I’ve disagreed with so many men and women on the same topics that sex is not a useful division for me (although it really never has been).

That’s true the vast majority of the time for me as well, but there are a few topics where sex can be a useful predictor of how people will relate to a subject. For example, a person who has never had testicles will almost certainly relate to “Fight Club” differently than someone who has, simply because so much of the movie is balls-and-testosterone-themed. By the same token I will never be able to fully appreciate “The Vagina Monologues” in the same way that a woman could.

Again the test is NOT about revealing if a movie is sexist or feminist or even if its a watchable movie (let alone an actually good film). All the test does is see if there is a minimum level of female presence in the story. If a movie passes, after that you have to evaluate it to see if its sexism, feminist, well written etc etc.

I can think of a few… but they may not do the feminist cause much good…

How many films don’t make the fat man the butt of jokes?

How many show a man who DOESN’T engage in violence at some point?

How many show a black man who isn’t either a wise old sage for white folks or a hip-hop streetwise type?

What films show a plain or even chubby woman as the romantic heroine?

You might be able to come up with a handful but that is about it.

When re-viewing my antique flicks I shall try to remember and apply this test, to see if my hypothesis is correct.

And example would be Terminator 1 and 2. Both are about strong female heroines. The first one doesn’t have 2 named women that interact (that I recall). In the second movie, there is one scene where Sarah Connor and Tarissa Dyson do interact, but they’re talking about men not understanding the power of creation, as opposed to destruction, and the Termintor (a “man”). So does that fail the Bechtel test?

And some of the movie posters I see in her little montage I had a couple of issues with weather or not those movies really do pass the test. Ghostbusters for one, I’m pretty sure Dana talks to Janine about her apartment being haunted.

Sarah Connor “needs rescuing” in the first movie?

Yep, I’m pretty sure that was the basic premise of the entire film. Why else would Kyle Reese need to travel through time to protect/bone her? Yes, she ultimately kills the evil robot… after the hero has sacrificed his life to disable it.

It’s also worth noting that it’s Michael Biehn’s name, not Linda Hamilton’s, that gets second billing after Schwarzenegger.

There was a discussion somewhere on the AV Club (I think?) on this same topic which I read recently, which is probably why I’m reacting to this so much. The special quality of Fight Club is that while parts of it are tightly one-sex-focused, its other themes are so broad — modern detachment in home and the workplace, consumerism, alienation stemming from oppressive gender roles and expectations, etc. It creates an interesting dynamic when people come together to discuss why they relate to it … they tend to agree and disagree, vehemently, at the same time.

It is not the purpose of a film or a book to provide positive role models for anyone. Some of the greatest films provide nothing but negative role models and stereotypes. Analysis of this kind is worthwhile as an observation, but I would hate to see any artist spend time worrying about this kind of thing.

Or they are feminists who wish to obliterate their femininity. In this case they are just not pleasant to be around at all, because they are constantly defensive and at the same time trying to make all men feel unnecessary unless they are in complete servitude to a woman, or gay.

That says a lot about you and nothing about women.

But they make men the center and entire purpose of the female characters’ lives. If a woman doesn’t talk to another woman about anything other than a man, during the entire movie, then the movie really is about men, even if the main character is a woman — because her entire life is about men.

Another side of that is that the leads — which may be men — inevitably have more complex lives. Side characters, which may often be women, tend to be more one-note.

I wonder how many of the movies that “fail” the test simply had male protagonists, and how many of the movies that pass the test simply had female protagonists. It makes perfect sense for a movie to focus on its protagonist, with the vast majority of conversations being about them in some way.

And why is it that protagonists are more often men, and side characters more often women?

And then there are movies that just aren’t about women, or even where the woman being treated casually is part of a point (the screenshot shows Fight Club, the example I’m thinking of).

And why are there so many movies that just aren’t about women or treat women casually to make a point, and almost no movies that just aren’t about men or treat men casually to make a point?

I guess the question is, is it a problem, or merely a difference? I strongly believe in equality in all forms, but does equality imply that societal gender roles have to be identical, in art as well as real life? I know this reeks of “separate but equal”, but can’t we celebrate our differences as much as we embrace our similarities?

Are you seriously arguing that real life doesn’t pass the Bechdel Test? That it’s just normal for men to have conversations that aren’t with or about women, but it’s unrealistic to think that women would actually have conversations that aren’t with or about men?

Because if you are, yeah. That reeks.

By T2, however, girlfriend don’t need no help from the future. Young Johnny, however, is a different story.

For example,
Casablanca: Fail
Barb Wire: Pass

Essentially, these are the same movie plotwise, but with one starring Humphrey Bogart, and the other starring Pamela Anderson. One I’ll watch many times, and one I’m embarrassed to have even seen once.

This test may have some value, but anyone who would rather see Barb Wire instead of Casablanca should reconsider their moviegoing priorities.

If a woman doesn’t talk to another woman about anything other than a man, during the entire movie, then the movie really is about men, even if the main character is a woman — because her entire life is about men.

I understand the point, but the way you’re saying this, you can have a romantic comedy which is really only about men and really only about women. More likely, it’s really only about romance.

Romances are not good candidates for this test.

“And why are there so many movies that just aren’t about women or treat women casually to make a point, and almost no movies that just aren’t about men or treat men casually to make a point?”

I don’t know. I think the (potential) causes for both those issues are so numerous and so complex in their depth and interaction that I can’t really address them myself, partly because of the sheer breadth of subject matter, but also because I don’t think I know enough to really say so intelligently. I agree and disagree with so many bits of so many people’s opinions on this particular issue that my comments would only be repetitious. So I’ve stayed away from it in my comments.

All I point out in my first comment that the contrast in complexity/importance between lead and secondary characters is from the nature of the roles. A lead, by definition, gets more screen time, a bigger chunk of the narrative, and thus is more likely to be more nuanced. That one category tends to be more populated with one gender or another is not really within the purview of my comments.

I think it’s well within a writer’s rights to be human when it comes to nurturing a lead over a side character. I pointed out this particular fallacy of the Bechedel test because it unfairly maligns some works.

“And why are there so many movies that just aren’t about women or treat women casually to make a point, and almost no movies that just aren’t about men or treat men casually to make a point?”

I don’t know, for the reasons I’ve listed above re: depth/complexity of the causes. But I do know that because someone else didn’t choose to make those non-existent movies you’re talking about, it doesn’t mean that a film like Fight Club can’t exist. I think it’s problematic to suggest that an individual work needs to suffer for its choices because a countering work doesn’t exist yet.

And thank you for simply amalgamating my comments with others, and without attribution, thus making it more difficult for me to respond appropriately.

Hannah and Her Sisters
Gone With The Wind
Terms Of Endearment
Streetcar Named Desire

What do these movies have in common? Issues of mothers and daughters and/or sibling rivalry (I know that’s a pretty lame distillation for “Streetcar” but you know what I mean).

This certainly doesn’t disprove the theory, just to suggest that great movies have been made in Hollywood (and New York) which pass the test. And I think most people would say these are WILDLY differing movies.

This brings up an interesting point – Some of the great world directors – Bergman, especially, created moviews with strong female relationships. Fellini..eh, not so much!

To what end? Minimum level of female presence…for what?

I’m kind of sad to see things like the Lord of the Rings on there, but I’m not really surprised either. I agree with Lisa in that it’s just something I’d never really thought about.