Pattern Behavior

I remember hearing about this during my undergrad education days in the mid 1990's. Thank you for showing it to me again now that I have a bit more perspective and can appreciate it.

Never really thought of the idea, but I'm sure that all the male script writers didn't either.

But how do all the female Neatorama commenters feel about this. Should a movie fit this criteria, would it make the movie better, and if so why?

I find it deeply disturbing, because it suggests that movies--a major form of entertainment, art, and moneymaking--imply that stories of importance are generally about men or involve only men taking active roles.

It doesn't just imply that, it blatantly illustrates it, and does so quite effectively. It is very disturbing, yes, but it seems unlikely to change any time soon.

While I can see the POV of this test, I can't help but feel that just because it doesn't pass the test doesn't necessarily mean it's part of a larger "problem" of anti-women-in-film propagation.

One film I saw in the list of examples in the video is "WALL-E." Does not passing the test make this film overtly masculine by default? I'd like to think not. The context of a film needs to be taken into account as well.

Further, what qualifies as "talking about men?" If two women in a scene in a film happen to mention a man they know as part of a larger, more tangential discussion, does that mean they fail?

Interesting concept, but it needs fine-tuning.

I thought the test was just used by males to determine if it is a good movie or not, seems logical.

According to this test, a politically correct movie about two homosexual minority Muslim men struggling for equal rights in society would not pass the test ... UNLESS there were significant women characters. That sounds a little sexist to me.

I don't think the test is saying that at all bob.

When I go to the movies I don't _wanna_ see woman blabber on about anything. Most of the time I wanna see dudes, if possible shirtless and as naked as possible, sweating and doing stuff.

So what is the test for? Is it trying to show that women characters and women's conversations don't get enough "air time"?

It's an indication of how the movies don't reflect the real world, where slightly over half the population is female.

You could probably do the same test for men in movies and get similar results.

"The Movie Industry" is first and foremost a profit making enterprise. Perhaps we should compare the income generated by passing vs. non-passing movies.

Alternately, instead of looking at the movies that do not pass the test, we should focus on the ones that do.

This blog: http://thebechdeltest.blogspot.com/ has the beginnings of a list of Bechdel test-approved films, with lengthy explanations, but it is barely scratching the surface.

http://bechdeltest.com/ has a much more complete list, and is also easier for the public to contribute to.

I find this rule entertaining, and will certainly look out for it in films from now on, but I will never, ever judge a film as good or bad based solely on this. I do have an Y-chromosome, but I am neither a chauvinist nor feminist, but rather an equalist or egalitarian.

Many of the movies shown above were action movies, where men were the target audience.

I thought this test is very thought provoking. I haven't seen all of the movies, but I've seen most of them listed. They aren't saying that a failure to pass these three questions makes the movie bad, rather that the movie does not show women in an educated role. In some of the movies, the Women characters have strong careers, but yet they only talk to each other about men.

This has started me to think.

You can use statistics to prove anything; in this case filmmakers are sexist. Right, well...

Pirates of the Carribean films - lots of female pirates, were there?
Bourne films - fails the test because the women were talking about catching Jason Bourne (a man). Right, so they should've chatted about the weather or something?
Austin Powers films - they're supposed to be sexist!
The Dark Knight - how many female police chiefs are there? What other female could you include other than shoe-horning some in?
Slumdog Millionaire - It's supposed to focus on two boys
Bruno - seriously??
Shawshank Redemption - lots of women in male prisons, are there?

It's a vaguely interesting test and can inspire a good discussion but really nothing to get up in arms about.

@violetriga

Okay, let's try this test...

Take every movie that is currently in release. Or every movie that came out this year. Or last year. Or pick any year in the last twenty years.

Take your list of movies and tell me what percent of them feature a female lead.

You can do the math since you are clearly a strong statistical thinker. If the number is significantly less than 50 percent then I would ask you to explain the problem.

It's very biased, most of those movies are made (in general) to appeal men, that's their key demographic.

So let's made the test with films made with women in mind, what are the results then?

C'mon!

So what movies pass this test? Were they any good? Did they make any money? This is half a story.

Miss C--movies in general don't accurately reflect society, anyways, do they? And if they do, they probably pass the test!

Thank you, Miss Cellania, for explaining it in clear, unbiased terms.

Regarding the media: why don't independent filmmakers start focusing on making more good, non-gender-biased movies? The standards in cinema can be changed. And inevitably it'll be more rewarding than sitting around doing movie statistics.

I will agree that the sample used IS heavy on action movies and movies that were quite clearly developed for the male demographic. Something I would be interested in is how many movies with a female lead don't pass.

