BTTF is ripe for a parody scene where you hear Chuck Berry on the other end of the line after the musical bit ends screaming "That motherfucker stole my song!" and just go from there.
. . . and Louis Jordan is standing right next to him going, "Motherfucker, please,"
Atomika on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
2F2F does because it has a scene with the lone female driver talking with her squad about a car.
I don't remember any two women talking to each other in F8 of the Furious.
I don't think so either.
Cipher runs an all male crew, and never talks to the prisoner. She never leaves the plane apart from the opening scene.
Letty never talks to ... anyone... really, apart from Dom.
Ramsey only interacts with other men.
Helen Mirren only talks to Dom and her kids.
The Beastcast spoilercast commented on this, but this series has been losing women in active roles since 5 at least.
Fate of the Furious spoiler
There's a single scene where Letty argues with Ramsey over Tortetto going rogue in Act 1.
the Bechdel Test is failed if the two women are talking about male characters
+12
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
2F2F does because it has a scene with the lone female driver talking with her squad about a car.
I don't remember any two women talking to each other in F8 of the Furious.
I don't think so either.
Cipher runs an all male crew, and never talks to the prisoner. She never leaves the plane apart from the opening scene.
Letty never talks to ... anyone... really, apart from Dom.
Ramsey only interacts with other men.
Helen Mirren only talks to Dom and her kids.
The Beastcast spoilercast commented on this, but this series has been losing women in active roles since 5 at least.
Fate of the Furious spoiler
There's a single scene where Letty argues with Ramsey over Tortetto going rogue in Act 1.
the Bechdel Test is failed if the two women are talking about male characters
I thought it was failed if all the interactions between women were about men, not just one?
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Anyway, I've always felt the Sexy Lamp Test was just as good.
BTTF is ripe for a parody scene where you hear Chuck Berry on the other end of the line after the musical bit ends screaming "That motherfucker stole my song!" and just go from there.
. . . and Louis Jordan is standing right next to him going, "Motherfucker, please,"
2F2F does because it has a scene with the lone female driver talking with her squad about a car.
I don't remember any two women talking to each other in F8 of the Furious.
I don't think so either.
Cipher runs an all male crew, and never talks to the prisoner. She never leaves the plane apart from the opening scene.
Letty never talks to ... anyone... really, apart from Dom.
Ramsey only interacts with other men.
Helen Mirren only talks to Dom and her kids.
The Beastcast spoilercast commented on this, but this series has been losing women in active roles since 5 at least.
Fate of the Furious spoiler
There's a single scene where Letty argues with Ramsey over Tortetto going rogue in Act 1.
the Bechdel Test is failed if the two women are talking about male characters
And that's why it's letty and Megan in the car. They have a two sided exchange regarding the sub chasing them, and the person driving it
BTTF is ripe for a parody scene where you hear Chuck Berry on the other end of the line after the musical bit ends screaming "That motherfucker stole my song!" and just go from there.
. . . and Louis Jordan is standing right next to him going, "Motherfucker, please,"
He's not wrong though.
From what I remember, the first Underworld movie was pretty much Toreadors versus Get of Fenris.
2F2F does because it has a scene with the lone female driver talking with her squad about a car.
I don't remember any two women talking to each other in F8 of the Furious.
I don't think so either.
Cipher runs an all male crew, and never talks to the prisoner. She never leaves the plane apart from the opening scene.
Letty never talks to ... anyone... really, apart from Dom.
Ramsey only interacts with other men.
Helen Mirren only talks to Dom and her kids.
The Beastcast spoilercast commented on this, but this series has been losing women in active roles since 5 at least.
Fate of the Furious spoiler
There's a single scene where Letty argues with Ramsey over Tortetto going rogue in Act 1.
the Bechdel Test is failed if the two women are talking about male characters
Indeed it is.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
2F2F does because it has a scene with the lone female driver talking with her squad about a car.
I don't remember any two women talking to each other in F8 of the Furious.
I don't think so either.
Cipher runs an all male crew, and never talks to the prisoner. She never leaves the plane apart from the opening scene.
Letty never talks to ... anyone... really, apart from Dom.
Ramsey only interacts with other men.
Helen Mirren only talks to Dom and her kids.
The Beastcast spoilercast commented on this, but this series has been losing women in active roles since 5 at least.
