3 ms·

1) I don't think there's really a movie watching culture in the same way there is a gaming culture. The author wishes to disassociate with a cultural movement h

by aestra 13y ago

1) I don't think there's really a movie watching culture in the same way there is a gaming culture. The author wishes to disassociate with a cultural movement he disagrees with. and 2) There is also a movement to point out that many movies (as well as other works of fiction) are written/directed by men in the male perspective for a male audience and don't portray women in the same way they portray men. Ever heard of The Bechdel test? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bechdel_test http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bechdel_test only 56% of the movies listed on http://bechdeltest.com/ http://bechdeltest.com/ pass. There's really nothing wrong with simply pointing any of this out.

vezzy-fnord 13y ago
The Bechdel test is severely flawed and not indicative of anything. Most great films fail it miserably, so you'll be missing out on the greatest works of human cinema if you use it as a serious criterion. It's very idiotic. It implies that there's something wrong with having a scene where two women discuss a man. Yet any film at all, no matter how great or even progressive in its themes, will fail because of a brief four-second quip. Tell me now. How many films have a scene where two or more men discuss a woman? I'll tell you how many. A metric fuckton. Human sexuality is a pivotal motif in the arts and is a fundamental part of our lives. Whether you like it or not. You can easily make a very misogynistic and hateful film that positively portrays wife beating, gay bashing and oppression while passing the Bechdel test. Fact of the matter is, the Bechdel test completely ignores any context. It's very narrow and to impose it on people is a violation of artistic license.
- aestra 13y ago
  It's like BMI, taken as a measure of one film it isn't that valuable, however taken as a whole it is a measure of societal trends. It is one metric, of many. >Tell me now. How many films have a scene where two or more men discuss a woman Yea, but is that all those men do? Is that the entire point of having them in the movie? >It implies that there's something wrong with having a scene where two women discuss a man. No it doesn't. It says that is all women are for, is the male leads. Their sole purpose in film and life is and object for the males around them. They don't have personality, they have men. They can of course talk about men, but they should talk about other things too. >It's very narrow and to impose it on people is a violation of artistic license. No it doesn't. Nobody said all moves had to pass. It shows a societal trend that half don't, that 50% of the population is female but many writers can't figure out how to write women into their scripts in a meaningful way. More data: http://www.seejane.org/research/ http://www.seejane.org/research/ Males outnumber females 3 to 1 in family films. In contrast, females comprise just over 50% of the population in the United States. Even more staggering is the fact that this ratio, as seen in family films, is the same as it was in 1946. Females are almost four times as likely as males to be shown in sexy attire. Further, females are nearly twice as likely as males to be shown with a diminutive waistline. Generally unrealistic figures are more likely to be seen on females than males. Females are also underrepresented behind the camera. Across 1,565 content creators, only 7% of directors, 13% of writers, and 20% of producers are female. This translates to 4.8 males working behind-the-scenes to every one female. From 2006 to 2009, not one female character was depicted in G-rated family films in the field of medical science, as a business leader, in law, or politics. In these films, 80.5% of all working characters are male and 19.5% are female, which is a contrast to real world statistics, where women comprise 50% of the workforce. All facts are supported by research conducted by Dr. Stacy Smith, Ph.D. at the USC Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism Gender in Media: The Myths & Facts MYTH: Boys and girls are equally represented in film and television. FACT: Even among the top-grossing G-rated family films, girl characters are out numbered by boys three-to-one. That's the same ratio that has existed since the end of World War II. For decades, male characters have dominated nearly three-quarters of speaking parts in children's entertainment, and 83% of film and TV narrators are male. The Institute's research indicates that in some group scenes, only 17% of the characters are female. These absences are unquestionably felt by audiences, and children learn to accept the stereotypes represented. What they see affects their attitudes toward male and female values in our society, and the tendency for repeated viewing results in negative gender stereotypes imprinting over and over. MYTH: Family entertainment is a safe haven for female characters. FACT: Astoundingly, even female characters in family films serve primarily