[FairfieldLife] Re: A good sign
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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?
[FairfieldLife] Re: A good sign
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita 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: . . . 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? BTW, I commented as I did because the way you phrased what you wrote above was rather telling. You characterized a failure of creative imagination and unrecognized sexism on the part of the writers and creators of the 1997 movie as if it were inevitable. Adding a woman to the cast of a submarine movie, you inferred, is almost by definition a distraction because she inevitably would become a sex object for the men on board. Horseshit. Think about Alien. Or even its sequel Aliens. There was not a moment when anyone in the creative crew (writers, directors, actors) thought, Wow...who is going to get to fuck Ripley? As a result, no one in any of the audiences ever thought it, either. Ripley was one of the strongest female characters ever put on a movie screen, and both men and women reacted to her *as* strong, not as a distraction or something merely added to a primarily male cast as a fuck puppet.
[FairfieldLife] RE: A good sign
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita 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: . . . 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? BTW, I commented as I did because the way you phrased what you wrote above was rather telling. You characterized a failure of creative imagination and unrecognized sexism on the part of the writers and creators of the 1997 movie as if it were inevitable. Adding a woman to the cast of a submarine movie, you inferred, is almost by definition a distraction because she inevitably would become a sex object for the men on board. Horseshit. Think about Alien. Or even its sequel Aliens. There was not a moment when anyone in the creative crew (writers, directors, actors) thought, Wow...who is going to get to fuck Ripley? As a result, no one in any of the audiences ever thought it, either. Ripley was one of the strongest female characters ever put on a movie screen, and both men and women reacted to her *as* strong, not as a distraction or something merely added to a primarily male cast as a fuck puppet. There have been tons of strong female characters in tons of movies. It is a bit of a cliche to claim Ripley was one of the strongest. And how do you know There was not a moment when anyone in the creative crew (wirters, directors, actors) thought, Wow...who is going to get to fuck Ripley? You were not on the creative crew, not even the the guy emptying the trash bins on the set at the end of the day so how do you know this? And given Seraphita's posting history here I believe you took her comment way out of context and misread her tone. If you had been paying attention to her posts all this time you would realize she is probably one of the least sexist people posting here. Now you, on the other hand...
[FairfieldLife] RE: A good sign
Think about Alien. Or even its sequel Aliens. There was not a moment when anyone in the creative crew (writers, directors, actors) thought, Wow...who is going to get to fuck Ripley? As a result, no one in any of the audiences ever thought it, either. Ripley was one of the strongest female characters ever put on a movie screen, and both men and women reacted to her *as* strong, not as a distraction or something merely added to a primarily male cast as a fuck puppet. There have been tons of strong female characters in tons of movies. It is a bit of a cliche to claim Ripley was one of the strongest. And how do you know There was not a moment when anyone in the creative crew (wirters, directors, actors) thought, Wow...who is going to get to fuck Ripley? You were not on the creative crew, not even the the guy emptying the trash bins on the set at the end of the day so how do you know this? Not to mention how he knows what was going on (or not going on) in the minds of every person, male and female, who ever saw the movie. And given Seraphita's posting history here I believe you took her comment way out of context and misread her tone. If you had been paying attention to her posts all this time you would realize she is probably one of the least sexist people posting here. Now you, on the other hand... Hilarious to see Barry chastising a woman for being sexist. As I just said in a previous post, it's sometimes tough to figure out where he stands.
[FairfieldLife] RE: A good sign
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: Think about Alien. Or even its sequel Aliens. There was not a moment when anyone in the creative crew (writers, directors, actors) thought, Wow...who is going to get to fuck Ripley? As a result, no one in any of the audiences ever thought it, either. Ripley was one of the strongest female characters ever put on a movie screen, and both men and women reacted to her *as* strong, not as a distraction or something merely added to a primarily male cast as a fuck puppet. There have been tons of strong female characters in tons of movies. It is a bit of a cliche to claim Ripley was one of the strongest. And how do you know There was not a moment when anyone in the creative crew (wirters, directors, actors) thought, Wow...who is going to get to fuck Ripley? You were not on the creative crew, not even the the guy emptying the trash bins on the set at the end of the day so how do you know this? Not to mention how he knows what was going on (or not going on) in the minds of every person, male and female, who ever saw the movie. And given Seraphita's posting history here I believe you took her comment way out of context and misread her tone. If you had been paying attention to her posts all this time you would realize she is probably one of the least sexist people posting here. Now you, on the other hand... Hilarious to see Barry chastising a woman for being sexist. As I just said in a previous post, it's sometimes tough to figure out where he stands. Barry likes to stand, to plant his feet firmly on the beliefs, the sensitivities, the understandings and more delicate aspects of other's lives. He just loves to stomp on anything that suggests a way of thinking or existing that doesn't correspond exactly to what he claims he believes. Of course, he claims to believe nothing, which in and of itself is hilarious.
[FairfieldLife] RE: A good sign
Not to mention the huge slew of films that could pass the Bechdel Test by portraying women talking to each other about something other than a man as hopelessly dizzy broads, in the most sexist possible light. 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.
[FairfieldLife] RE: A good sign
Re : Think about Alien. Yes, I'm a big fan of all the films in that series and Sigourney Weaver really made the Ripley role her own. But you've missed my point - because I didn't explain myself very well. The Alien films were scripted *from the get-go* to highlight the central female lead. 20,000 Leagues was written and then first filmed as an adventure yarn in an all-male world and worked just fine if you like that kind of thing. Adding a woman alters the chemistry of the set-up; it doesn't have to be as crude as you suggest but why meddle with the original classic story? Re my query: Aha! I see now. The Bechdel Test is for detecting gender bias. I thought you were just taking a pot shot at films that had all-male casts. Yes, bias is an issue. (Race bias is probably more prevalent, no?) As Hollywood producers decide what films get made on the basis of their expected profit, I assume they think movies that pass the Bechdel Test will have less mass appeal. Is it the audience that is prejudiced rather than the film makers?
[FairfieldLife] Re: A good sign
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Re : Think about Alien. Yes, I'm a big fan of all the films in that series and Sigourney Weaver really made the Ripley role her own. But you've missed my point - because I didn't explain myself very well. The Alien films were scripted *from the get-go* to highlight the central female lead. Not true. From the IMDB: All of the names of the main characters were changed by Walter Hill http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001353/ and David Giler http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0318429/ during the revision of the original script by Dan O'Bannon http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0639321/ and Ronald Shusett http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0795953/ . The script by O'Bannon and Shusett also had a clause indicating that all of the characters are unisex, meaning they could be cast with male or female actors. However, Shusett and O'Bannon never thought of casting Ripley as a female character. 20,000 Leagues was written and then first filmed as an adventure yarn in an all-male world and worked just fine if you like that kind of thing. Adding a woman alters the chemistry of the set-up; it doesn't have to be as crude as you suggest but why meddle with the original classic story? Because the producers were cretins who represent the very thing the Bechdel Test was invented to protest. They were asshole guys who wanted to add some eye candy to their movie to hopefully up the box office. Re my query: Aha! I see now. The Bechdel Test is for detecting gender bias. I thought you were just taking a pot shot at films that had all-male casts. *Of course* there are cases to be made for all-male casts. And all-female casts. The Bechdel Test was proposed to point out that the *men* who run Hollywood have a tendency to throw a few token, often unnamed women into the cast, just *for* their eye candy factor. What they do with casting and writing is often shameful, and the idea was to raise awareness of it. Yes, bias is an issue. (Race bias is probably more prevalent, no?) As Hollywood producers decide what films get made on the basis of their expected profit, I assume they think movies that pass the Bechdel Test will have less mass appeal. Is it the audience that is prejudiced rather than the film makers? It is both, but the change has to come from the side of the equation that *creates* the role models onscreen. It's never going to come from the side of the audience.
[FairfieldLife] RE: A good sign
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 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.