Fate of the Furious spoiler
There's a single scene where Letty argues with Ramsey over Tortetto going rogue in Act 1.
the Bechdel Test is failed if the two women are talking about male characters
I thought it was failed if all the interactions between women were about men, not just one?
The Bechdel test is also a hillariously low baseline for talking about gender equity in film. As such, it's only useful for separating the absolute worst cases of gender exclusion from the rest of the pack.
The Bechdel test is also a hillariously low baseline for talking about gender equity in film. As such, it's only useful for separating the absolute worst cases of gender exclusion from the rest of the pack.
Not even that, it's a measurement to demonstrate how male-oriented films are in general.
Like, as much as people think they contain strong female role models, most of the Star Wars films don't pass the test.
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
Yoga Hosers (Netflix), for the first 15 minutes it just feels like some try too hard Smith attempt to recreate Clerks, but it's moving along. This is the third attempt at Clerk wittysisms and while it's not new, Adam Brody and Justin Long and Tony Hale seem to be having fun. I can put up with this and just move on.
And then they butcher "Babe" by Styx. Just......decimate it with an out of place full length cover that is usually suited for final act feels but pushed in here to showcase the Two Nepotismteers. My heart shatters.
This is just a good case of Smith trying to do too much and gets nothing right. Teen Clerks could work, even with a murderer angle thrown in (with a stupid fucking man bun too) to stand out a bit more. Instead you get incredibly annoying Bratzis (waste of a good pun) and characters, half of which are real life family members of Smith and Depp, appearing for five minutes of quips only to disappear forever before you get some bad, bad, bad special effects. Johnny Depp, as french detective who really is showing he just did this to help his daughter and is still using his Whitey Bulger voice as a template, isn't really there in any manner other than for people to go "hey that's Johnny Depp!". And yet he's still able to steal every scene he's in because the two daughters just aren't that good. I'm positive I'm grading a little harder because it's such blatant nepotism but neither stands out or has good delivery or really have any characterization other than social media ditzes.
Kevin Smith tries to mash Clerks and Scott Pilgrim together with Iron Sky, it's not good. It's hella basic. He should be sorey. I have to listen to Babe fifteen times now to try and wash out the tragedy it went through for this film.
The Bechdel test is also a hillariously low baseline for talking about gender equity in film. As such, it's only useful for separating the absolute worst cases of gender exclusion from the rest of the pack.
Not even that, it's a measurement to demonstrate how male-oriented films are in general.
Like, as much as people think they contain strong female role models, most of the Star Wars films don't pass the test.
It's more about trends than specific movies. And Neither do most Marvel movies, which are 40 years later.
+5
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
I love Kevin Smith, but Yoga Hosers was definitely a big step back for him after Tusk showed real promise.
Frankly I think his comedy has gone way downhill since he started smoking pot.
I know I'm, like, the very last person to this party, but Paprika is gorgeous and excellent. I should watch more Kon, if he's this good.
He is!
Perfect Blue is an interesting horror/mindfuck, but I thought it leaned on its central conceit too hard, it was a little too clever for its own good. You can really notice how much it inspired Black Swan though. It's definitely worth a watch, but it's his earliest and I think his weakest movie.
Tokyo Godfathers is a bit lighter, but is really really enjoyable. Just a really nice movie. Kon wasn't a Christian afaik, but this is totally a great Christmas movie anyway.
Millennium Actress is theoretically the career retrospective of a single (fictional) Japanese actress, but it's also about the way pop culture is remembered in personal memories, and how the personal in turn shapes art, as well as a look back at Japan's incredibly rocky 20th century. Like Paprika it is very very inventive (I mean, all of Kon's movies are, but Paprika and MA are especially so), but it's more soulful than Paprika. Some of the full implications may take a bit of familiarity with Japanese history though.
Kana on
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
+7
Options
Dark Raven XLaugh hard, run fast,be kindRegistered Userregular
edited April 2017
@Astaereth if you've not seen any of his other stuff, I highly recommend Perfect Blue and Tokyo Godfathers! They're both in my top 10 for animation, and are each wildly different in tone from Paprika, one's a psychological horror, the other a comedy drama. And they're both perfect (but only one is blue)
Which of Kon's films are actually available domestically without paying ridiculous after-market prices, though? Like, I know that Perfect Blue has been out of print for so long that the DVD release of it isn't anamorphic widescreen.
The Bechdel test is also a hillariously low baseline for talking about gender equity in film. As such, it's only useful for separating the absolute worst cases of gender exclusion from the rest of the pack.
