The Bechdel Test

[RandV80]

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.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

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.

 

[faefrost]

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

 

[Thaluikhain]

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.

 

[bartholen_v1legacy]

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.

 

[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.

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

 

[Thaluikhain]

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.

 

[JimB]

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.

 

[Grach]

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.