedding, which she was obviously uncomfortable with). But that's the point; the majority of fiction created today, for whatever reason, seems to think women aren't worth portraying except in relation to men. Things have changed since the test was first formulated (the strip in which it was originally suggested was written in 1985), but Hollywood still needs to be prodded to put in someone other than The Chick.

The test is often misunderstood. The requirements are just what they say they are - it doesn't make any difference if, for instance, the male characters the women talk about are their fathers, sons, brothers, platonic friends, mortal enemies, patients they're trying to save or murderers they're trying to catch, rather than romantic partners. Conversely, if a work seems to pass, it doesn't matter if male characters are present when the female characters talk, nor does it matter if the women only talk about stereotypically girly topics like shoe shopping - or even relationships, as long as it is not relationships with men.

This is because the Bechdel Test is not meant to give a scorecard of a work's overall level of feminism. It is entirely possible for a film to pass without having overt feminist themes - in fact, the original example of a movie that passes is Alien, which, while it has feminist subtexts, is mostly just a sci-fi/action/horror flick. A movie can easily pass the Bechdel Test and still be incredibly misogynistic. Conversely, it's also possible for a story to fail the test and still be strongly feminist in other ways, and there's nothing necessarily wrong with that. What's a problem is that it becomes a pattern - when so many movies fail the test, while very few show male characters whose lives seem to revolve around women, that says uncomfortable things about the way Hollywood handles gender. There are also lesser-known variations of the rule, such as the Race Bechdel Test, in which two characters of colour talk about anything other than the white leads and the Reverse Bechdel Test, with the roles of men and women swapped.

You're welcome.

generals3:
You can't just look at the typically male movies and somehow conclude: "there is a problem with the movie industry".

Which is why it's routinely applied to the Oscars, and even "women's" media frequently doesn't pass. I mean, unless you want to expand the definition of "typically male movies" to "most of Hollywood's film output," that's a pretty lousy case.

broca:

But what i find much more interesting is the difference in outcome when applying it to films or tv shows. Tv shows have a much better record of female representation than films and the question is why.

TV shows tend to be more dialogue heavy and have more time to develop larger casts. As a result, such interactions are more likely to occur, I would say almost by pure chance. It doesn't have to be chance, but I think the nature of TV v movies makes it a statistically more likely outcome.

Even over the course of a season, as more characters are built, a given episode is more likely to display this. It's not a given, but it's fairly common.

And again, these are all tendencies, not rules. But really, consider the time frame alone.

I think the entire point of the Test is to make you think critically about women in the creations you make and consume, so whether it passes the test or not, you've got a more inclusive viewpoint.

Which I think a lot of people forget when judging critics. Critics are there not as a handy buying guide or a simple floodgate to quality, but a more discerning individual who can offer a more intricate opinion which we can then partake of and benefit from ourselves. Their sheer existence isn't a threat to whatever they're opining against; it's a more in-depth look that helps things be satisfying on more than just a base level, to the benefit of everybody.

BiscuitTrouser:
Lets do a reverse bechdel test. I challenge anyone here to name a movie where two male characters DO NOT TALK about anything else apart from women if at all. A movie that isnt total garbage. I think you might find one or two (Technically moon i guess) but they probably explore a single/two character/s only or deal with the theme of isolation and thus cant pass either test. Im even ignoring point 1. Find me a movie that fails any TWO of the 3 points for men. Its so rediculously given that a movie HAS to pass the LedCheb test to even BE a movie at all. Its difficult to name a movie that fails even 2 of the challenges. The fact its exceedingly laughably easy to name movies that fail all 3 bechdels is telling.

I'm thinking Black Swan. But I think it's the only one I can remember.

Zachary Amaranth:

ninjaRiv:

I agree, she does get it better than most people. I'm one of the few who don't seem to hate her guts so I'm definitely not using it as an excuse to call her out at all. But it's almost like... "Close but no cigar."

If anything, I find it more frustrating that she seems to get it, then takes a HARD RIGHT off the road and into a tree. But yeah, I agree. Just airing my own beliefs there. And clarifying she's covered the Bechdel test a couple of times. More than a couple if you count tweets and stuff, evidently.

I don't follow her that close, TBH. I usually don't even pay her much mind until people start pissing and moaning about how horrible she is.

Father Time:

I couldn't see the video at the time so I just went by what others have said about it. And I've seen a lot of people talk about it means not enough games from a female perspective my condescending friend.

That's what you're going to use as your excuse? "I saw other people being wrong, so I decided to do so myself?"

The implications of the Bechdel Test are open to interpretation. There is no one single agreed upon view of it.

