The Bechdel Test

[Graham Kennedy]

You may have heard of this. If not, it's a truly fascinating little insight into how Hollywood depicts life.

The Bechdel test was devised some years ago as a measure of how relevant women are in movies and TV. It's not meant to be a measure of whether something is all feminist and politically correct or anything like that - a film can pass the test easily and still be a misogynistic piece of trash, or fail it and be a feminist screed. It's really just meant to demonstrate that whether a film is good or bad, feminist or not, it will be so more often than not because of how the men act in it. The women, if they are there at all, are largely irrelevant to what is happening. That's actually the fascinating and surprising thing about the Bechdel test - just how low a bar it sets, and yet just how many movies and TV shows still fail it.

The test is three simple questions. You pass if you can answer all three with a yes :

1) Does the work contain two or more female characters significant enough to have names?
2) Do they talk to one another at any point?
3) Is the conversation about something other than a man?

And that's it.

Now think about just how many films fail this test. For instance The Amazing Spiderman, The Dark Knight Rises, The Grey, The Hobbit, Looper, Men in Black III, Red Dawn, Sinister, Red Tails, Ted, Total Recall and Wrath of the Titans all fail the Bechdel test. Even those films those that do pass it, most squeak through - roughly half the films that pass do so because two women talk about marriage or babies without directly mentioning men. Even "women's shows" routinely fail the test; hilariously, many episodes of "Sex in the City" fail the Bechdel test because the women talk about nothing but men.

I have to say, coming across this really made me view movies in a different light. I found it quite interesting, and thought I'd see what others thought. Does your favourite movie pass the Bechdel test?

[stitch626]

Interestingly, the horrific Sharktopus passes.

Also my current favorite TV show Arrow passes... most episodes at least.

[RK_Striker_JK_5]

I've heard of it. Hobbit, really? Hmm... I just remember Galadriel in it and some non-speaking elves, now that I ponder it.

[Teaos]

Interesting. But I have to wonder does it matter.

I'm going to sound a little sexiest saying this, but if all woman films are about woman talking about men ect and guy films are about action and adventure might it be because that is what they like?

Sure hollywood forces crap on us, but if films about woman doing normal everyday stuff were smash hits we would probably see more of them.

[Atekimogus]

I'm going to sound a little sexiest saying this, but if all woman films are about woman talking about men ect and guy films are about action and adventure might it be because that is what they like?

I think you have a point here. Now from the list of the movies GK gave us I would say ALL of them are exclusivly geared for a male audience so it shouldn't be a big surprise.

Now what would be interesting is if movies pass this test which were complete geared towards a female audience, like the Twilight crap, or maybe Hunger Games? Not sure about the last one though, just assuming it's more of a chick-flick just from reading the synopsis.

[Teaos]

Hunger games pases the test. But I wouldnt say it is geared to woman, it just has a strong female lead and one or two secondary female characters.

It is a good movie if you want to catch it latter.

[Atekimogus]

Maybe I'll give it a try. Just glancing over what it is all about though I had the feeling it's less about a postapocalyptic gladiator,running man sci-fi premise but more about a girl torn between two guys and having feelings and stuff but maybe the short summery of the books I read was just inaccurate...

Now I love a strong female lead like in Alien1-2 but most of the time they just cannot get it right.

[Teaos]

The movie is very little romance and much more killer wasps.

[Tsukiyumi]

Now I love a strong female lead like in Alien1-2 but most of the time they just cannot get it right.

Hey, both of those movies pass the test.

[Atekimogus]

Well I DID bring them as a positive example:)

[stitch626]

None of the OT Star Wars pass the test (unless unidentifiable as female aliens count).

However, Batman and Robin does pass the test.




Now, does it count if the name is in the script but not said on screen? For example, in The Amazing Spider-man, Gwen's mom had a name in the script, though I cannot recall if it was said on screen.


To be honest, this test is pointless, seems more of a thought exercise than anything else. Because all the result of this test tells you about a movie is the results of this test. They have no higher meaning.

[Tyyr]

To be honest, this test is pointless, seems more of a thought exercise than anything else. Because all the result of this test tells you about a movie is the results of this test. They have no higher meaning.

The problem is that the test has to be hard coded to allow for a simple litmus test type... test. So the question has to be "Do they have a conversation that is not about men?" rather than something a bit more telling like, "Are the majority of woman to woman conversations in the film non-vagina centric?"

I get where it's coming from. Are there women of significance in the movie and do they talk about non-stereotypical "woman" things. Do they move the plot, are they well rounded characters? The problem is that boiling it down to a simple pass fail test takes away the meat of it, the discussion and point of it all, to reduce it to pretty much a meme.

[Graham Kennedy]

To be honest, this test is pointless, seems more of a thought exercise than anything else. Because all the result of this test tells you about a movie is the results of this test. They have no higher meaning.

I think it's quite revealing. As I said earlier, it's not about how good the film is per se. Altering a movie so it passes the test doesn't make it a better movie, or even a less sexist movie. But I do think it illustrates an attitude towards women, that they are largely there to be a decorative addendum, or at most to be the thing the good guy is fighting for - essentially, women are thought of largely in terms of how they relate to men, and only rarely in terms of how they relate to one another. It is a rare story indeed that has multiple, developed, relevant female characters who have some part in advancing the story. And this is not an accident. This is done on purpose. So the question is... why is that?

[Atekimogus]

Well maybe because most movies do not have a large ensemble cast, so to integrate multiple female well rounded characters is (or including multiple well rounded characters regardless of sex) rather hard to do.

What if you have two well rounded female characters who - to advance the plot - must have a conversation about a third person which happens to be a man? If a movie has three main characters (which already is A LOT) it follows that you need two females to satisfy the test, which leaves either a third female for an all female movie or a male third cast member in which case it's not hard to imagine that most of their conversations at least includes a bit of the third character....

Quite easy to fail this test in a movie imho where you have severe time and character limitations. Far more suitable and revealing would be checking which TV-shows fail this tests. Tv shows have most of the time a far larger cast and or guest actors, more time to explore characters etc.

But in the end the test itself seems a bit sexist to me...what relevance is it who the subject of a conversation is or between which persons this conversation happens? I have sometimes conversations with women about men and women, and sometimes with men about women and men ...it just so happens that you talk with and about persons of both sexes.....so I am a bit lost to see the point. If some women are in a film purley for decoration I need no bechdel test to see that....

[Graham Kennedy]

Well maybe because most movies do not have a large ensemble cast, so to integrate multiple female well rounded characters is (or including multiple well rounded characters regardless of sex) rather hard to do.

But then if that's the case why does it so rarely work the other way around? Why is it so rarely that there is so little room for male characters in films?

What if you have two well rounded female characters who - to advance the plot - must have a conversation about a third person which happens to be a man?

Then it would fail the test. Like I said before, the point is not that an individual movie is bad for failing the test or good for passing it. The point is that large numbers of movies fail it, but virtually none would ever fail the male version.

Quite easy to fail this test in a movie imho where you have severe time and character limitations. Far more suitable and revealing would be checking which TV-shows fail this tests. Tv shows have most of the time a far larger cast and or guest actors, more time to explore characters etc.

But again, if it is a genuine issue like that then why does it almost never apply to males?

I got to thinking about Star Trek TNG. There are ENDLESS examples in next generation where male characters talk about all sorts of things - the problem of the week, the moralising point of the week, how Data can be more human, how Wesley is special, how Worf is honourable, whatever. Throw in guest cast and we are probably talking several conversations per episode, for 170 or so episodes - probably five hundred or more conversations.

But how many times do you remember Beverly and Troi actually talking to one another about anything at all? I like to think I have a good knowledge of TNG and I can think of only two examples off the top of my head - The Price, where they exercised together and had a lengthy conversation about Troi's new love interest, and The Host, where they sit in 10 Forward and have a conversation about Crusher's Trill boyfriend. Perhaps there were others along the way, but I certainly don't remember any. Do you?

And what would they even talk about, really? I could list you a dozen interests and hobbies Picard had, and a bunch Riker had, and a bunch Data had. But in 170 episodes can you name me even ONE thing we ever learned about Beverly Crusher that didn't relate to how she felt about dead hubby Jack, or son Wesley, or unrequited not-quite-crush Picard?

But in the end the test itself seems a bit sexist to me...what relevance is it who the subject of a conversation is or between which persons this conversation happens? I have sometimes conversations with women about men and women, and sometimes with men about women and men ...it just so happens that you talk with and about persons of both sexes.....so I am a bit lost to see the point. If some women are in a film purley for decoration I need no bechdel test to see that....

That kind of is the point. You sometimes have conversations with women about men and women, and sometimes with men about women and men. But in movies that doesn't happen. Or at least, it only happens rarely. In movies one particular type of interaction is largely absent. And this is NOT a result of random chance. This is on purpose.

Here's an article by a woman who took up screenwriting and what she had to say about it.

"...something wrong with my writing, something unanticipated by my professors. My scripts had multiple women with names. Talking to each other. About something other than men. That, they explained nervously, was not okay. I asked why. Well, it would be more accurate to say I politely demanded a thorough, logical explanation that made sense for a change (I’d found the “audience won’t watch women!” argument pretty questionable, with its ever-shifting reasons and parameters).

At first I got several tentative murmurings about how it distracted from the flow or point of the story. I went through this with more than one professor, more than one industry professional. Finally, I got one blessedly telling explanation from an industry pro: “The audience doesn’t want to listen to a bunch of women talking about whatever it is women talk about.”

“Not even if it advances the story?” I asked. That’s rule number one in screenwriting, though you’d never know it from watching most movies: every moment in a script should reveal another chunk of the story and keep it moving.

He just looked embarrassed and said, “I mean, that’s not how I see it, that’s how they see it.”"