WEBVTT

00:00:04.796 --> 00:00:08.342
It's been a few years since I’ve checked in with The Bechdel Test For Women in Movies

00:00:08.342 --> 00:00:10.469
so I thought I’d be a good time to look in on Hollywood

00:00:10.469 --> 00:00:14.640
and see if there's been any substantial improvement in women's representations on the big screen.

00:00:14.640 --> 00:00:20.229
One way to do this is to apply the test to the films that have been nominated for best picture in the 2011 Academy Awards,

00:00:20.229 --> 00:00:23.398
since the Oscars are widely regarded as the “best of the best”

00:00:23.398 --> 00:00:25.817
at least as determined by the industry itself.

00:00:25.817 --> 00:00:30.155
But before I get to that, here’s a quick refresher on what the Bechdel Test is and how it works.

00:00:30.155 --> 00:00:34.064
The Bechdel Test is a very basic gauge to measure women's relevance to a film's plot

00:00:34.064 --> 00:00:36.850
and generally to assess female presence in Hollywood movies.

00:00:36.850 --> 00:00:41.517
It was popularized by Allison Bechdel in her comic Dykes to Watch Out For back in 1985.

00:00:41.517 --> 00:00:45.767
In order to pass the test a film just needs to fulfill these three, very simple, criteria:

00:00:45.767 --> 00:00:49.049
A movie has to have at least two women in it who have names,

00:00:49.049 --> 00:00:50.480
who talk to each other,

00:00:50.480 --> 00:00:52.431
about something besides a man.

00:00:52.431 --> 00:00:53.638
Pretty simple right?

00:00:53.638 --> 00:00:56.765
I mean this is really the absolute lowest that we could possibly set the bar

00:00:56.765 --> 00:00:59.268
for women’s meaningful presence in movies.

00:00:59.268 --> 00:01:01.228
Let’s remember that this was made as a bit of a joke

00:01:01.228 --> 00:01:05.649
to make fun of the fact that there are so few movies with significant female characters in them.

00:01:05.649 --> 00:01:08.068
The reason the test has become so important in recent years

00:01:08.068 --> 00:01:12.447
is because it actually does highlight a serious and ongoing problem within the entertainment industry.

00:01:12.447 --> 00:01:15.867
So with that in mind, let’s take a look at the Academy Award best picture nominees

00:01:15.867 --> 00:01:18.745
for 2011 and see how they measure up to the Bechdel Test.

00:01:18.745 --> 00:01:20.596
First up the Descendents.

00:01:20.596 --> 00:01:23.754
It’s a story of a father pulling his family through a crisis.

00:01:23.754 --> 00:01:27.129
The mother is basically fridged before the opening credits even finish rolling

00:01:27.129 --> 00:01:29.923
to provide the catalyst for the father figure’s growth.

00:01:29.923 --> 00:01:34.469
This film does pass the test because of a handful of brief interactions between female characters,

00:01:34.469 --> 00:01:37.556
including between the two daughters, Alex and Scotty.

00:01:37.556 --> 00:01:42.894
Moneyball is a story about an American League baseball team centered around their general manager Billy Beane.

00:01:42.894 --> 00:01:47.566
It fails the test badly, not even having two female characters speak to each other at all.

00:01:47.566 --> 00:01:51.153
Even so it’s a surprisingly funny and captivating movie.

00:01:51.153 --> 00:01:54.323
Tree of Life is a more experimental film about a boy and his family.

00:01:54.323 --> 00:01:57.563
It fails the test because the only brief scene where two women talk,

00:01:57.563 --> 00:02:00.329
the conversation is about the death of the family's son.

00:02:00.329 --> 00:02:03.165
While it's true there's very little dialogue in the film as a whole,

00:02:03.165 --> 00:02:06.340
the father and the son do speak to each other on multiple occasions.

00:02:06.340 --> 00:02:11.262
Hugo is a whimsical film about an orphan boy trying to solve a mystery left by his father.

00:02:11.262 --> 00:02:14.134
And while there are two named female characters who speak to each other,

00:02:14.134 --> 00:02:17.253
their conversation is always in relationship to a man

00:02:17.253 --> 00:02:21.391
except this one 5 second interaction that some might argue constitutes a pass.

00:02:21.391 --> 00:02:25.896
Isabelle: You were an actress? A real cinema actress, it’s impossibly romantic mama.

00:02:25.896 --> 00:02:30.609
Mama: It wasn’t like that, we weren’t movie stars like they have today.

00:02:30.609 --> 00:02:34.446
If while at the theater you drop your box of junior mints, and by the time you pick em up

00:02:34.446 --> 00:02:37.919
you’ve missed the one scene in the whole film where women actually talk to each other,

00:02:37.919 --> 00:02:40.009
there’s something clearly wrong.