Not even that, it's a measurement to demonstrate how male-oriented films are in general.
Like, as much as people think they contain strong female role models, most of the Star Wars films don't pass the test.
Eh. The Bechdel Test is fairly useless in the specific imo because of shit like this.
It's interesting on a macro level but it's not necessarily good or bad if a specific film passes or fails the test.
It's a conversational piece more than it is something you would do actual science on. Litmus tests are great for raising awareness but horribly simplistic for a statistically valid model.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
+5
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
The Bechdel test is also a hillariously low baseline for talking about gender equity in film. As such, it's only useful for separating the absolute worst cases of gender exclusion from the rest of the pack.
Not even that, it's a measurement to demonstrate how male-oriented films are in general.
Like, as much as people think they contain strong female role models, most of the Star Wars films don't pass the test.
Eh. The Bechdel Test is fairly useless in the specific imo because of shit like this.
It's interesting on a macro level but it's not necessarily good or bad if a specific film passes or fails the test.
There's a more truncated macro context that it's pretty useful for, such as the roles for women within a long-running franchise or within a specific director's preferred troupe of actors.
Such as, my favorite directors are--by far--the Coen brothers; however, while they've created many, many great roles for female characters (most of them for Frances McDormand), almost none of their films past the Bechdel test. That is neither a binary good or bad thing (especially since they rarely seem to objectify women in their films, and they write those characters strongly and memorably), but it is something interesting to think about and try to deconstruct on an academic level, even if it's mostly supposition. Many of the themes of their films deal in subverting or undermining traditional masculine ideals, often with the most typical masculine archetypes being enemies or foils to the main characters. In their own way, they are very much commenting frequently on the pathetic fragility of the male self-image, but instead of offering a POV from the usual victim of male ego (i.e.--women), they offer up alternative versions of masculinity that typically end up rewarded for their differentiation and character.
The Bechdel test is also a hillariously low baseline for talking about gender equity in film. As such, it's only useful for separating the absolute worst cases of gender exclusion from the rest of the pack.
Not even that, it's a measurement to demonstrate how male-oriented films are in general.
Like, as much as people think they contain strong female role models, most of the Star Wars films don't pass the test.
Eh. The Bechdel Test is fairly useless in the specific imo because of shit like this.
It's interesting on a macro level but it's not necessarily good or bad if a specific film passes or fails the test.
There's a more truncated macro context that it's pretty useful for, such as the roles for women within a long-running franchise or within a specific director's preferred troupe of actors.
Such as, my favorite directors are--by far--the Coen brothers; however, while they've created many, many great roles for female characters (most of them for Frances McDormand), almost none of their films past the Bechdel test. That is neither a binary good or bad thing (especially since they rarely seem to objectify women in their films, and they write those characters strongly and memorably), but it is something interesting to think about and try to deconstruct on an academic level, even if it's mostly supposition. Many of the themes of their films deal in subverting or undermining traditional masculine ideals, often with the most typical masculine archetypes being enemies or foils to the main characters. In their own way, they are very much commenting frequently on the pathetic fragility of the male self-image, but instead of offering a POV from the usual victim of male ego (i.e.--women), they offer up alternative versions of masculinity that typically end up rewarded for their differentiation and character.
Yeah, this is how I look at it and why the common use of the test annoys me. Whether something passes the test of not is interesting, it can help you think about what a particular film or series or films are doing, but it's not necessarily a good or bad thing on it's own. It tends to get used as some sort of "sexist vs not-sexist" test most of the time though sadly.
At the macro level I think it's still useful on that account though as the sheer number of films that don't pass it I think suggests something about the film industry as a whole. Because a film doesn't have to pass the test to not be a hot mess on the subject of women, I think on average most films if they have well written female characters probably should pass the test.
+6
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
The Bechdel test is also a hillariously low baseline for talking about gender equity in film. As such, it's only useful for separating the absolute worst cases of gender exclusion from the rest of the pack.
Not even that, it's a measurement to demonstrate how male-oriented films are in general.
Like, as much as people think they contain strong female role models, most of the Star Wars films don't pass the test.
Eh. The Bechdel Test is fairly useless in the specific imo because of shit like this.
It's interesting on a macro level but it's not necessarily good or bad if a specific film passes or fails the test.
There's a more truncated macro context that it's pretty useful for, such as the roles for women within a long-running franchise or within a specific director's preferred troupe of actors.