as "eye candy." Female characters continue to show dramatically more skin than their male counterparts, and feature extremely tiny waists and other exaggerated body characteristics. This hypersexualization and objectification of female characters leads to unrealistic body ideals in very young children, cementing and often reinforcing negative body images and perceptions during the formative years. Research shows that lookism still pervades cinematic content in very meaningful ways. MYTH: Things are looking great for females behind the camera. FACT: Females behind the camera fall far behind their male contemporaries and are at a distinct disadvantage in the entertainment industry. Only 7% of directors, 13% of writers, and 20% of producers are female. With such a dearth of female representation in front of and behind the camera, it's a struggle to champion female stories and voices. The Institute's research proves that female involvement in the creative process is imperative for creating greater gender balance before production even begins. There is a causal relationship between positive female portrayals and female content creators involved in production. In fact, when even one woman writer works on a film, there is a 10.4% difference in screen time for female characters. Sadly, men outnumber women in key production roles by nearly 5 to 1. MYTH: Girls on screen compare favorably to their male counterparts. FACT: Messages that devalue and diminish female characters are still rampant in family films. Gender stereotyping is an inherent problem in today's entertainment landscape, and children are the most vulnerable recipients of depictions that send the message that girls are less valuable and capable than boys. The Institute's research illustrates that female characters who are lucky enough to garner speaking roles tend to be highly stereotyped. From 2006 to 2009 not one female character was depicted in G-rated family films in the field of medical science, as a business leader, in the law, or in politics. 80.5% of all working characters are male and 19.5% are female, which is a contrast to real-world statistics of women comprising 50% of the workforce. With repeated viewings, young audiences may fail to realize this lopsided view is not, in fact, reality and believe there is no need for gender parity or industry change. Today's children will be our future business leaders, content creators and parents and the ones who need to lead the charge for future generations. MYTH: Gender imbalance issues have gotten better over time. FACT: Statistically, there has been little forward movement for girls in media in six decades. For nearly 60 years, gender inequality on screen has remained largely unchanged and unchecked. Without an educational voice and force for change, this level of imbalance is likely to stay the same or worsen. Only through education, research, and advocacy both from within the studio system and entertainment industry, and with parents and kids, can we effect real change in this heavily gender-biased media landscape. http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Students/elb9501.html http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Students/elb9501.html Tannis McBeth Williams (1985) conducted a study in Canada to examine the impact of television on a community which had previously had no television reception. She tested the sex role attitudes of a number of children who lived in a community where they had no television reception shortly before television was introduced to the community, and again two years after. He found that children in a community where there already was television were more sex stereotyped than the children in the community who had no television reception, and also found that those who had been introduced to television were, two years later, significantly more stereotyped in their attitudes towards the sexes than they had been before. This type of evidence suggests that, "in the long term, television has the potential to shape children's sex-role attitudes." (Gunter and McAleer, 1990, page 64). and finally, an antidote: http://thehathorlegacy.com/why-film-schools-teach-screenwriters-not-to-pass-the-bechdel-test/ http://thehathorlegacy.com/why-film-schools-teach-screenwrit... Only to learn there was still something wrong with my writing, something unanticipated by my professors. My scripts had multiple women with names. Talking to each other. About something other than men. That, they explained nervously, was not okay. I asked why. Well, it would be more accurate to say I politely demanded a thorough, logical explanation that made sense for a change (I’d found the “audience won’t watch women!” argument pretty questionable, with its ever-shifting reasons and parameters). At first I got several tentative murmurings about how it distracted from the flow or point of the story. I went through this with more than one professor, more than one industry professional. Finally, I got one blessedly telling explanation from an industry pro: “The audience doesn’t want to listen to a bunch of women talking about whatever it is women talk about.”

by aestra 13y ago

vezzy-fnord 13y ago

The Bechdel test is severely flawed and not indicative of anything. Most great films fail it miserably, so you'll be missing out on the greatest works of human cinema if you use it as a serious criterion. It's very idiotic. It implies that there's something wrong with having a scene where two women discuss a man. Yet any film at all, no matter how great or even progressive in its themes, will fail because of a brief four-second quip. Tell me now. How many films have a scene where two or more men discuss a woman? I'll tell you how many. A metric fuckton. Human sexuality is a pivotal motif in the arts and is a fundamental part of our lives. Whether you like it or not. You can easily make a very misogynistic and hateful film that positively portrays wife beating, gay bashing and oppression while passing the Bechdel test. Fact of the matter is, the Bechdel test completely ignores any context. It's very narrow and to impose it on people is a violation of artistic license.

aestra 13y ago
It's like BMI, taken as a measure of one film it isn't that valuable, however taken as a whole it is a measure of societal trends. It is one metric, of many. >Tell me now. How many films have a scene where two or more men discuss a woman Yea, but is that all those men do? Is that the entire point of having them in the movie? >It implies that there's something wrong with having a scene where two women discuss a man. No it doesn't. It says that is all women are for, is the male leads. Their sole purpose in film and life is and object for the males around them. They don't have personality, they have men. They can of course talk about men, but they should talk about other things too. >It's very narrow and to impose it on people is a violation of artistic license. No it doesn't. Nobody said all moves had to pass. It shows a societal trend that half don't, that 50% of the population is female but many writers can't figure out how to write women into their scripts in a meaningful way. More data: http://www.seejane.org/research/ http://www.seejane.org/research/ Males outnumber females 3 to 1 in family films. In contrast, females comprise just over 50% of the population in the United States. Even more staggering is the fact that this ratio, as seen in family films, is the same as it was in 1946. Females are almost four times as likely as males to be shown in sexy attire. Further, females are nearly twice as likely as males to be shown with a diminutive waistline. Generally unrealistic figures are more likely to be seen on females than males. Females are also underrepresented behind the camera. Across 1,565 content creators, only 7% of directors, 13% of writers, and 20% of producers are female. This translates to 4.8 males working behind-the-scenes to every one female. From 2006 to 2009, not one female character was depicted in G-rated family films in the field of medical science, as a business leader, in law, or politics. In these films, 80.5% of all working characters are male and 19.5% are female, which is a contrast to real world statistics, where women comprise 50% of the workforce. All facts are supported by research conducted by Dr. Stacy Smith, Ph.D. at the USC Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism Gender in Media: The Myths & Facts MYTH: Boys and girls are equally represented in film and television. FACT: Even among the top-grossing G-rated family films, girl characters are out numbered by boys three-to-one. That's the same ratio that has existed since the end of World War II. For decades, male characters have dominated nearly three-quarters of speaking parts in children's entertainment, and 83% of film and TV narrators are male. The Institute's research indicates that in some group scenes, only 17% of the characters are female. These absences are unquestionably felt by audiences, and children learn to accept the stereotypes represented. What they see affects their attitudes toward male and female values in our society, and the tendency for repeated viewing results in negative gender stereotypes imprinting over and over. MYTH: Family entertainment is a safe haven for female characters. FACT: Astoundingly, even female characters in family films serve primarily as "eye candy." Female characters continue to show dramatically more skin than their male counterparts, and feature extremely tiny waists and other exaggerated body characteristics. This hypersexualization and objectification of female characters leads to unrealistic body ideals in very young children, cementing and often reinforcing negative body images and perceptions during the formative years. Research shows that lookism still pervades cinematic content in very meaningful ways. MYTH: Things are looking great for females behind the camera. FACT: Females behind the camera fall far behind their male contemporaries and are at a distinct disadvantage in the entertainment industry. Only 7% of directors, 13% of writers, and 20% of producers are female. With such a dearth of female representation in front of and behind the camera, it's a struggle to champion female stories and voices. The Institute's research proves that female involvement in the creative process is imperative for creating greater gender balance before production even begins. There is a causal relationship between positive female portrayals and female content creators involved in production. In fact, when even one woman writer works on a film, there is a 10.4% difference in screen time for female characters. Sadly, men outnumber women in key production roles by nearly 5 to 1. MYTH: Girls on screen compare favorably to their male counterparts. FACT: Messages that devalue and diminish female characters are still rampant in family films. Gender stereotyping is an inherent problem in today's entertainment landscape, and children are the most vulnerable recipients of depictions that send the message that girls are less valuable and capable than boys. The Institute's research illustrates that female characters who are lucky enough to garner speaking roles tend to be highly stereotyped. From 2006 to 2009 not one female character was depicted in G-rated family films in the field of medical science, as a business leader, in the law, or in politics. 80.5% of all working characters are male and 19.5% are female, which is a contrast to real-world statistics of women comprising 50% of the workforce. With repeated viewings, young audiences may fail to realize this lopsided view is not, in fact, reality and believe there is no need for gender parity or industry change. Today's children will be our future business leaders, content creators and parents and the ones who need to lead the charge for future generations. MYTH: Gender imbalance issues have gotten better over time. FACT: Statistically, there has been little forward movement for girls in media in six decades. For nearly 60 years, gender inequality on screen has remained largely unchanged and unchecked. Without an educational voice and force for change, this level of imbalance is likely to stay the same or worsen. Only through education, research, and advocacy both from within the studio system and entertainment industry, and with parents and kids, can we effect real change in this heavily gender-biased media landscape. http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Students/elb9501.html http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Students/elb9501.html Tannis McBeth Williams (1985) conducted a study in Canada to examine the impact of television on a community which had previously had no television reception. She tested the sex role attitudes of a number of children who lived in a community where they had no television reception shortly before television was introduced to the community, and again two years after. He found that children in a community where there already was television were more sex stereotyped than the children in the community who had no television reception, and also found that those who had been introduced to television were, two years later, significantly more stereotyped in their attitudes towards the sexes than they had been before. This type of evidence suggests that, "in the long term, television has the potential to shape children's sex-role attitudes." (Gunter and McAleer, 1990, page 64). and finally, an antidote: http://thehathorlegacy.com/why-film-schools-teach-screenwriters-not-to-pass-the-bechdel-test/ http://thehathorlegacy.com/why-film-schools-teach-screenwrit... Only to learn there was still something wrong with my writing, something unanticipated by my professors. My scripts had multiple women with names. Talking to each other. About something other than men. That, they explained nervously, was not okay. I asked why. Well, it would be more accurate to say I politely demanded a thorough, logical explanation that made sense for a change (I’d found the “audience won’t watch women!” argument pretty questionable, with its ever-shifting reasons and parameters). At first I got several tentative murmurings about how it distracted from the flow or point of the story. I went through this with more than one professor, more than one industry professional. Finally, I got one blessedly telling explanation from an industry pro: “The audience doesn’t want to listen to a bunch of women talking about whatever it is women talk about.”