00:02:40.009 --> 00:02:43.167
Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close also fails the test.

00:02:43.167 --> 00:02:47.376
It follows the story of a boy dealing with the trauma of losing his father on 9/11.

00:02:47.376 --> 00:02:51.340
Two women never talk to each other about anything other than the boy.

00:02:51.340 --> 00:02:55.752
In classic Woody Allan style, Midnight in Paris is about a man struggling to discover himself

00:02:55.752 --> 00:02:58.011
and while there’s a handful of women in the picture,

00:02:58.011 --> 00:03:01.848
they never really discuss anything other than men and men's influence on their lives.

00:03:01.848 --> 00:03:05.760
Some critics have argued that this scene between Inez and her mother constitutes a pass.

00:03:05.760 --> 00:03:10.102
Helen: Come look at these Inez. Wouldn’t these be charming in a Malibu beach house?

00:03:10.102 --> 00:03:11.286
Inez: oh

00:03:11.286 --> 00:03:12.493
Helen: Combien monsieur?

00:03:12.493 --> 00:03:14.119
Shop Owner: dix-huit mille

00:03:14.119 --> 00:03:15.280
Helen : Merci

00:03:15.280 --> 00:03:16.154
Inez : What is that?

00:03:16.154 --> 00:03:17.669
Helen: They’re a steal at 18,000 dollars.

00:03:17.669 --> 00:03:20.575
Gil: 18,000 dollars for this!?

00:03:20.575 --> 00:03:21.828
Helen: Oh wait it’s euros…

00:03:21.828 --> 00:03:26.123
But as you’ll notice Owen Wilson’s character and the shop keeper are also involved in the interaction.

00:03:26.123 --> 00:03:27.749
So I’d say it fails.

00:03:27.749 --> 00:03:30.794
But I'll come back to this one line question later in the video

00:03:30.794 --> 00:03:32.834
What’s even more embarrassing about this film

00:03:32.834 --> 00:03:37.092
is that one of the most important historical figures that Gil interacts with is Gertrude Stein.

00:03:37.092 --> 00:03:39.010
For those of you who aren’t familiar with her,

00:03:39.010 --> 00:03:42.772
Stein is one of the most famous writers and lesbians in American history,

00:03:42.772 --> 00:03:47.727
and Woody Allan has the nerve to not have her speak to another female character in the entire film.

00:03:47.727 --> 00:03:49.980
War Horse is a story about a boy and his horse.

00:03:49.980 --> 00:03:51.619
It fails.

00:03:51.619 --> 00:03:53.316
So moving on.

00:03:53.316 --> 00:03:56.903
The Help is a woman centered story with a large female cast,

00:03:56.903 --> 00:03:58.780
there’s no doubt that this film passes the test.

00:03:58.780 --> 00:04:03.285
While the film is deeply problematic when it comes to portraying issues of racism in America,

00:04:03.285 --> 00:04:07.831
both Viola Davis and Octavia Spencer give incredible and moving performances.

00:04:07.831 --> 00:04:11.426
Finally, we have the The Artist, which it’s true, is a silent film.

00:04:11.426 --> 00:04:16.418
So you might be asking how we do apply the Bechdel Test to a film without any spoken dialogue?

00:04:16.418 --> 00:04:20.510
Well in classic Silent movie style characters do communicate with each other

00:04:20.510 --> 00:04:22.177
via title cards,

00:04:22.177 --> 00:04:23.221
mouthing words,

00:04:23.221 --> 00:04:26.850
facial expressions, physical gestures and pantomime.

00:04:26.850 --> 00:04:30.896
So for this one I’ll accept any non-verbal communication between two women

00:04:30.896 --> 00:04:34.019
that has any significance to the plot that’s not about a man.

00:04:34.019 --> 00:04:36.898
And amazingly… it still fails.

00:04:36.898 --> 00:04:41.656
It looks like out of the 9 best picture nominees in 2011 only 2 clearly pass the bechdel test,

00:04:41.656 --> 00:04:44.451
while 2 others are questionable about one line.

00:04:44.451 --> 00:04:48.288
And notably only one film nominated is female centered.

00:04:48.288 --> 00:04:50.081
Coming back to Hugo and Midnight in Paris,

00:04:50.081 --> 00:04:54.917
unfortunately, discussions and debates surrounding the Bechdel test often descend into quibbling over whether

00:04:54.917 --> 00:04:59.514
one brief and questionable exchange makes a movie pass the test or not.