Such as, my favorite directors are--by far--the Coen brothers; however, while they've created many, many great roles for female characters (most of them for Frances McDormand), almost none of their films past the Bechdel test. That is neither a binary good or bad thing (especially since they rarely seem to objectify women in their films, and they write those characters strongly and memorably), but it is something interesting to think about and try to deconstruct on an academic level, even if it's mostly supposition. Many of the themes of their films deal in subverting or undermining traditional masculine ideals, often with the most typical masculine archetypes being enemies or foils to the main characters. In their own way, they are very much commenting frequently on the pathetic fragility of the male self-image, but instead of offering a POV from the usual victim of male ego (i.e.--women), they offer up alternative versions of masculinity that typically end up rewarded for their differentiation and character.
Yeah, this is how I look at it and why the common use of the test annoys me. Whether something passes the test of not is interesting, it can help you think about what a particular film or series or films are doing, but it's not necessarily a good or bad thing on it's own. It tends to get used as some sort of "sexist vs not-sexist" test most of the time though sadly.
At the macro level I think it's still useful on that account though as the sheer number of films that don't pass it I think suggests something about the film industry as a whole. Because a film doesn't have to pass the test to not be a hot mess on the subject of women, I think on average most films if they have well written female characters probably should pass the test.
So, yeah, a good converse example is Sucker Punch, which is ostensibly a "feminist" movie that passes the Bechdel Test every five seconds, and it's hot garbage.
The Bechdel test is also a hillariously low baseline for talking about gender equity in film. As such, it's only useful for separating the absolute worst cases of gender exclusion from the rest of the pack.
Not even that, it's a measurement to demonstrate how male-oriented films are in general.
Like, as much as people think they contain strong female role models, most of the Star Wars films don't pass the test.
Eh. The Bechdel Test is fairly useless in the specific imo because of shit like this.
It's interesting on a macro level but it's not necessarily good or bad if a specific film passes or fails the test.
There's a more truncated macro context that it's pretty useful for, such as the roles for women within a long-running franchise or within a specific director's preferred troupe of actors.
Such as, my favorite directors are--by far--the Coen brothers; however, while they've created many, many great roles for female characters (most of them for Frances McDormand), almost none of their films past the Bechdel test. That is neither a binary good or bad thing (especially since they rarely seem to objectify women in their films, and they write those characters strongly and memorably), but it is something interesting to think about and try to deconstruct on an academic level, even if it's mostly supposition. Many of the themes of their films deal in subverting or undermining traditional masculine ideals, often with the most typical masculine archetypes being enemies or foils to the main characters. In their own way, they are very much commenting frequently on the pathetic fragility of the male self-image, but instead of offering a POV from the usual victim of male ego (i.e.--women), they offer up alternative versions of masculinity that typically end up rewarded for their differentiation and character.
Yeah, this is how I look at it and why the common use of the test annoys me. Whether something passes the test of not is interesting, it can help you think about what a particular film or series or films are doing, but it's not necessarily a good or bad thing on it's own. It tends to get used as some sort of "sexist vs not-sexist" test most of the time though sadly.
At the macro level I think it's still useful on that account though as the sheer number of films that don't pass it I think suggests something about the film industry as a whole. Because a film doesn't have to pass the test to not be a hot mess on the subject of women, I think on average most films if they have well written female characters probably should pass the test.
So, yeah, a good converse example is Sucker Punch, which is ostensibly a "feminist" movie that passes the Bechdel Test every five seconds, and it's hot garbage.
Sucker Punch is a feminist movie the same way Birth of a Nation (1915) is a thoughtful commentary on racial politics.
+6
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
The Bechdel test is also a hillariously low baseline for talking about gender equity in film. As such, it's only useful for separating the absolute worst cases of gender exclusion from the rest of the pack.
Not even that, it's a measurement to demonstrate how male-oriented films are in general.
Like, as much as people think they contain strong female role models, most of the Star Wars films don't pass the test.
Eh. The Bechdel Test is fairly useless in the specific imo because of shit like this.
It's interesting on a macro level but it's not necessarily good or bad if a specific film passes or fails the test.
There's a more truncated macro context that it's pretty useful for, such as the roles for women within a long-running franchise or within a specific director's preferred troupe of actors.
