--- In [email protected], wrote: > > Re "The Bechdel Test. To pass a film must: > 1. Have at least two women -- with names -- in it > 2. Who talk to each other > 3. About something besides a man": > > What's the point of the Bechdel Test? Some films - war movies? prison movies? - may work best *without* any women. It's a man's world out there.
The point is that in the past very few movies -- of any kind -- *could* pass this test. It's a test for unrecognized sexism in film. From Wikipedia: "Only a small proportion of films pass the Bechdel test, according to writer Charles Stross <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Stross> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bechdel_test#cite_note-Power_2009-19> and film director Jason Reitman <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Reitman> . <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bechdel_test#cite_note-20> According to Mark Harris <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Harris_%28journalist%29> of Entertainment Weekly <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entertainment_Weekly> , if passing the test were mandatory, it would have jeopardized half of 2009's Academy Award for Best Picture <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_Award_for_Best_Picture> nominees." <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bechdel_test#cite_note-EW_6_August_2010-17\ > > The Disney "20,000 Leagues under the Sea" was an all-male, claustrophobic classic - the first "steampunk" movie. The 1997 TV movie version introduced a woman. Now the problem with introducing a woman is that it changes the dynamic of the set-up. A central aspect then becomes: "OK, who's going to end up bedding the girl?". That distraction then diffuses the tension of the major plot theme. That strikes me as a rather sexist statement in itself. Are you actually saying that the only purpose a woman could serve on a submarine is to be fucked by the male crew members?