Another point I'd like to make is that we are talking about art. Since when does art have to be unbiased? I realize completely that the argument being made is the abundance of what they claim is male-centric, but really? Does this whole concept keep women out of good jobs or remove upward mobility in society? I'm sure you could perform similar tests on literature, music, theatre, and visual art and find that some of the most highly acclaimed works fail this test.

I see their point and it's an interesting one, but how big of a deal is it anyway?

@gk

Let us examine the current top 5 (though I've not seen any of them(...

#1 Robin Hood
Going to focus on Mr Hood and the merry MEN. Marion is in it and will be a significant role. Will probably fail the test but for a good reason.

#2 Iron Man 2
That'll be Iron MAN then. Pepper Potts helps out and I know Scarlett Johanssen is in it - perhaps they talk. Maybe it's essential that the two characters talk, maybe not. It's an action film based on a comic so it's all about the boys...

#3 A Nightmare on Elm Street
Girls remain a staple of horror films: terrified men isn't quite the same, so I'm guessing this one has leading females talking about some non-boy things until Freddie shows up. They'll then talk about their dreams.

#4 Hot Tub Time Machine
A bunch of men go back in time (ish) and I doubt that the females will be shown in a positive light. They're not supposed to be though - that's the point of the film.

#5 Furry Vengeance
Probably fails the test. It's a comedy with one main role and, as has been proven many a time before, men get more laughs than women (though women laugh more).

So what can we determine from that? There are more roles that men can play just as their are more careers that are male dominated in the real world. These careers are more high profile too so we are much more likely to see them featured in a film. But hey, let's leave the can lid on and leave the worms therein.

I don't see what the problem was with most of the movies they showed.
Most of them did have at least one female role in them, AND that female role was a strong character.
Such as Wanted or Fight Club or most of the others they showed.
Just ridiculous IMO

Another thought occurred to me. Why are we treating this test as though it has any real sociological significant? After all it was posited in a comic book, right? Scientific testing has a few more criteria for validity than 1- it was popular, and 2- it fits a specific point of view.

Most movies are written by men and directed by men. A creator talks about what he knows and I would think that they don't know a lot about female conversations.

Characters in a movie are only there to serve the plot no matter what gender they are. What about movies where women talk about shoes and clothes and hair, are those allright or do they show us an even graver stereotype.

Here is my test: when was the last time you saw a movie with an extremely stupid female character not being surrounded by extremely stupid male characters. Now, do this test in reverse.

So, I don't really understand what this test is meant for. Should we boycott these movies because they don't pass the test or should we enjoy them while seperating genders. My opinion is that seperation leads to segregation.

Just another reason for people to bitch because they don't feel "included"

I'm a woman and I love most of the movies on that list of non-passing movies. I like a good action movie, and while I wouldn't mind it being about a woman, men are generally better in those roles. I'm completely okay with that.

I also hate a lot of movies that are catered to women, like Sex and the City.

This is ludicrous. Case in point: "Bitch Slap." This movie is horrible and would give any feminist nightmares, yet the entire script is carried almost entirely by a cast of 3 women, with names (albeit stripper ones, but the male names are on par), and talk to each other about something other than men. So this movie passes the test, yet is probably the worst type of representation of women in films. It's basically a porno without the sex.

Many of these movies marginalize females, true, but also feature a hyper-male role model that sets unrealistic expectations for what a normal male should be.

Other the other hand, most of the men on television sitcoms and commercials are complete idiots, adolescent simpletons who must be guarded and guided by wise mother-mate women.

So does this video meet the test? I only saw one women talking. Of course the video froze half-way through so I did not see the end.

her terrible acting/presenting made this laughable, she didn't even have a watch on her wrist.

There is far more room to make a film about battlefield combat *exciting* than a movie about childbirth or the monumentally crucial mission of properly nurturing a human being from birth to adulthood.

The root of the "problem" is the stark /difference/ between men and women, borne not from the crimes of men but rather from the furnace of nature, which is anything but an egalitarian. Though there exist certainly real and far more insidious patterns in Hollywood's sewage, the consequence of its control by a cohesive, powerful and ambitious ethnic minority, I would have to give even these detested moguls a pass on their depictions of women; it simply isn't their fault. The feminist position becomes that much more untenable when films that "fail" include LOTR, which re-wrote classics to include women as battlefield warriors.

I'm afraid your gripe is not with Peter Jackson, but rather the conveniently obese "earth goddess," m'ladies.

This clearly isn't just a problem of action movies. "28 Days Later", an action/horror film, had very few characters, but two of its prominent characters were women. They took active roles in the story, and those roles were not defined by the men around them.

The point of this exercise isn't to get movie-makers to throw more women into their films, but to give women important roles independent of male agency.

"indication of how the movies don't reflect the real world"? No shit sherlock.

I think it would be far more telling if they showed the list of movies that passed it. There are plenty made, but are they movies everyone would like? Are they blockbusters?

Ok this is a stereotype but there is truth in it, guys don't want to watch a relationship movie generally speaking, it's not their first choice generally speaking. Women, however, will watch action movies, why would a movie maker cut half his revenue if they could help it?

Show me a list of movies that do pass The Bechdel Test. Even "Julie & Julia" wouldn't. So what. The only thing Hollywood is about is money. What makes money? How many, let's call them female films, make enough money for the Hollywood establishment to sit up and take notice. I'll stick with The Bozko Test.

1. Are at least two of the characters armed?
2. Do they shoot at each other or have a common enemy target?
3. Do they have martial arts/fighting skills.

If these criteria aren't met (and they can be men, women or aliens)I won't be going.

I find it interesting that there were several very popular romance titles in that list. It should be a clue: Even movies that cater to women and what they want to see, which presumably generally have a strong female lead, have only minor secondary female characters. That's because, in general, what people find interesting about men and women is the tension/ relationship between them. Not so many people are interested in watching the tension/ relationships between women; they just don't generate the same sort of excitement, and are also generally focused around rather mundane aspects of life. (It should go without saying, but probably doesn't, that of course there are exceptions. A list of movies that pass the test would offer some examples.) Conversely, relationships between men tend to be a little more dynamic, and translate to a more interesting viewing experience.

People usually go to a movie to be entertained. Speaking as a woman, I very rarely find movies that focus on a group of women talking about their issues to be even remotely entertaining.

@Prairie Dog, I'm sorry, I've reread your post several times and it still seems to me like you are implying that movies made about or for women must be or always are about "relationships". I assume you mean romantic relationships, since any movie with just one character not interacting with anyone else would most likely be unwatchable. Isn't this the sort of bias that the Bechdel test sheds light upon? The bias that women are only interested in things like romantic relationships, aka men?

The only test a movie has to pass for me is that it be worth shelling out the money to see it.

So this is just a strictly defined notion about one thing pretty much. Sounds... like a boring sit down to watch movies and mark off a checklist of moral criteria. I mean, who does that? *cough cough CAPAlert cough* http://www.capalert.com/

I'm pleased by the fact that many Miyazaki movies pass this test. Nausicaa, Princess Mononoke, My Neighbor Totoro, Ponyo, Kiki's Delivery Service, Castle in the Sky. All these films by a Japanese filmmaker who is known world-wide but is particularly famous in his home country, where his films routinely break money-making records. Japan, a supposedly male-dominated society.

I think it's idiocy and fear that has Hollywood making these same male-dominated films year after year. Hollywood execs really have no clue that they can cash in on women's interests in entertainment just as easily as they cash in on men's, if they'd take their heads out of their asses.

I think many people are taking this test too literally, it's meant to get us thinking about how people are represented in movies and what that reflects about our cultural values and presumptions (e.g. if most of these movies are action movies geared to men, why do men prefer to see other men in action movies). Use this test for anyone other than straight, white, able-bodied, men and the results will be basically the same. Do you really think that's an inconsequential coincidence? And don't just fall back on this being a product of the free market, the free market itself is not predisposed towards favouring any one category of people.

A few of movies of interest:
Fargo - female chief of police (Margie), but I do believe it fails. Of course, if she was pregnant with a daughter, it doesn't.
The Descent - all female cast, no particular reason, bloody frightening.
Blade Runner - well, female replicants count, don't they?
Kill Bill - Does this pass? Damned if I know. If only they could have shut up about Bill.
Alien - Ripley, and her poor shipmate.
Aliens - Ripley again, and badass Vasquez.

All in all, if you look at lots of movies, you can likely find "winners" in almost any genre. It doesn't tell you if the movies are any good, but it could someday prove a good trivia test.

Despite the lack of movies passing this test, am I right in saying that the percentage of women who watch the non-passing movies is still relatively high? If women want to watch the movies available to them, the movie studies evidently know their market. The idea that women go to see those movies because their choices are limited seems wrong - they could simply not watch them, and the movie studios would soon change their ways.

To be fair, Fight Club didn't have many conversations between two different guys either- I seem to recall that being important to the plot in some way.

Kelsey, after I submitted that, I realized how it read, too late. I don't mean that this could only be fulfilled by a relationship movies, but I think most relationship movies would pass.

BROADS UNITE!!!

Perhaps you should try being a humanist, instead of a feminist. I think the world needs that more right now.
Having to achieve some kind of imposed gender equality in art, defeats the purpose of art itself. Pretty crass demonstration.

The test is bunk.

Question 3 is designed to fail the majority of films.

Take this exact same test, and see if 2 men in any film do not discuss a woman in any one scene.

Wouldn't it be more straightforward to say "has a female protagonist"?

That would be an even simpler test about whether it's about women, than if there was significant female dialogue...

The comments here are revealing. As revealing as the test itself.

Let’s start with some misconceptions. Feminism means many things but I think at it’s core its about asserting that women are human too. Those who dismiss or disdain feminism, for whatever reason, have a problem with that simple idea. Compulsive masculinists are hobbled by a male-centered ideology that allows them to see men as both men and as persons who transcend gender. Those who assert that men are superior, or more in a more complex emission, more interesting, fascinating, or appealing are easy to spot and swat. Theirs is an easier prejudice to combat. It’s the deniers that are harder to flesh out. They’re the ones to claim there’s no problem, the problem is old but solved, the problem is inevitable and thus not solvable, nothing interesting to see here, “I don’t see gender, I see people,” nothing to be done. This is a sexism by default, a sexism wrought by ignorance plus thoughtlessness, and a sexism rooted in self-centered approach to reality. This is sexism that results from the attitude that if it doesn’t harm me, then it’s not harmful…to anyone. That’s an attitude and a kind of sexism that has the odor of privilege.

The Bechdel Test is another way of capturing a truth that others have expressed. Years ago Marlon Riggs made the same point regarding race in his acclaimed documentary, Ethnic Notions. It’s at the exclusion of any representations other than the stereotype. Think about Hattie McDaniel. Here’s a black woman who won an Oscar for her role in Gone with the Wind. And she got it for playing a maid in story that is sympathetic to the side of slaveowners.

A lot of the comments smell of that peculiar odor. Fine tuning it and setting a better context is a dodge. The Bechdel Test is a simple but clever way of capturing a truth about movies and sexism: women are invisible and marginalized in most contemporary representations of women. Claiming that there are movies out there that don’t fit is a dodge. It’s a matter of patterns. Claiming that don’t reflect reality is a dodge. Aspirations, fantasies, and nightmares and who has them are very much part of reality.

But hey, the Bechdel Test is an example of education at its finest – it’s interactive, hands-on, and can be done at home in your underwear. Everyone can try out their own coding scheme.

While the above youtube is not a "movie"...it does not pass the test itself.

This isn't really about any individual movie meeting the criteria. It's about how few do. That's the interesting fact.

Also, the first question is the important one. Really, you can forget the rest of it. Usually you have two or more male main characters and a chick. (The Smurfette Syndrome.) It's very rare you get the reverse. Why is that?

Now it may be as simple as women deferring to their boyfriend's/husband's interests, just so they can get a date night (which I suspect is actually part of it) or it may be that the largely male execs are more interested in movies that fail this test (also likely part of it.)

So the test doesn't mean that they are feminist movies or not or even if they are good movies, she says... so what's the point of this test. Just to prove that some people have too much time on their hands?

Who wants to go to the movies to watch two or more women sitting around talking anyway? I can do that at work and they pay me.

According to this test Lost in Translation is sexist. Damn you Sofia Copula, for betraying women everywhere!!!

According to this test Lost in Translation is sexist. Damn you Sofia Coppola, for betraying women everywhere!!!

Not even women want to watch a movie about women talking to other women about something other than men. lol

Btw, ,was watching The Red Balloon on Youtube with the kids and realized it doesn't fit either.

Not sure why that's a "systemic problem". When they start out by referring to "Dykes to Watch Out For", you know it's going to be something negative about men. Thanks for not breaking the stereotype.

One could equally apply this test to the Feminist Utopia. How many men are in it? Zero. The other questions: not necessary.

Gatherdust, thanks for painting everybody who disagrees with this as sexist and racist, too. I'm not sure what "complex emissions" means, though. Freudian slip?

As a woman, the last thing I want to see is women talking to each other. Period. Less women = better movie.
I think I'm just a catty bitch who hates other chicks, but it still dosn't change the fact.

I think the most interesting application of this "test" would be to add another dimension to movies. If art imitates life and vice versa, what does this say about culture? Can movies be made more interesting by adding a new dimension that is not now adequately explored? Instead of seeing this as an issue of feminism versus chauvinism versus neither, or a minority in power versus the majority out of power, it should be seen as an opportunity for entrepreneurial individuals to score some low hanging fruit and blaze a cultural trail.

For what it is worth, this week's episode of 24, featuring a female U.S. President and female acting president of the IRK (basically a representation of Iran) passes the test.

Almost all Mel Brooks movies pass this test. I find that Wierd.

Spaceballs, Young Frankenstein, Blazing saddles, Robin Hood men in tights, Etc all contain atleast two women, who have names and speak to each other.

This clip doesn't pass the test either, therefore I think it's safe to dismiss the contents.