Such as, my favorite directors are--by far--the Coen brothers; however, while they've created many, many great roles for female characters (most of them for Frances McDormand), almost none of their films past the Bechdel test. That is neither a binary good or bad thing (especially since they rarely seem to objectify women in their films, and they write those characters strongly and memorably), but it is something interesting to think about and try to deconstruct on an academic level, even if it's mostly supposition. Many of the themes of their films deal in subverting or undermining traditional masculine ideals, often with the most typical masculine archetypes being enemies or foils to the main characters. In their own way, they are very much commenting frequently on the pathetic fragility of the male self-image, but instead of offering a POV from the usual victim of male ego (i.e.--women), they offer up alternative versions of masculinity that typically end up rewarded for their differentiation and character.
Yeah, this is how I look at it and why the common use of the test annoys me. Whether something passes the test of not is interesting, it can help you think about what a particular film or series or films are doing, but it's not necessarily a good or bad thing on it's own. It tends to get used as some sort of "sexist vs not-sexist" test most of the time though sadly.
At the macro level I think it's still useful on that account though as the sheer number of films that don't pass it I think suggests something about the film industry as a whole. Because a film doesn't have to pass the test to not be a hot mess on the subject of women, I think on average most films if they have well written female characters probably should pass the test.
So, yeah, a good converse example is Sucker Punch, which is ostensibly a "feminist" movie that passes the Bechdel Test every five seconds, and it's hot garbage.
Sucker Punch is a feminist movie the same way Birth of a Nation (1915) is a thoughtful commentary on racial politics.
Sucker Punch is a feminist movie made by a man who doesn't understand what feminism is but wants to tell you anyway.
The Bechdel test is also a hillariously low baseline for talking about gender equity in film. As such, it's only useful for separating the absolute worst cases of gender exclusion from the rest of the pack.
Not even that, it's a measurement to demonstrate how male-oriented films are in general.
Like, as much as people think they contain strong female role models, most of the Star Wars films don't pass the test.
Eh. The Bechdel Test is fairly useless in the specific imo because of shit like this.
It's interesting on a macro level but it's not necessarily good or bad if a specific film passes or fails the test.
There's a more truncated macro context that it's pretty useful for, such as the roles for women within a long-running franchise or within a specific director's preferred troupe of actors.
Such as, my favorite directors are--by far--the Coen brothers; however, while they've created many, many great roles for female characters (most of them for Frances McDormand), almost none of their films past the Bechdel test. That is neither a binary good or bad thing (especially since they rarely seem to objectify women in their films, and they write those characters strongly and memorably), but it is something interesting to think about and try to deconstruct on an academic level, even if it's mostly supposition. Many of the themes of their films deal in subverting or undermining traditional masculine ideals, often with the most typical masculine archetypes being enemies or foils to the main characters. In their own way, they are very much commenting frequently on the pathetic fragility of the male self-image, but instead of offering a POV from the usual victim of male ego (i.e.--women), they offer up alternative versions of masculinity that typically end up rewarded for their differentiation and character.
Yeah, this is how I look at it and why the common use of the test annoys me. Whether something passes the test of not is interesting, it can help you think about what a particular film or series or films are doing, but it's not necessarily a good or bad thing on it's own. It tends to get used as some sort of "sexist vs not-sexist" test most of the time though sadly.
At the macro level I think it's still useful on that account though as the sheer number of films that don't pass it I think suggests something about the film industry as a whole. Because a film doesn't have to pass the test to not be a hot mess on the subject of women, I think on average most films if they have well written female characters probably should pass the test.
So, yeah, a good converse example is Sucker Punch, which is ostensibly a "feminist" movie that passes the Bechdel Test every five seconds, and it's hot garbage.
Sucker Punch is a feminist movie the same way Birth of a Nation (1915) is a thoughtful commentary on racial politics.
Sucker Punch is a feminist movie made by a man who doesn't understand what feminism is but wants to tell you anyway.
Which . . . . . you know . . .
. . . typical :rotate:
It takes talent to misuse Emily Browning like that. It's a pity since that movie proved to me she should be a brilliant action hero.
Harry Dresden on
+1
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
The Bechdel test is also a hillariously low baseline for talking about gender equity in film. As such, it's only useful for separating the absolute worst cases of gender exclusion from the rest of the pack.
Not even that, it's a measurement to demonstrate how male-oriented films are in general.
Like, as much as people think they contain strong female role models, most of the Star Wars films don't pass the test.
Eh. The Bechdel Test is fairly useless in the specific imo because of shit like this.
It's interesting on a macro level but it's not necessarily good or bad if a specific film passes or fails the test.
