The Big Picture: Blecch, Dull Tests

[SnakeTrousers]

Why are all of the interesting fields traditionally male dominated? I dunno. I presume the answer we're supposed to give is 'well, because sexism'.

Is that so? The army is male dominated because...

... enlistment was restricted to men until fairly recently (and still is in much of the world).

 

[leviadragon99]

Huh, very interesting, I never knew the source of the test... I've personally previously viewed it as a sometimes useful but in no way universal bit of shorthand, but it seems even that might be beyond the scope of what it was originally intended for...

 

[lastjustice]

So can someone point me in the direction of a flow chart to simplify what Bob is trying say here? Heh

I vaguely remember hearing about the "rule" before, and well I agree there's probably waaay more movies that fail than pass, I hardly take that as damning thing. I could make up probably make up plenty of arbitrary ground rules for internet to follow too , Like Family friendly movies where older white people try entirely too hard to be hip and say a catch phase younger people say like that is wacked! (or rap) in them fails as a movie.(usually to teens or child to show them how cool they are.) It happens a lot. Does make any movie that happens in innately bad...no as Mrs Doubtfire is not a bad movie, but Robin Williams totally rapped in that movie.


I never felt like entertainment had to answer to the some form of affirmative action. (I don't think any aspect of life should for that matter.) If someone wants create an all white remake of the color Purple starring Nick Cage, then that's their business. ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eExfV_xKaiM ) I'd just prefer people set out to make best damn movies they want to make, and let social stuff sort itself out along the way. If gets aided, bonus, but I don't go to the movies to feel smug about what films I watched "reached" some social awareness based off a random rule. I go to have a good time and be entertained.

 

[Therumancer]

Well, the problem I have with this "test" is that it ironically winds up excluding almost all movies made by women for women, the classic "chick flicks" which make a fortune at the box office by giving women what they want. Women tend to be a lot more relational than men when it comes to movies and what they want, guys tend to not really care all that much if there is a romance subplot or not, women on the other hand are rarely interested if there isn't one that at least has some focus. What's more a lot of the "strong female characters" mentioned here like Sarah Connor, rarely seem to make many women's list of the characters that they relate to. To geeks she's cool because she's one of the quintessential female action heroes, doing the kinds of things that you would normally see a male protagonist doing, but that doesn't actually make her all that appealing to women, who do indeed produce their own action heroes and such, but it tends to be done a little differently.

It should also be noted that this test largely only works when aimed at movies, largely because they generally have right around two hours to do everything they set out to do, all of the narrative, plot/world building, character development, etc... has to happen within that time frame. As a result the time major characters spend discussing things that don't in some way related to the other major characters tends to be fairly minimal, and unless pretty much the entire cast is women, that means a dude is going to probably be involved in what they are talking about.

When it comes to TV shows, you can't easily do the same thing, because you tend to have a lot more screen time and in the scope of a series don't always have to get right to the point, though episode by episode, you might be able to make this case to some extent.

The point here is that the very idea of the "Bechnel" test implies that there is something wrong with how things are, and that this state of affairs has largely been brought about by men as some kind of perhaps unintentional oppression. I think that's far from the truth.

 

[craddoke]

Isn't that a tautology though? It's pointless on an individual level but is a good test for seeing how many of the whole pass itself?

It's like using a ruler that's only good for measuring the number of things that have been measured by the ruler. It's pointless.

It doesn't work on an individual level because once certain decisions are made about story and characters during the conception/writing phase a movie can fail even if it's conscientious about avoiding sexism and is generally competent in its execution; it fails the test but is still good (the reverse is also true, although we're talking about a small fraction of movies that even pass the test to begin with so there will not be that many examples).

It works as a whole because it draws attention to the cultural bias influencing those early decisions regardless of the eventual success/failure of the movie in being good from either a feminism/sexism perspective or as a piece of cinema.

 

[Imp_Emissary]

Yeah. I wish Bob had really emphasized the fact that the test doesn't say anything about the quality of individual movies but that it's useful if you want to look at general trends in film making. Maybe he could have made a 10 minute bonus video where he just repeats that point over and over again. Because I'm 80% sure, that we will yet again see an influx of people who don't know how the test works but are still infuriated by the test.

Well, while he didn't repeat it for ten minutes, Bob did take a couple of moments to emphasize the test's "purpose".

So if anyone does complain about the test, without bringing up those parts, we'll know that they didn't really watch it.

OT: Cool episode Bob. Didn't know the history of the test.

Also, while I like the idea of a Mako Mori test, it kind of goes against your first point at the start. Kind of.
It at least can be used far better, for individual movies.

 

[shellshock3d]

Well, the problem I have with this "test" is that it ironically winds up excluding almost all movies made by women for women, the classic "chick flicks" which make a fortune at the box office by giving women what they want. Women tend to be a lot more relational than men when it comes to movies and what they want, guys tend to not really care all that much if there is a romance subplot or not, women on the other hand are rarely interested if there isn't one that at least has some focus. What's more a lot of the "strong female characters" mentioned here like Sarah Connor, rarely seem to make many women's list of the characters that they relate to. To geeks she's cool because she's one of the quintessential female action heroes, doing the kinds of things that you would normally see a male protagonist doing, but that doesn't actually make her all that appealing to women, who do indeed produce their own action heroes and such, but it tends to be done a little differently.

Excuse me? You are not a woman so please do not try to tell me what woman want or how women think. I, as a woman, am always tickled whenever a movie or a book doesn't have a romantic subplot. You know why all these movies have romance in them and are marketed towards women? Because that's what men think we want. We don't. I want action and adventure and maybe some cool friendships. And newsflash, most romantic comedies are written and directed by men.

 

[Ometochtli]

I wonder if Zero Dark Thirty passes? After all it is a movie in which nearly every conversation is about one male terror suspect or another (or just straight up about Bin Laden), yes the majority of it is told from over the shoulders of two female characters.

If two women are talking about how they want to murder the crap out of a man, they are still talking about a man. The bechdel test makes no distinction if the men in question are the women's mortal enemies, or rivals.

 

[Redd the Sock]

The Bechdel test never did make a lot of sense to me for a lot of those reasons, but none so much as a misunderstanding of film storytelling. Films try and capture a story in 2 hours or less, so no matter how long the cast list, few characters are there for and with development, but there to move the plot along, be funny, or provide exposition. It's like that moment in the Matrix where you start seeing characters get killed off, and you realize you don't care because you only got their ame by that point. They existed only to get killed. No, the Pacific Rim Scientists weren't given deep stories and personalities. They were maguffin inventing comic relief. It tried to make a fair point about lack of female representation in more dominant roles, but did so by denigrating the idea of supporting cast.

Flash forward to today and it almost seems like a laughable idea to the point I put it in with sex appeal as something used more to dismiss good female portrayals on a flimsy concept. It's not as you say that there can't be metrics, but the idea that these are the chosen ones, and the result is the dismissal of solo females for something that can be full of misogyny but two women talked about the weather, seems bass ackwards. Of course, the internet is now full of people that think a wikipeida search is too much work, so they like their metrics simple, easy to identify, and understand, and these came pre made. Best of all: it's pass / fail, which means you can totally dismiss any half measure taken to please you if your standards aren't met, and continue with the self-rightous anger.

I mean, I don't want to stereotype anyone, but I've made no secret of my frustration that the gender discussion is so dominated by things gotten wrong than things done right, and I don't see a use of Bechdel to do anything but strike off something that is in large accounts good, because an imperfection ruins everything.

 

[Yabu]

In my opinion, we need to be asking why more good movies aren't passing the test. Women keep our culture and our society strong. It is important not to minimize or rationalize arguments that make them stronger. It is true good quality movies typically fail the test, but I think that is the point. We need more movies striving to pass the test, and how do we do that except by putting pressure on executives.

Also, your strong female lead argument is BS, and they only fulfill a strong female lead in terms of a 13 year old boy. Most women don't know who Sarah Conner is, and that is because she simply does not matter to most women, regardless of how strong she seems to men. She is a manifestation of a male super hero superimposed on a female character. That does not make her a strong female lead. Sorry Bob, you have no business in telling women who they should view as strong female characters.

 

[Therumancer]

Well, the problem I have with this "test" is that it ironically winds up excluding almost all movies made by women for women, the classic "chick flicks" which make a fortune at the box office by giving women what they want. Women tend to be a lot more relational than men when it comes to movies and what they want, guys tend to not really care all that much if there is a romance subplot or not, women on the other hand are rarely interested if there isn't one that at least has some focus. What's more a lot of the "strong female characters" mentioned here like Sarah Connor, rarely seem to make many women's list of the characters that they relate to. To geeks she's cool because she's one of the quintessential female action heroes, doing the kinds of things that you would normally see a male protagonist doing, but that doesn't actually make her all that appealing to women, who do indeed produce their own action heroes and such, but it tends to be done a little differently.

Excuse me? You are not a woman so please do not try to tell me what woman want or how women think. I, as a woman, am always tickled whenever a movie or a book doesn't have a romantic subplot. You know why all these movies have romance in them and are marketed towards women? Because that's what men think we want. We don't. I want action and adventure and maybe some cool friendships. And newsflash, most romantic comedies are written and directed by men.

To me it sounds like your basically saying "I am an exception, and thus the rule is wrong", alas it does not work like that. There will always be exceptions to everything, and like it or not what I'm saying happens to be the truth. Whether you and Bob like the idea of statistics and numbers, and the point that human behaviors can be quantified, defined, controlled, and/or modified doesn't change the fact that it's true. In this case, it's simple sociology of a sort that's been being exploited by advertisers and creators for years. Women can be lumped together as a group, and products created that will sell to them based on common threads that will appeal to the majority, leading to the way things play out in movies, fiction, etc. Not to mention that the point is indeed reinforced by what women themselves create, such as when you decide to talk a walk down the romance section of a bookstore. When it comes to movies and TV, sure the screenplay might have been done by a guy, but oftentimes women are the producers or the original creators, with the work oftentimes being based off of a romance novel, or in some cases commissioned by an actress (who also acts as one of the producers) to act as a vehicle for her, and put out a movie she knows will have appeal to women and she can collect a direct share of the profits from.

I do get where your coming from, your saying "I don't resemble that stereotype", and that's fine, I believe you, but that simply makes you unusual, it in no way impacts what I'm saying.

It's sort of like a black person getting all upset about stereotypes in the media and pointing out how much they differ from the norm. In the meantime when an ad firm wants to sell a product to black America he whips out the sports stars, hip hop, and gangsta rap, and generally succeeds by playing the numbers. In comparison if he advertises based on the perception encouraged by "this is not true" internet rants, money is going to be lost.

People as a whole can be broken down into groups ethnic, gender, subcultures, etc. As much as one might argue an individual can vary, the bigger the groups get the more alike they become until you wind up with a lot of trends that create the stereotypes, which are then exploited to create the products and the advertising used to sell them.

See, if more women were like you, then things would be different, and things would be marketed differently, but they are not. This is why the trends in movies, and products directed largely at women continue the way they are, and why the "Blechdel test" is ultimately irrelevant.

Sure a lot of people might jump on me for saying this, but let's be honest, sociology exists for a reason, and much as people might want to deny it, it works. Along with it's sister science psychology, people wind up being very predictable at the end of the day. We're advanced enough to resent this, but consider with the right knowledge, things like hypnosis and high end deprogramming/brainwashing methods can be used to literally program a person... almost like a computer.

I'm fairly tired, so hopefully this is coherent, and fairly polite despite what I perceive as a rather heated response, since I don't want to start some kind of brawl or derail this thread. If it helps, Bob does agree with you. In my case however, I do believe that I can speak ABOUT women as a group without being one myself, as that is the root of sociology. For good or ill, it should also be noted that these same tables can be turned on me with a similar degree of truth in other types of discussions.

 

[Xman490]

This is one test about one element in media. One should not expect it to be an indicator of quality on its own. That should be obvious.

 

[Uhura]

Yeah. I wish Bob had really emphasized the fact that the test doesn't say anything about the quality of individual movies but that it's useful if you want to look at general trends in film making. Maybe he could have made a 10 minute bonus video where he just repeats that point over and over again. Because I'm 80% sure, that we will yet again see an influx of people who don't know how the test works but are still infuriated by the test.

Well, while he didn't repeat it for ten minutes, Bob did take a couple of moments to emphasize the test's "purpose".

So if anyone does complain about the test, without bringing up those parts, we'll know that they didn't really watch it.

Kinda looks like we have several of those on the last few pages then. Sigh.

I mean, I don't want to stereotype anyone, but I've made no secret of my frustration that the gender discussion is so dominated by things gotten wrong than things done right, and I don't see a use of Bechdel to do anything but strike off something that is in large accounts good, because an imperfection ruins everything.

The point of the test is not to damn or dismiss the movies that don't pass. It is just a way to bring attention to how women are often portrayed in movies. That's it. It's ok to fail the test.

OT: As I already said in the earlier Bechdel thread this month, it seems to me that people who dislike feminists/feminism are the ones who take this test way too seriously and get upset when films they like don't pass. The Bechdel test is not a test for sexism. It's a test that brings attention to a common trend in the way women are portrayed in movies, but it doesn't comment on the quality of individual films. There is no need to get upset about the test.

Seriously... it's like watching people get angry that a hammer is bad tool for cutting trees down and then telling everyone what a shitty tools hammers are and how useless they are. Why not use the tool what it's meant for? (Hint: the Bechdel test is not not a useful tool for analyzing how feminist/sexist individual characters/movies are. It doesn't mean that the test is completely useless. The test works just fine for its intended purpose, to point out a trend in filmmaking.)

 

[JarinArenos]

Isn't that a tautology though? It's pointless on an individual level but is a good test for seeing how many of the whole pass itself?

It's like using a ruler that's only good for measuring the number of things that have been measured by the ruler. It's pointless.

It's really not a complicated concept here. You can have good movies that don't pass, you can have lousy movies that do; that's not in debate in the slightest. But the fact that there's so many movies that fail it highlights a huge problem in the movie industry. Seriously, this is bare-minimum "recognizing that females are actually people" stuff here.

Thought experiment: reverse the test. A movie that has to have at least two men that talk to eachother about something other than a woman. You could probably count recent movies that fail it on one hand, and I suspect I'm being generous.

Edit: Uhura said it better in the post just before mine.

 

[maximara]

Surprised how completely Bob missed the point here. The test is a tool to determine the quantity of female characters, not the quality. No one ever claimed differently, so not really sure what the point here is supposed to be.

Actually Bob's point was how many people treat the test as if it did somehow measure quality. Furthermore you could have a movie with an all female cast talking about their men problems for the whole picture and it would fail the test so it is not even a measure of quantity.

 

[maddawg IAJI]

feminism? why not equalism

Because the term was used as an insult to those favoring female suffrage during the first wave of feminism in the United States. When the second wave came about, they turned the insult into a banner of pride.

Kinda like how Gay men still use the pink triangle as a symbol even though it was first used by the Nazis to identify homosexuals in the concentration camps.

History is a wonderful thing.

 

[GrimoireOfAlice]

I personally think Bob missed the best criticism about this test.

Would it not almost certainly fail any story that has any number of female protagonists if it also has a main male antagonist?

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Yes, but that's hardly news. Besides, as Bob pointed out, many films that fail the stupid test have great depictions of women and many that pass have piss poor depictions of women so it really doesn't prove much.

Well it's a good thing that the test has absolutely nothing to do with how the women are depicted, otherwise everyone complaining about how bad movie X passes while good movie Y fails might actually have a point. It only exists to point out a lack of female characters in movies and the industry as a whole, not how well they're depicted.

As for a lack of female characters not being news, well no it's not, but most people probably don't really think about it all that much if at all (I know I really didn't), which would make a test that points out just how bad it is rather valuable.

Well I would think having well characterized female characters would be more important than having a surplus of shallow stock female characters, 'cause you could certainly pass this stupid test by having a whole bunch of those. Just have a couple of shallow ditzy high school cheerleaders with no depth or character just chatting to each other about shoes and BAM! Past the stupid test.