Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neonivek]

Yes, but that usually points to a tendency for women to not be main characters or heroes in narratives.

Not really, most of the time things with a female main character outright fail it.

For example Princess and the Frog fails... and before you say 'well it is Disney of course it fails' I should state sleeping beauty passes.

As well passing because "two females are talking about the female lead" should outright count as failing it.

The test is about the depth of character and the range of their concerns.

It is why it is to me only a rule of thumb. It is too easy to pass but essentially fail... or fail but essentially pass.

[Willfor]

It is too easy to pass but essentially fail... or fail but essentially pass.

So you do get the entire point of it, apparently. It's supposed to be the easiest thing in the world to pass. It would take literally a single line in a movie to pass. You could accidentally pass it, or you could cheat it, or you could have the most inappropriate sources pass it. The point is to show on broad scale how fucked up this situation is when most movies can't pass a simple fucking test.


Also, on a different point, the internet hate machine kinda needs to stop[url].

[Shakerag]

Bechdel test to be supplemented by the "Mako Mori" test--what do you guys think?

I found a comment on the article to be rather interesting and amusing:

A lot of mainstream porn passes the Bechdel Test: two women undress each other while talking about football, motorcycles, etc. before they have sex with each other. The fact that they're performing for a male gaze does not factor into the pass/fail. I would never limit my film-watching by any particular test.

[Neonivek]

. It's supposed to be the easiest thing in the world to pass

Actually the thing is that how much you are supposed to apply it is something else. Many of the more famous "failed" tests actually had asides.

Heck I looked at the 2013 failed tests and the #1 slot... actually passed.

Hmmm... I am actually trying to think of a movie that never actually had a conversation that wasn't about another character... The Little Mermaid that is right!

[Rolan7]

It's kinda like people who deny global warming on a cold day, or point to a hot day as proof.  The test isn't designed to rate individual movies at all.  The point is to test a large number of movies, then implicitly compare the results to the reverse-bechdel test.

Because yeah, lots of good movies have very few characters, or very little dialogue, or focus on a male protagonist's journey.  Nothing wrong with any of those, the last one included.  What we should take away from the Bechdel test is that there is an incredibly strong *trend* of women not getting the narrative importance to talk, to another woman, about something besides a man.  Obviously this is not the case for men, comparatively.

Espousing or attacking the test as a rating for individual movies isn't productive... but too common.

Edit: Emphasis on trend.

[Neonivek]

It's kinda like people who deny global warming on a cold day, or point to a hot day as proof

No... It is like people who whip out the farmer's guide and show that the weather trend for this area has actually remained the same and that the weather actually goes on a 100 year cycle and that your gauge of "It was colder last year" is not sufficient to prove the existence of global warming.

Espousing or attacking the test as a rating for individual movies isn't productive... but too common.

No, It is showing the basic weakness of the test on the most basic fundamental level. For every movie that "fails but essentially passes" or "Passes but essentially fails" the test becomes less and less applicable. The fact that you can pass many of the "failed" movies or fail many of the "passed" movies also show that there is a great degree of bias in the test itself.

That is why it isn't a pH test or a Geiger counter. It being used in a wider scope without knowing this would be, to me, laughable.

It is a rule of thumb or mental exercise at best. It is something to think about, not something to apply.

Heck it would be like if I applied MY test to the entire market. (though it is for anime)

[GlyphGryph]

And again, Neonivek demonstrates his inability to actually bother reading or processing what other people have written because his strawman is just too damn easy to attack.

Seriously, dude, try harder. We know you don't understand the Bechdel Test or the point of it. We understand that. You don't have to keep hammering it home. But actually responding to what people are actually saying, actually making some argument if you disagree with it but acknowledging what it is that's being argued about, it would be a significant step up.

The Bechdel is pretty useless for what you say it should be used for , and it isn't used for what you accuse other people of saying it is, at least within the audiences your actually addressing (and the relevant audience to this particular conversation), and you have failed to acknowledge the multiple people in this thread who have actually outright explained to you what it is and why they think it's useful. We all understand that using the Bechdel test in the manner that many people do, to trash individual works, is pretty pointless, and it sucks that people do it - that's part of the entire point of Vector's article. But you keep arguing against your straw men.

Why?

[Neonivek]

you have failed to acknowledge the multiple people in this thread who have actually outright explained to you what it is and why they think it's useful

Ohh really?

The Bechdel test doesn't claim any given movie is sexist.  It demonstrates that the movie industry in general is sexist, by showing a trend too large to be coincidence.

This is what you are referring to?

The thing that explains nothing so I don't have to acknowledge this?

Or the statement that "it is so easy to pass"

Which is a statement which explains nothing once again. It is only a statement that a movie or tv show can fulfill an arbitrary set of conditions but not why those conditions?

As well my counter point was that there is no way you can use such a system wholesale as a Geiger counter. No matter how far back you sit. As in "You cannot use it to analyze larger trends". Since ultimately it isn't an analytical tool.

But you keep arguing against your straw men.

Why?

Yes... Why would I argue the straw man? Dear ohh my... Ohh wait that is right

Because I am arguing the straw man.

My entire point was that the supplementing of the Bechdel test shows more of its poor use then of its genuine desire to be supplemented.

I even further supported that idea by the fact that the Bechdel Test actually relies on the ability to think and analyze the information you get back to be useful, as well as looking closer at your subjects anyway.

I could have even went further and spoken about what instigated the entire affair (Pacific Rim) when really these elements existed far before that.

In other words the prime mover of any supplement is not academia.

[Pnx]

Neonivek, please don't take it personally when I say that I'm having a hard time understanding what exactly it is you're trying to say.

[Graknorke]

Neonivek, please don't take it personally when I say that I'm having a hard time understanding what exactly it is you're trying to say.

I can read it pretty well.
Basically, the Bechdel test is not necessarily a good test to use at all, and nobody has said why its criteria make for a good way to judge films.

[Rolan7]

Because it isn't for judging films 

[Neonivek]

Neonivek, please don't take it personally when I say that I'm having a hard time understanding what exactly it is you're trying to say.

I can read it pretty well.
Basically, the Bechdel test is not necessarily a good test to use at all, and nobody has said why its criteria make for a good way to judge films.

Well that has been said by someone who basically said "No it is a bad test for individual movies but a good one for a trend, like all the movies released in a year".

But Ok... What I am trying to say is...

The Bechdel Test is one part of a seriously look at an industry and even when applied you need to seriously analyze and understand the information given to you.

I actually think it is excellent but that it shouldn't be applied without serious thinking.

And because it requires thinking, unlike a Geiger counter where if it says radioactive what is there is probably radioactive, that is why the supplement exists. To decrease the amount of thinking required.

That is really it.

Because it isn't for judging films 

Ignoring that the information about it suggests that it is. It really has no set application.

[Vector]

No, the supplement exists to say "hey, look, there's another rule of thumb we haven't thought of for female involvement."

What if the film has only female characters but no dialogue, for example?  Should it get a nix for female presence?

[Neonivek]

No, the supplement exists to say "hey, look, there's another rule of thumb we haven't thought of for female involvement."

What if the film has only female characters but no dialogue, for example?  Should it get a nix for female presence?

Then why the timing?

[Rolan7]

My statement was ambiguous.  The test isn't meant for judging films, it's meant for judging films.
... Dammit, English.
It isn't meant to judge any specific film, it's meant to judge films as a whole (or a reasonably large demographic of films, such as the top 10 films over a few years.  Though it's a lot less accurate for small sample sizes).

But, reading Neonivek's last post, he totally understands this.  I forget what we were arguing about.