There's a more truncated macro context that it's pretty useful for, such as the roles for women within a long-running franchise or within a specific director's preferred troupe of actors.
Such as, my favorite directors are--by far--the Coen brothers; however, while they've created many, many great roles for female characters (most of them for Frances McDormand), almost none of their films past the Bechdel test. That is neither a binary good or bad thing (especially since they rarely seem to objectify women in their films, and they write those characters strongly and memorably), but it is something interesting to think about and try to deconstruct on an academic level, even if it's mostly supposition. Many of the themes of their films deal in subverting or undermining traditional masculine ideals, often with the most typical masculine archetypes being enemies or foils to the main characters. In their own way, they are very much commenting frequently on the pathetic fragility of the male self-image, but instead of offering a POV from the usual victim of male ego (i.e.--women), they offer up alternative versions of masculinity that typically end up rewarded for their differentiation and character.
Yeah, this is how I look at it and why the common use of the test annoys me. Whether something passes the test of not is interesting, it can help you think about what a particular film or series or films are doing, but it's not necessarily a good or bad thing on it's own. It tends to get used as some sort of "sexist vs not-sexist" test most of the time though sadly.
At the macro level I think it's still useful on that account though as the sheer number of films that don't pass it I think suggests something about the film industry as a whole. Because a film doesn't have to pass the test to not be a hot mess on the subject of women, I think on average most films if they have well written female characters probably should pass the test.
So, yeah, a good converse example is Sucker Punch, which is ostensibly a "feminist" movie that passes the Bechdel Test every five seconds, and it's hot garbage.
Sucker Punch is a feminist movie the same way Birth of a Nation (1915) is a thoughtful commentary on racial politics.
Sucker Punch is a feminist movie made by a man who doesn't understand what feminism is but wants to tell you anyway.
The Bechdel test is also a hillariously low baseline for talking about gender equity in film. As such, it's only useful for separating the absolute worst cases of gender exclusion from the rest of the pack.
Not even that, it's a measurement to demonstrate how male-oriented films are in general.
Like, as much as people think they contain strong female role models, most of the Star Wars films don't pass the test.
Eh. The Bechdel Test is fairly useless in the specific imo because of shit like this.
It's interesting on a macro level but it's not necessarily good or bad if a specific film passes or fails the test.
There's a more truncated macro context that it's pretty useful for, such as the roles for women within a long-running franchise or within a specific director's preferred troupe of actors.
Such as, my favorite directors are--by far--the Coen brothers; however, while they've created many, many great roles for female characters (most of them for Frances McDormand), almost none of their films past the Bechdel test. That is neither a binary good or bad thing (especially since they rarely seem to objectify women in their films, and they write those characters strongly and memorably), but it is something interesting to think about and try to deconstruct on an academic level, even if it's mostly supposition. Many of the themes of their films deal in subverting or undermining traditional masculine ideals, often with the most typical masculine archetypes being enemies or foils to the main characters. In their own way, they are very much commenting frequently on the pathetic fragility of the male self-image, but instead of offering a POV from the usual victim of male ego (i.e.--women), they offer up alternative versions of masculinity that typically end up rewarded for their differentiation and character.
Yeah, this is how I look at it and why the common use of the test annoys me. Whether something passes the test of not is interesting, it can help you think about what a particular film or series or films are doing, but it's not necessarily a good or bad thing on it's own. It tends to get used as some sort of "sexist vs not-sexist" test most of the time though sadly.
At the macro level I think it's still useful on that account though as the sheer number of films that don't pass it I think suggests something about the film industry as a whole. Because a film doesn't have to pass the test to not be a hot mess on the subject of women, I think on average most films if they have well written female characters probably should pass the test.
So, yeah, a good converse example is Sucker Punch, which is ostensibly a "feminist" movie that passes the Bechdel Test every five seconds, and it's hot garbage.
Sucker Punch is a feminist movie the same way Birth of a Nation (1915) is a thoughtful commentary on racial politics.
Sucker Punch is a feminist movie made by a man who doesn't understand what feminism is but wants to tell you anyway.
Which . . . . . you know . . .
. . . typical :rotate:
So, it's Mansplaining: The Movie?
It's trying to shame the audience into watching hot chicks with revealing costumes pose seductively then thinks its being deep about Feminism, man.
edit: There, you've seen the best sequences in the movie.
