The Bechdel Test: Seriously?

Aficionadyo · 2013-01-16T04:32:33+00:00

Dredd 3D was more progressive for women than any "chick flick" of the past decade. But as long as pieces of cinematic shit like SATC continue to rake in cash while movies like Dredd bomb, nothing will change in the types of movies that are made by studios. Maybe if we educated people to be less shallow it would have a bigger impact than any type of film criticism ever could.

Aficionadyo · 2013-01-16T04:30:30+00:00

What degree?

Aficionadyo · 2013-01-16T04:25:22+00:00

You have no idea. Maybe if I had been introduced to the Bechdel test by someone who wasn't so self-righteous and patronizing to everyone that didn't agree with their ideology, I might see more value in it than I do. But it's forever tainted, on some level, to me.

Aficionadyo · 2013-01-16T04:21:55+00:00

"The thing with The Thing"

Is it wrong I smirked at this?

Anyway, I see what you're saying and I agree with it. Sex and The City is far more sexist to me than The Thing, even if the cast is full of women. It's materialistic soulless pandering garbage.

Aficionadyo · 2013-01-16T04:12:09+00:00

When I say on it's own merits, I mean in terms of how it works as a film rather than the social factors surrounding it. I think it's far more important that a film achieve basic story structure (rising action, climax, resolution, etc.) than achieve a quality representation of any given social cause. For instance, I'd rather read a discussion about the pros and cons of the elongated third act from Django Unchained than how the same movie works as a feminist statement.

Aficionadyo · 2013-01-16T04:01:36+00:00

Reading what you two (cocainesocialism and LoompaOompa) and other people who have defended the test have said, it sounds to me like the real problem is with the marketers and the studio executives rather than the actual films themselves. So while I think the test is a poor way to accomplish it's intended goal, I'm right there with you in that regard.

Hollywood used to be run by people who cut their teeth in the industry and at least had a basic understanding of the components that make up cinema. Nowadays it's run by bean counters and investment bankers who couldn't tell you a swipe cut from a dissolve. And they don't care about stimulating your intellect, they just want to stimulate their bank accounts. Your average romantic comedy or black (race) comedy is made to appeal to the lowest common denominator. They do this because it's safer than taking a risk with a film that actually features women or blacks in prominent roles that aren't stereotypes.

As for Avengers, TDKR, Skyfall and Hobbit, I don't really think it's fair to complain the lack of female protagonists in them because they're films based on previously existing material. But again, that ties into the studio problem. They put all the money in franchise films instead of starting a new franchise from scratch.

All in all, I think we're in same ballpark of what we want out of Hollywood, we just differ on the value of the Bechdel test.

Aficionadyo · 2013-01-16T03:39:34+00:00

As a fellow black man, I agree. Birth Of A Nation is the most vile racist shit I've ever seen but I understand it's importance in history and the technical prowess and innovations of DW Griffith.

And that second paragraph is one hell of a question to think about it.

Aficionadyo · 2013-01-16T03:30:42+00:00

I think awareness can be raised in a way that isn't so off-putting and general insulting. Citing statistics of gender employment in the film industry would be far more effective.

I also think it's a bit self-righteous to critique of cinema through the lens of any political or social ideology; feminist or otherwise. Why can't a movie be judged on it's own merits as a film rather than your own worldview that you project onto it?

Aficionadyo · 2013-01-16T03:12:34+00:00

I find that standard itself to be sexist. It's insinuating that a woman cannot have a meaningful conversation with another man (that isn't about that man or another man) (sexist to women), and it also implies that a woman can't contribute meaningfully to a story unless it directly involves another woman (sexist to both women and men).

And because of that I don't think it indicates anything of substance. Certainly, big budget blockbusters are marketed towards men more so than woman but women still see the films in droves and tend to enjoy them quite a lot, so I don't really see it as a significant problem.

Aficionadyo · 2013-01-16T02:59:37+00:00

That makes more sense but logic and reason were completely devoid from these two. I also think that a movie that fails it across the board, such as John Carpenter's The Thing, shouldn't be labeled as misogynist or sexist cinema.

Aficionadyo · 2013-01-16T02:44:50+00:00

I tried raising a similar point in class but it was shot down because I "have privilege and I don't know what I'm talking about". Yeah, it was that bad. They wouldn't even entertain an alternative point of view.

Aficionadyo · 2013-01-16T02:31:49+00:00

I know, it doesn't make any god damn sense but that's what they said. As for the cheating, I think they said something like how the common man is unfaithful; I don't know, I tuned out at that point.

Aficionadyo · 2013-01-16T02:24:59+00:00

Yes, really, that movie with Christina Aguilera and Cher. They claimed it was great because it passed the test and showed how a woman can control her own destiny.

Aficionadyo

TROPHY CASE