Zachary Amaranth:

I don't think this is base-covering. And if you think pointing out a pattern in your commentary on women's issues is condescending, then maybe you should try a little harder. I'm merely stating what you seem to do repeatedly, which is to jump in with arguments that are ignorant at best and disingenuous at worst.

You pointed out no pattern. A single example is never a pattern. I took a guess based on what I've seen other people say about the bechdel test, and for good measure I talked about 3 things the test doesn't show thinking odds are one of them would cover it.

Zachary Amaranth:

Apparently, questioning you on that trend hurts your feelings. I'm sorry that it does, as it wasn't my intent.

So that fact that insulting people upsets them is a shock to you?

Zachary Amaranth:

Simultaneously, if you're going to get offended and complain that I'm condescending, maybe you should take a few moments to bone up on the issue you're talking about rather than complain that you are being called on ignorance.

I complained that you were being condescending and nothing more. If you're just going to ignore what I said in favor of straw men there's no point in talking to you.

Anyway saying this shows the limited nature of women's roles is even dumber. The fact that a woman doesn't talk to other women tells us nothing about her role.

It's a useless test.

Zachary Amaranth:

Really, if you can't find named women who can have even a single conversation that's not about men, that does speak volumes about the roles of women in film. It speaks to a trend of very limited scope for women.

Still not buying it. Take one of those conversations, gender swap one of the participants, do it to X movies and all of the sudden it means those roles had a lesser scope?

Zachary Amaranth:

ninjaRiv:

I agree, she does get it better than most people. I'm one of the few who don't seem to hate her guts so I'm definitely not using it as an excuse to call her out at all. But it's almost like... "Close but no cigar."

If anything, I find it more frustrating that she seems to get it, then takes a HARD RIGHT off the road and into a tree. But yeah, I agree. Just airing my own beliefs there. And clarifying she's covered the Bechdel test a couple of times. More than a couple if you count tweets and stuff, evidently.

I don't follow her that close, TBH. I usually don't even pay her much mind until people start pissing and moaning about how horrible she is.

I totally agree, I think I just put it into different, crappier words.

I think she's far from awful. Misguided, yes. But definitely not like SOME people say. She's one of those people with great ideas but poor execution and misconceptions.

Fuck the Bechdel test! Fuck any test, measurement, or mathmatical equation put on fiction.

People will say it's not to judge whether a movie is bad or not, but being that it's a test it's obviously suppose to reveal something either negative or positive. It's suppose to place some sort of judgement on a story by way of strict rules that have no reflection on the quality whatsoever. And as soon as you start thinking like that..., you're doing it wrong.

Casual Shinji:
Fuck the Bechdel test! Fuck any test, measurement, or mathmatical equation put on fiction.

People will say it's not to judge whether a movie is bad or not, but being that it's a test it's obviously suppose to reveal something either negative or positive. It's suppose to place some sort of judgement on a story by way of strict rules that have no reflection on the quality whatsoever. And as soon as you start thinking like that..., you're doing it wrong.

Oh, FFS. You know how the video in the OP and about every third post has explained it's not about determining if a movie is good or bad, it's about observing a general trend about movies as a whole?

That's because it's not about determining if a movie is good or bad, it's about observing a general trend about movies as a whole.

thaluikhain:

Casual Shinji:
Fuck the Bechdel test! Fuck any test, measurement, or mathmatical equation put on fiction.

People will say it's not to judge whether a movie is bad or not, but being that it's a test it's obviously suppose to reveal something either negative or positive. It's suppose to place some sort of judgement on a story by way of strict rules that have no reflection on the quality whatsoever. And as soon as you start thinking like that..., you're doing it wrong.

Oh, FFS. You know how the video in the OP and about every third post has explained it's not about determining if a movie is good or bad, it's about observing a general trend about movies as a whole?

That's because it's not about determining if a movie is good or bad, it's about observing a general trend about movies as a whole.

And that trend is; There are not enough prominent non-sexualized female roles in movies. Which in turn reflects badly on all those movies that don't fall in with this line of thought. If that's not it, then what point is there to the test, if not to point out something that should or shouldn't be improved?

Whether you like it or not, your brain will automatically judge a movie based on these guide lines and make either a positive or negative assessment.

You can make similar tests regarding Muslims in movies, or black people, gay people, transexuals, Asians, asexuals. "Oh no, it's not about whether a movie is good or not. Really, it isn't. But still... ey." Movies are already deathly afraid to not be as politically correct as possible, and this Bechdel test nonsense is only adding to that.

Casual Shinji:
And that trend is; There are not enough prominent non-sexualized female roles in movies. Which in turn reflects badly on all those movies that don't fall in with this line of thought. If that's not it, then what point is there to the test, if not to point out something that should or shouldn't be improved?