00:04:59.514 --> 00:05:02.254
It’s not really necessary to get bogged down in the minutia

00:05:02.254 --> 00:05:05.305
of whether one 10 second scene constitutes “talking to each other”.

00:05:05.305 --> 00:05:07.682
If there’s really that much of a debate about this point,

00:05:07.682 --> 00:05:12.169
then it’s a pretty good indicator that there’s a problem with women’s representation in the movie.

00:05:12.169 --> 00:05:13.772
So, in the spirit of the Bechdel test,

00:05:13.772 --> 00:05:16.836
I'd like to respectfully propose adding a small addendum:

00:05:16.836 --> 00:05:19.158
A film has to have two named women who speak to each other

00:05:19.158 --> 00:05:23.082
for longer than 60 seconds about something besides a man.

00:05:23.082 --> 00:05:25.335
This new 60 second rule would help to clarify the test

00:05:25.335 --> 00:05:28.539
and resolve some of the quibbles over one or two lines

00:05:28.539 --> 00:05:31.883
and if two women do speak to each other for more then 60 seconds

00:05:31.883 --> 00:05:35.544
there’s a slightly better chance that the dialogue will have some relevance to the plot,

00:05:35.544 --> 00:05:37.170
maybe.

00:05:37.170 --> 00:05:43.385
I mean, its only 1 minute out of a 90 or 120 minute film that we’re talking about here, it’s still a really low bar.

00:05:43.385 --> 00:05:47.430
Passing films still wouldn’t necessarily have substantial female roles

00:05:47.430 --> 00:05:50.976
it would make it harder for a movie to squeak by on a technicality.

00:05:50.976 --> 00:05:54.187
For example if we look at the Best Picture nominees from 2010,

00:05:54.187 --> 00:05:57.065
6 out of the 10 nominees might arguably get by

00:05:57.065 --> 00:06:01.047
but if we apply the new 60 second rule we find that half of them wouldn’t make the cut at all.

00:06:01.047 --> 00:06:06.620
The three 2010 films that DO pass the test with women who speak to each other for more then 60 seconds

00:06:06.620 --> 00:06:10.799
about something other then a man are all actually female centered films.

00:06:10.799 --> 00:06:13.957
And if you haven’t seen Winter’s Bone yet, put it at the top of your list.

00:06:13.957 --> 00:06:16.585
In addition to being beautifully shot and well acted,

00:06:16.585 --> 00:06:21.590
I highly recommend it for its complex portrayal of gender and poverty in rural America.

00:06:21.590 --> 00:06:25.135
Interestingly, even though True Grit is a female centered story,

00:06:25.135 --> 00:06:28.865
following the adventures of Mattie Ross struggling to get by in a man’s world,

00:06:28.865 --> 00:06:32.115
when we apply the 60 second rule the film doesn’t pass.

00:06:32.115 --> 00:06:36.527
In fact the only exchange she has with any other woman is with Mrs. Floyd the innkeeper

00:06:36.527 --> 00:06:39.778
and those incidental interactions total less than a minute.

00:06:39.778 --> 00:06:43.528
This style of film where the female lead inhabits an almost entirely male world,

00:06:43.528 --> 00:06:48.491
brings to mind the Smurfette Principle which I’ve discussed in my Tropes vs Women video series.

00:06:48.491 --> 00:06:51.953
Again, to be clear this test does not gauge the quality of a film,

00:06:51.953 --> 00:06:57.208
it doesn’t determine whether a film is feminist or not, and it doesn’t even determine whether a film is woman centered.

00:06:57.208 --> 00:06:59.085
Some pretty awful movies including ones that have

00:06:59.085 --> 00:07:03.840
stereotypical and/or sexist representations of women might pass the test with flying colours

00:07:03.840 --> 00:07:08.316
Where really well made films that I would highly recommend might not.

00:07:08.316 --> 00:07:12.286
The Bechdel test is best when used as a tool to evaluate Hollywood as an institution,

00:07:12.286 --> 00:07:15.444
it can be applied to pretty much any grouping of mainstream movies

00:07:15.444 --> 00:07:21.109
such as the Golden Globes nominees or the top grossing films of any given year, all with similar results.

00:07:21.109 --> 00:07:24.945
The test helps us identify the lack of relevant and meaningful female roles

00:07:24.945 --> 00:07:28.308
as a larger pattern in the film industry as a whole.

00:07:28.308 --> 00:07:32.255
The problem isn’t restricted to any individual movie, director or genre.

00:07:32.255 --> 00:07:34.788
Every once and awhile we get a film like Bridesmaids

00:07:34.788 --> 00:07:40.336
that depict women and women’s relationships with one another in a more genuine and less "chick flicky way”

00:07:40.336 --> 00:07:44.923
but this happens about as often as women are nominated for best director by the Academy.

