3 ms·
You're projecting a purpose onto the Bechdel test that it doesn't inherently possess. It doesn't tell you that any particular movie is bad for not passing it; o
by teraflop 13y ago
You're projecting a purpose onto the Bechdel test that it doesn't inherently possess. It doesn't tell you that any particular movie is bad for not passing it; obviously, a film can fail the test and still be a great work of art. And nobody is saying that movies that fail should be censored or limited.
The point of the test is to illustrate that, given that having a conversation between two women is such an astonishingly low bar, the fact that a large fraction of movies still can't clear it is a symptom of systematic biases within the industry.
- anthonyb 13y ago"Fizzbuzz for movies"
- Jun8 13y agoMy point was that there should be no bar to clear when making a movie (or writing a novel, story, etc.). Placing artificial limits like that is exactly the type of bias you're talking about, but swinging to the other direction.
- anthonyb 13y agoIt's a rating system. Next you'll be accusing Roger Ebert of censorship.
- teraflop 13y agoPlease tell me where in my comment I suggested that any artificial limits should be placed anywhere, because I assure you it was completely unintentional.
- saraid216 13y agoIt's not about when making a movie. It's fine, for instance, if someone feels a really strong need to inform you that they have a pistol in their pocket. But if everyone, or even most people, are going around telling people that they have a pistol in their pocket... there isn't actually a scenario in which this says, "Things are still okay." It's about what everyone is doing as a whole. If a white guy kicks a black guy in the street, then hey, maybe one or both of those guys are jerks. If thousands of white guys are kicking thousands of black guys in the street, then maybe there's an issue here.
- gtz58 13y agobemusing clarification. Just line one works.