It points out the way the movie making industry treats female characters. Again, it does not mean any individual movie is bad, just that there is a noticeable tendency to limit female roles.

Casual Shinji:
Whether you like it or not, your brain will automatically judge a movie based on these guide lines and make either a positive or negative assessment.

No.

Casual Shinji:
You can make similar tests regarding Muslims in movies, or black people, gay people, transexuals, Asians, asexuals. "Oh no, it's not about whether a movie is good or not. Really, it isn't. But still... ey." Movies are already deathly afraid to not be as politically correct as possible, and this Bechdel test nonsense is only adding to that.

What? Most movies fail the Bechdel test, same as they have always done. The PC police haven't gone and forced compliance.

Mean girls passes this test and thats a good film

Casual Shinji:
And that trend is; There are not enough prominent non-sexualized female roles in movies. Which in turn reflects badly on all those movies that don't fall in with this line of thought. If that's not it, then what point is there to the test, if not to point out something that should or shouldn't be improved?

Whether you like it or not, your brain will automatically judge a movie based on these guide lines and make either a positive or negative assessment.

You can make similar tests regarding Muslims in movies, or black people, gay people, transexuals, Asians, asexuals. "Oh no, it's not about whether a movie is good or not. Really, it isn't. But still... ey." Movies are already deathly afraid to not be as politically correct as possible, and this Bechdel test nonsense is only adding to that.

Thats not what i do at all.

Art explores a theme or a point or a thought. It takes an idea and shows you something related to it to make you think about it differently or in an interesting way. It can be joy from explosions. It can psychologically freak you out. It can make you think. It can make you cry. It can make you think about death or life or love.

The point of the bechdel test, in my eyes is to say "The great thing about art is that you can explore ANYTHING from ANY perspective under ANY circumstance to take a new experience from it... look how much we are missing by almost totally excluding a meaningful perspective from 50% of our population". I want to explore the meaning of violence from the perspective of grizzled men. I want to explore the meaning of isolation, love and power from the perspective of men and as suck ill enjoy many movies that fail the test. But the fact that as of now you just CANT go and enjoy a piece of art to explore any of this from the perspective of, or even the passing commentary of, a woman is silly.

Its not about changing movies to insert female characters. Its about making NEW movies as WELL as the old ones that explore a wider perspective with a little more variation. Its not even niche. Its such a glaringly HUGE amount of ground thats so obvious and in your face its incredibly odd so few people are using it to make good art.

I always use the reverse bechdel in my observations (same rules with men):

How many pass the bechdel in the last year?
How many pass the reverse bechdel in the last year?

Does the art benefit from cutting off that way of exploring ideas? Why is one so heavily favored? Is it objectively better as art?

See when people imagine a world with the bechdel tests "goal" in mind they imagine every movie with the same "PC" cast over and over when in fact thats what its trying to avoid entirely. The real goal is to diversity the cast BETWEEN movies. Its fine to have a movies where its all men with guns in a secret mission. But at the same time why avoid a movie where its all women doing gunship pilot tours in Afghanistan? Rather than have 100 of the former and 0 of the latter why not have a larger mix of movie themes. Its ok for an individual piece of art to explore one theme from one perspective because thats what most art does and thats fine. Would you look at a nice picture of an ocean? Sure why not. Would you go to an art gallery where its 4 hours of viewing different pictures of the same ocean from the same angle at the same time of day with like 1 or 2 pictures of mountains and fields maybe? No. Are pictures of the ocean inherently bad? Do we need to make sure each one includes a mountain? Of course not. But that gallery is going to be boring and repetitive if it does nothing else.

Thats what the bechdel test is for. Judging the GALLERY. Not the paintings. A shitty gallery can be full of good paintings. If they are all pretty much identical its a shitty gallery despite the quality of each painting being high.

BiscuitTrouser:

Casual Shinji:
snip

snip

The problem I have with it is that it subconsciously makes a creator think "What should I create that also includes women?" instead of "What should I create?" Stories should never be made by way of a checklist.

Now I'm not going to say there isn't a problem with the portrayel of women in many movies and games, but one thing I dislike even more is some set of unwritten rules to reign it in. Because a lot of all the shallow portrayels of women in games and movies is due to a checklist. "Gotta have boobs for all them males out there."

Make something free from what society deems appropriate, whether this includes men, women, or donkeys.

Casual Shinji:
Make something free from what society deems appropriate, whether this includes men, women, or donkeys.

And the Bechdel test is there for pointing out what society deems appropriate.

on movie that passed the test recently is zombieland, which I think is pretty funny.