00:07:44.923 --> 00:07:48.593
In response to the Bechdel Test, I’m often asked, well, what about the reverse?

00:07:48.593 --> 00:07:53.098
“Why isn’t there also a test to determine if two men talk to each other about something other then a woman”.

00:07:53.098 --> 00:07:56.434
The answer to that is simple, the test is meant to indicate a problem,

00:07:56.434 --> 00:08:00.438
and there isn’t a problem with a lack of men interacting with one another.

00:08:00.438 --> 00:08:04.159
The Bechdel test is useful because it can point out an institutional pattern

00:08:04.159 --> 00:08:08.153
and since there’s no problem with men and men’s stories being underrepresented in films,

00:08:08.153 --> 00:08:11.032
the reverse test is useless and irrelevant.

00:08:11.032 --> 00:08:13.865
Women aren’t the only ones marginalized in Hollywood movies,

00:08:13.865 --> 00:08:16.791
so one variation on the Bechdel Test that is actually useful

00:08:16.791 --> 00:08:20.645
is applying the test to the development and presence of characters of colour.

00:08:20.645 --> 00:08:25.498
Alaya Dawn Johnson adapted the test to ask if a movie has two or more people of colour in it,

00:08:25.498 --> 00:08:28.967
who talk to each other about something other than a white person.

00:08:28.967 --> 00:08:31.884
The percentage of films that pass this test is extremely small,

00:08:31.884 --> 00:08:36.272
even a movie like the Help which stars multiple named women of colour in prominent roles,

00:08:36.272 --> 00:08:42.313
passes by the narrowest of margins because characters are almost always talking to or about white people.

00:08:42.313 --> 00:08:46.609
This variation of the test exposes the fact that Hollywood still basically refuses

00:08:46.609 --> 00:08:50.989
to make movies for a general audience that focuses on the lives of people of colour,

00:08:50.989 --> 00:08:54.159
unless it also stars a sympathetic white character.

00:08:54.159 --> 00:08:56.126
As Martha Southgate pointed out,

00:08:56.126 --> 00:09:00.537
“Implicit in The Help and a number of other popular works that deal with the civil rights era

00:09:00.537 --> 00:09:06.621
is the notion that a white character is somehow crucial or even necessary to this particular tale of black liberation.”

00:09:06.621 --> 00:09:10.216
So with that in mind, and as I saw on George Takei’s facebook page,

00:09:10.216 --> 00:09:14.632
this may be a slightly more appropriate title for the movie.

00:09:14.632 --> 00:09:20.310
So while it might be comforting to think that the number of important roles for women in Hollywood movies are slowly growing,

00:09:20.310 --> 00:09:22.937
the truth is they’re really not.

00:09:22.937 --> 00:09:28.860
Men are still primarily the studio executives, the writers, the directors and the major decision makers in the industry

00:09:28.860 --> 00:09:31.321
and they tell stories that they can relate to.

00:09:31.321 --> 00:09:36.041
Not surprisingly this results in most movies focusing on men and men's stories.

00:09:36.041 --> 00:09:41.126
So while it might make sense that one specific film like Moneyball is male dominated and male centered

00:09:41.126 --> 00:09:44.417
and they wouldn’t or couldn’t incorporate women as major characters,

00:09:44.417 --> 00:09:49.589
the problem is that the vast majority of movies made in Hollywood are also male centered and male dominated.

00:09:49.589 --> 00:09:52.967
It’s depressingly clear that Hollywood doesn’t prioritize roles for women

00:09:52.967 --> 00:09:55.428
and isn’t interested in telling women’s stories.

00:09:55.428 --> 00:10:01.101
The real solution here is for filmmakers and screen writers to focus more movies on women and women’s lives,

00:10:01.101 --> 00:10:03.440
that’s how we really solve this problem.

00:10:03.440 --> 00:10:06.784
There are literally thousands of compelling, important and courageous

00:10:06.784 --> 00:10:09.710
women’s stories just waiting to be told on the big screen.

00:10:09.710 --> 00:10:12.987
When there are as many stories that center on women, as there are on men,

00:10:12.987 --> 00:10:15.700
then we won’t be have much use for the Bechdel Test anymore,

00:10:15.700 --> 00:10:20.721
but sadly it seems, that’s still a long ways away.

00:10:20.721 --> 00:10:25.453
Feminist Frequency videos are always advertisement free, so I need your help to keep going.

00:10:25.453 --> 00:10:29.784
Please visit feministfrequency.com/donate