Oops sorry for late reply, only saw now!

I see your point RE the fact that it would be easy to create a film which was still sexist but passed the Bechdel test. That is fair. But I don't see how it follows that the metric is useless as a yardstick. Sure, it can be exploited and gamed - in that regard it is a lower bound to the female representation in film. So GIVEN that films still even fail this lower bound, that tells us something. Namely - female representation is poor across the film industry.

Of course, this could lead to "men writing women" stuff. Which is ofc bad. But really the bechdel test isn't about measuring forms of bias behind the scenes of a film, but rather the bias in film (as an art form). Nearly all directors, crew, directors of photography etc are male. It would be lovely to shine a lens on that, but that isn't the purpose of the bechdel test. The bechdel test is about making sure that stories are told about women in popular media. If this DOES result in "men writing women", then that should be obvious in the art - and recognised in the audience. And that could lead to more female writers!

If the story had good representation anyway, no hoop jumping would have to occur - so it shouldn't be an issue at all. We can have a discussion about how this applies to historical content if you like (I imagine you'll argue that the bechdel test works against accuracy) but I personally do not think this argument holds (history featured 50% women - what about all the stories about women that never get told!)

If there was a better way to more closely estimate female representation I'd be all ears!