I don't know what to feel about the test in general. Main reason being that even if the main character is a woman, and a strong deep and diverse one. But the other main character is male, would that movie really become better by implementation of a 5 minute conversation with random coworker #2.

And most movies are in a large part about relationships anyway. Really in the majority of movies, how many conversations not about some kind of love interest are there, at all?

Something to consider:

Almost every moe loli anime and lesbians for male titillation animes, gratuitous fan-service animes, and idea factory games (which are really not feminist or meant to appeal to women AT ALL) pass this test with flying colours.

thaluikhain:

Casual Shinji:
Make something free from what society deems appropriate, whether this includes men, women, or donkeys.

And the Bechdel test is there for pointing out what society deems appropriate.

Thank you!

And that is exactly why I hate it.

Rblade:
on movie that passed the test recently is zombieland, which I think is pretty funny.

I don't know what to feel about the test in general. Main reason being that even if the main character is a woman, and a strong deep and diverse one. But the other main character is male, would that movie really become better by implementation of a 5 minute conversation with random coworker #2.

No because that's not the point of the test. The test, like Kermode in the video and several people in the thread have stated, is to look at an odd trend in cinema. Like I said before, reverse the genders so it applies to men and see how many pass. That's fucking weird right? A movie can still have great female characters and fail, it just shows how odd it is that any number of movies can be found where to named male characters talk about any number of things but not women. That women seem to only be put in when the character needs to be a woman while having a man is the default, go to option.

Dangit2019:
Ah yes, the Bechdel test. When it was made, it was to make a point about women's gross representation in movies, and now some people actually take it completely at face value.

Look, there are so many variables to decide what a good representation of women in a movie is. Fuckin' Before Sunrise doesn't pass a single aspect of the test, because it was just Julie Delpy and Ethan Hawke playing layered characters talking to each other and almost no one else. It still gave a perfectly fine representation of women.

It's a fun little joke and all, but matters like these can't really be accounted for accurately by a cute little rule of thumb.

this.

next time movies will be judged by the "is there any sort of dairy product" test for the underrepresented lactose intolerant people in film.

Father Time:

The implications of the Bechdel Test are open to interpretation. There is no one single agreed upon view of it.

See, you complain about uselessness, but that was a useless response. There is a largely agreed upon interpretation. The fact that people have tried to change it after the fact, or disagree after the fact, has no actual bearing on it.

A single example is never a pattern.

How true. How unfortunate, then, that this is fairly routine for you.

So that fact that insulting people upsets them is a shock to you?

Now now, don't complain about strawmen if you're going to use them.

I complained that you were being condescending and nothing more. If you're just going to ignore what I said in favor of straw men there's no point in talking to you.

Something caused you to make up the condescension claim. I inferred offense. That's not a strawman, even if incorrect. Sorry, bro.

Still not buying it. Take one of those conversations, gender swap one of the participants, do it to X movies and all of the sudden it means those roles had a lesser scope?

See, again, word confusion. You're using that other version of "roles" again, that had no impact on what I or the video is saying.

Please rectify that if you actually want to have a conversation. If you're being dishonest intentionally, then fair play. I just won't be a part of it.

Never heard of this before, but it's true that if I look at the types of movies I want to see, and not some chick flick the girlfriend drags me too, I can't think of any that pass the test. But then I think of TV shows I watch and hae a hard time thinking of one that doesn't pass the test. I think that says something there.

Hollywood is one industry that's discriminatory by nature. Movies due to their short duration need to be too the point, a lot of what gets filmed will get cut on the editors floor. The type of movies that sell best tend to be action orientated, and no disrespect to women but action tends to be a man's world. There are some women of course that do well here too, but the touch chick is usually a token character so most of the other roles will be dominated by men. It's not meant to be discriminatory, for Hollywood that's just what sells.

Zachary Amaranth:

A single example is never a pattern.

How true. How unfortunate, then, that this is fairly routine for you.

You can keep repeating that all you want it doesn't make it true, just like saying your interpretation is the 'agreed upon one'. Unless you got a poll or something.

Zachary Amaranth:

So that fact that insulting people upsets them is a shock to you?

Now now, don't complain about strawmen if you're going to use them.

Now do you not remember what you said or are you just trying to pull this stupid game of 'oh it doesn't count as an insult because I only implied it' or are you [insert insult here]?

Zachary Amaranth:

I complained that you were being condescending and nothing more. If you're just going to ignore what I said in favor of straw men there's no point in talking to you.

Something caused you to make up the condescension claim. I inferred offense. That's not a strawman, even if incorrect. Sorry, bro.

You said I was complaining that you "called me out". I wasn't (it was just complaining about you being condescending), hence straw man.

Still not buying it. Take one of those conversations, gender swap one of the participants, do it to X movies and all of the sudden it means those roles had a lesser scope?

Zachary Amaranth:

See, again, word confusion. You're using that other version of "roles" again, that had no impact on what I or the video is saying.

What, when did we get talking about bread?

How does it relate to "scope". How does it relate to 'woman only have 3 ages'?

Casual Shinji:
The problem I have with it is that it subconsciously makes a creator think "What should I create that also includes women?" instead of "What should I create?" Stories should never be made by way of a checklist.

Like i said, people who use the test on individual movies to judge them are incorrect and so are creators who do so. The test is applied to individual movies to give an impression of the industry. In the same way "Does this next picture contain an ocean? Oh yes it does. What a surprise. And this one. And this one. And this one" is a test for the "Gallery" but done by analysing each individual piece of art.. You are correct that a checklist is bad but at the same time lets say youre going to start a painting for the gallery i mentioned above. Its already got like 10'000 pictures of oceans. If you apply the "Ocean test":

1. Has the pacific ocean.
2. From this vantage point.
3. At dawn.

and 10'000 paintings in the gallery pass and so does YOURS maybe you should reconsider your painting. Unless the call of the pacific ocean from the same vantage point at dawn CALLS TO YOUR VERY SOUL its a fairly good idea to think "Well gee maybe as an artist i should consider doing something, ANYTHING else apart from oceans if i can?". The test points out to me that artists, at least SOME of them since i doubt they ALL want to make movies about men ALL the time, are abandoning artistic integrity for popularity. Unless men are just THAT much more interesting than women on an objective basis. The test is to reveal another question:

"Heres something artists could be making and it seems pretty obvious and easy for them to make. But they dont as the test shows us. Why?"

If we figure out the why we can start removing the social or financial blocks that prevent artists from exploring a more diverse range of topics and themes. Which i cant see as being a bad thing. It goes with what you said about making movies about whatever.

But at this stage i think both of us are missing the point. Most movies are not "art" in the traditional sense, created to vent or explore ideas properly for the sake of expressing the artists inner thoughts. They are made to sell. They are a product. I think the "I wish i could make movies about women but i cant" directors are few and far between anyway because cinema as an industry now has a HUGE production value.

direkiller:

Images:

Now, we're all on the same page, what do you think about the Bechdel test and film? Can you think of a better test for the same purpose?

I think it was good for a joke, but a serious test it is not.
Any test Ilsa, She Wolf of the SS can pass but Star wars can't should not be considered a benchmark for judging if a film is sexist.

"Can you think of a better test?"

I can try:

Is there a reason this charter is a woman?
If the answer is something along the lines of boobs then the movie fails.
If you genuinely can't answer the movie gets a pass with a gold star

What about Kill Bill? If you've never seen the movie, the main character having an unintended pregnancy factors pretty heavily into the plot (or at least the backstory).

The new Wolverine movie easily passes this test. I'm not quite sure what it says about the movie or the test?

faefrost:
The new Wolverine movie easily passes this test. I'm not quite sure what it says about the movie or the test?

Nothing, as the test is for determining trends in groups of movies.

Now, if you said that all the movie currently playing at your local cinema did, or did not pass this (or for that matter, the gender swapped one), that would say something.

Heh, at least my favorite film, Spirited Away, passes this test. Multiple times too. In fact, most Miyazaki films would pass the test with flying colours.

If the purpose of the test is to demonstrate the bias for male leads in films, then it's pretty needless as that has already been well-established.

The real question at this stage is "What do we do from here?"
(And that stumbles head first into a whole new briar patch.)

Atmos Duality:
If the purpose of the test is to demonstrate the bias for male leads in films, then it's pretty needless as that has already been well-established.

You'd think so, but somehow it manages to remain a controversial point. On top of that, because there's been this strong bias for such a long time, it's become normalised, something obvious only after it's been noticed.

Genocidicles:
I don't think it's a good indicator of female inclusion or whatever the hell it's for.

It's not supposed to be an indicator of female inclusion. It was originally created as a joke, and its only use in serious discussion is to measure female exclusion from movies and the extreme limitation of subject matter they're generally allowed to cover in their roles.

Considering that the test comes from a comic with the intention of being funny, it's very much not a catch-all test. Actually it's not a catch-some test actually, but it does give at least a modicum of perspective I guess.
I prefer the "[Movie Title] Fucking" method. If you put a fucking at the end of name of the movie and it's something you'd watch, then it's a movie worth seeing.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked