3 ms·

Have you seen the feminist reading of Mad Max: Fury Road? You might find it interesting. YouTube is not loading for me, but it's called "The avenging feminine"

Have you seen the feminist reading of Mad Max: Fury Road? You might find it interesting. YouTube is not loading for me, but it's called "The avenging feminine": https://www.reddit.com/r/GamerGhazi/comments/9jzuci/bringing_back_whats_stolen_fury_road_and_the/ https://www.reddit.com/r/GamerGhazi/comments/9jzuci/bringing... My favorite part is something the essayist points out about the mothers [1] in Fury Road: They help in every fight. They shoot, they reload guns, they operate bolt cutters, they deny guns to enemies, they assist with _any_ light work that the buff action hero and heroine are too busy to do. And if there's nothing to do, they take cover without being asked. The mothers don't start weak and become strong, the movie isn't about that. In fact I don't think anyone in the movie gains strength. Nux has a heel-face turn, but that's all I remember for character change. Just because they're _side_ characters doesn't mean they _aren't_ characters. There's no scene (that I recall) where you have to ask, "What are the non-combatants doing right now? Standing and watching?" And even though they're still physically weak at the end of the movie, their actions still matter. The movie doesn't imply there's anything wrong with weakness. Even if they are like pawns on a chessboard, every pawn still matters. I think that's very empowering. [1] I think only one of them is pregnant, but they are all escaped slaves, so they're not in shape for direct combat.

dionidium 5y ago
Thanks, I'll definitely check that out.
wolverine876 5y ago
Does it pass the Bechdel Test? I don't remember it well enough: 1. There are at least two women characters, with names and their own personalities (i.e., they aren't extras) 2. The women talk to each other 3. They talk to each other about something besides men. (If you aren't familiar, an incredible number of films fail - and yes, the 'reverse Bechdel Test' (substituting men for women) is passed by almost every film.)
- darkerside 5y ago
  Yes https://bechdeltest.com/view/6242/mad_max:_fury_road/ https://bechdeltest.com/view/6242/mad_max:_fury_road/ Also, the Bechdel Test is incredibly misleading and distracts from the actual problem IMO, which is simple underrepresentation of women in movies. If only 20% of movie characters are women, probably 4% of dialogue (20% of 20%) would end up being women talking to each other. Solve representation, not content.
  - nullc 5y ago
    It's informative to realize that a substantial portion of movies also fail a gender reversed version of the Bechdel test (though sure, smaller than the original test)... Not only does it reflect the representation in main roles, it also counts films which are about men and women interacting as fails.
    - wolverine876 5y ago
      > a substantial portion of movies also fail a gender reversed version of the Bechdel test Which movies? Go down the top movies of any year and count them. It's not even close to true.
      - nullc 5y ago
        Lets see, last night while you were sending the comment I was watching "turning red" -- AFAICT it fails it: There was no scene where two men talked to each other about something other than a woman. Most movies have most or all of their dialog about the important characters. When the important characters are disproportionately men then thats what the dialog will be about. When the subject is about the interactions of some differently gendered characters, then the dialog will often be about a different gender than the character talking. The prior posters point was that it reflects the under-representation of women as substantial characters more than anything else-- I'd also add that it also reflect the further under-representation of women in movies that aren't about relationships. We don't need to invoke a complicated test to observe that women are underrepresented in serious roles and stereotyped into certain kinds of plots when they do have significant roles.

dionidium 5y ago

Thanks, I'll definitely check that out.

wolverine876 5y ago

Does it pass the Bechdel Test? I don't remember it well enough: 1. There are at least two women characters, with names and their own personalities (i.e., they aren't extras) 2. The women talk to each other 3. They talk to each other about something besides men. (If you aren't familiar, an incredible number of films fail - and yes, the 'reverse Bechdel Test' (substituting men for women) is passed by almost every film.)

darkerside 5y ago
Yes https://bechdeltest.com/view/6242/mad_max:_fury_road/ https://bechdeltest.com/view/6242/mad_max:_fury_road/ Also, the Bechdel Test is incredibly misleading and distracts from the actual problem IMO, which is simple underrepresentation of women in movies. If only 20% of movie characters are women, probably 4% of dialogue (20% of 20%) would end up being women talking to each other. Solve representation, not content.
- nullc 5y ago
  It's informative to realize that a substantial portion of movies also fail a gender reversed version of the Bechdel test (though sure, smaller than the original test)... Not only does it reflect the representation in main roles, it also counts films which are about men and women interacting as fails.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    > a substantial portion of movies also fail a gender reversed version of the Bechdel test Which movies? Go down the top movies of any year and count them. It's not even close to true.
    - nullc 5y ago
      Lets see, last night while you were sending the comment I was watching "turning red" -- AFAICT it fails it: There was no scene where two men talked to each other about something other than a woman. Most movies have most or all of their dialog about the important characters. When the important characters are disproportionately men then thats what the dialog will be about. When the subject is about the interactions of some differently gendered characters, then the dialog will often be about a different gender than the character talking. The prior posters point was that it reflects the under-representation of women as substantial characters more than anything else-- I'd also add that it also reflect the further under-representation of women in movies that aren't about relationships. We don't need to invoke a complicated test to observe that women are underrepresented in serious roles and stereotyped into certain kinds of plots when they do have significant roles.