The Bechdel test is also a hillariously low baseline for talking about gender equity in film. As such, it's only useful for separating the absolute worst cases of gender exclusion from the rest of the pack.
Not even that, it's a measurement to demonstrate how male-oriented films are in general.
Like, as much as people think they contain strong female role models, most of the Star Wars films don't pass the test.
Eh. The Bechdel Test is fairly useless in the specific imo because of shit like this.
It's interesting on a macro level but it's not necessarily good or bad if a specific film passes or fails the test.
There's a more truncated macro context that it's pretty useful for, such as the roles for women within a long-running franchise or within a specific director's preferred troupe of actors.
Such as, my favorite directors are--by far--the Coen brothers; however, while they've created many, many great roles for female characters (most of them for Frances McDormand), almost none of their films past the Bechdel test. That is neither a binary good or bad thing (especially since they rarely seem to objectify women in their films, and they write those characters strongly and memorably), but it is something interesting to think about and try to deconstruct on an academic level, even if it's mostly supposition. Many of the themes of their films deal in subverting or undermining traditional masculine ideals, often with the most typical masculine archetypes being enemies or foils to the main characters. In their own way, they are very much commenting frequently on the pathetic fragility of the male self-image, but instead of offering a POV from the usual victim of male ego (i.e.--women), they offer up alternative versions of masculinity that typically end up rewarded for their differentiation and character.
Yeah, this is how I look at it and why the common use of the test annoys me. Whether something passes the test of not is interesting, it can help you think about what a particular film or series or films are doing, but it's not necessarily a good or bad thing on it's own. It tends to get used as some sort of "sexist vs not-sexist" test most of the time though sadly.
At the macro level I think it's still useful on that account though as the sheer number of films that don't pass it I think suggests something about the film industry as a whole. Because a film doesn't have to pass the test to not be a hot mess on the subject of women, I think on average most films if they have well written female characters probably should pass the test.
So, yeah, a good converse example is Sucker Punch, which is ostensibly a "feminist" movie that passes the Bechdel Test every five seconds, and it's hot garbage.
Sucker Punch is a feminist movie the same way Birth of a Nation (1915) is a thoughtful commentary on racial politics.
Sucker Punch is a feminist movie made by a man who doesn't understand what feminism is but wants to tell you anyway.
Which . . . . . you know . . .
. . . typical :rotate:
So, it's Mansplaining: The Movie?
It's trying to shame the audience into watching hot chicks with revealing costumes pose seductively then thinks its being deep about Feminism, man.
Guilt Boner: The Mansplanation
+12
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
I watched most of Sucker Punch. I mean, I sat through the whole thing, but I would often stray my attention because the movie was boring.
I didn't understand it, was rull stupid. And if the whole thing is the moments before she gets a lobotomy then that just makes it insufferable.
Oh spoilers, like anyone gives a shit about spoilers for Sucker Punch.
It amuses me to no end that our movie threads can't go six months without mentioning Sucker Punch. Of course this time it wasn't brought up as a good example of something.
It amuses me to no end that our movie threads can't go six months without mentioning Sucker Punch. Of course this time it wasn't brought up as a good example of something.
Posts
. . . and Louis Jordan is standing right next to him going, "Motherfucker, please,"
the Bechdel Test is failed if the two women are talking about male characters
I thought it was failed if all the interactions between women were about men, not just one?
From what I remember, the first Underworld movie was pretty much Toreadors versus Get of Fenris.
Indeed it is.
it fails if the only interactions are about men
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Not even that, it's a measurement to demonstrate how male-oriented films are in general.
Like, as much as people think they contain strong female role models, most of the Star Wars films don't pass the test.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
And then they butcher "Babe" by Styx. Just......decimate it with an out of place full length cover that is usually suited for final act feels but pushed in here to showcase the Two Nepotismteers. My heart shatters.
This is just a good case of Smith trying to do too much and gets nothing right. Teen Clerks could work, even with a murderer angle thrown in (with a stupid fucking man bun too) to stand out a bit more. Instead you get incredibly annoying Bratzis (waste of a good pun) and characters, half of which are real life family members of Smith and Depp, appearing for five minutes of quips only to disappear forever before you get some bad, bad, bad special effects. Johnny Depp, as french detective who really is showing he just did this to help his daughter and is still using his Whitey Bulger voice as a template, isn't really there in any manner other than for people to go "hey that's Johnny Depp!". And yet he's still able to steal every scene he's in because the two daughters just aren't that good. I'm positive I'm grading a little harder because it's such blatant nepotism but neither stands out or has good delivery or really have any characterization other than social media ditzes.
Kevin Smith tries to mash Clerks and Scott Pilgrim together with Iron Sky, it's not good. It's hella basic. He should be sorey. I have to listen to Babe fifteen times now to try and wash out the tragedy it went through for this film.
I can definitely see why Leia became the icon she is, but those movies were crazily skewed toward male characters.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
It's more about trends than specific movies. And Neither do most Marvel movies, which are 40 years later.
Frankly I think his comedy has gone way downhill since he started smoking pot.
His implosion goes back further than that, it was with Jersey Girl. He never recovered from the critics massacring it.
Tusk was unwatchable dreck
He is!
Perfect Blue is an interesting horror/mindfuck, but I thought it leaned on its central conceit too hard, it was a little too clever for its own good. You can really notice how much it inspired Black Swan though. It's definitely worth a watch, but it's his earliest and I think his weakest movie.
Tokyo Godfathers is a bit lighter, but is really really enjoyable. Just a really nice movie. Kon wasn't a Christian afaik, but this is totally a great Christmas movie anyway.
Millennium Actress is theoretically the career retrospective of a single (fictional) Japanese actress, but it's also about the way pop culture is remembered in personal memories, and how the personal in turn shapes art, as well as a look back at Japan's incredibly rocky 20th century. Like Paprika it is very very inventive (I mean, all of Kon's movies are, but Paprika and MA are especially so), but it's more soulful than Paprika. Some of the full implications may take a bit of familiarity with Japanese history though.
ed; aaa Kana beat me to it!
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Ed oh snap, I guess that was just in the UK?
Eh. The Bechdel Test is fairly useless in the specific imo because of shit like this.
It's interesting on a macro level but it's not necessarily good or bad if a specific film passes or fails the test.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
There's a more truncated macro context that it's pretty useful for, such as the roles for women within a long-running franchise or within a specific director's preferred troupe of actors.
Such as, my favorite directors are--by far--the Coen brothers; however, while they've created many, many great roles for female characters (most of them for Frances McDormand), almost none of their films past the Bechdel test. That is neither a binary good or bad thing (especially since they rarely seem to objectify women in their films, and they write those characters strongly and memorably), but it is something interesting to think about and try to deconstruct on an academic level, even if it's mostly supposition. Many of the themes of their films deal in subverting or undermining traditional masculine ideals, often with the most typical masculine archetypes being enemies or foils to the main characters. In their own way, they are very much commenting frequently on the pathetic fragility of the male self-image, but instead of offering a POV from the usual victim of male ego (i.e.--women), they offer up alternative versions of masculinity that typically end up rewarded for their differentiation and character.
Yeah, this is how I look at it and why the common use of the test annoys me. Whether something passes the test of not is interesting, it can help you think about what a particular film or series or films are doing, but it's not necessarily a good or bad thing on it's own. It tends to get used as some sort of "sexist vs not-sexist" test most of the time though sadly.
At the macro level I think it's still useful on that account though as the sheer number of films that don't pass it I think suggests something about the film industry as a whole. Because a film doesn't have to pass the test to not be a hot mess on the subject of women, I think on average most films if they have well written female characters probably should pass the test.
So, yeah, a good converse example is Sucker Punch, which is ostensibly a "feminist" movie that passes the Bechdel Test every five seconds, and it's hot garbage.
Sucker Punch is a feminist movie the same way Birth of a Nation (1915) is a thoughtful commentary on racial politics.
Sucker Punch is a feminist movie made by a man who doesn't understand what feminism is but wants to tell you anyway.
Which . . . . . you know . . .
. . . typical :rotate:
It takes talent to misuse Emily Browning like that. It's a pity since that movie proved to me she should be a brilliant action hero.
So, it's Mansplaining: The Movie?
It's trying to shame the audience into watching hot chicks with revealing costumes pose seductively then thinks its being deep about Feminism, man.
edit: There, you've seen the best sequences in the movie.
Guilt Boner: The Mansplanation
I didn't understand it, was rull stupid. And if the whole thing is the moments before she gets a lobotomy then that just makes it insufferable.
Oh spoilers, like anyone gives a shit about spoilers for Sucker Punch.
It's that or Prometheus.
I might whisper of The Incredibles AKA Ayn Rand for Kids while doing it.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods