Hmm. Some of those examples are unfair, and missing the point - Clerks, Fight Club, and several others they showed there focus on two characters, maybe three, and their relationship. Putting a few women in to have an illuminating conversation would make no fucking sense. Also, many films are shot with the perspective of one character - and yeah, if he's male, you're not going to see many scenes where a few women just chat shit. Something like Taxi Driver doesn't pass this test, but that's surely the point. Neither does Apocalypse Now, but in Redux, the playboy bunnies are probably the most interesting and striking characters in the entire film, even though they don't talk to each other.

As for the rest, yeah, fair enough. Screenwriters are typical lonely, detached males, their female dialogue is mostly inspired by other films, or things they wish women really would say. The amount of nude scenes in your boilerplate flick serves to highlight this.

Although, saying all that, female screenwriters come up with stuff like 'What happens in Vegas'. That's all I'm saying.

>>3168
I think it's more an argument of numbers, not an argument that individual movies should have different content. It's just that in movies focusing on few characters, those are almost always male. Naively you'd expect half of them featuring two or three women. Funnily, the only films like that that I can think of right now is Death Proof, which isn't exactly a prime example of telling a women's story.

As for the point about women in filmmaking, it's true that they don't seem to actively try to make a difference there. Just look at The Virgin Suicides, which makes a point of telling the story from a male perspective and might not even satisfy criterion #3 (not sure about that, though).

>It's not even a sign that it's a feminist movie or whether it's a good movie, just , just that there's female prescence in it and they are actually engaging about things other than men.

So... what's her point?

I have noticed a massive lack of muslim people in films, unless it the film has a specific point to make about muslims.

Here is my test:

1. The film has to have at least two muslim characters in it that have names.

2. The two muslim characters have to talk to each other at some point in the film.

3. If we get as far as satisfying the previous two challenges, then when the two muslim characters meet and talk, they have to talk about something other than Islam.

You would be amazed how many films do not satisy this test.

The fact that she refers to a film as having 'passed' or not means that this is not just observational, because if it was, she would look at it in terms of either having or not having, as opposed to pass or fail.

This whole argument goes back farther than an 80s 'Dyke Magazine' too, Laura Mulvey wrote an essay on the male gaze in the '70's, which really started the whole debate, although it probably goes back further than that.

The reason films don't meet my criteria or hers very often is because they cater to the market. The majority of cinema goers are young adult white males. To aim for a different market would be a bad business move, like trying to sell ice in antarctica.

Sorry for the bad structure, poor arguments and probable bad grammar, but it's 4am and I'm hungry.

>>3170
>You would be amazed how many films do not satisy this test.
As I've said, the point is numbers. The proportion of muslims in America is significantly lower than the proportion of women in the population.

>The fact that she refers to a film as having 'passed' or not means that this is not just observational, because if it was, she would look at it in terms of either having or not having, as opposed to pass or fail.
She's not trying to hide that she'd like to see more women in films; she's entitled to her opinion. That being said, it could just as well simply be a very American way of phrasing it, like they also express everything in war metaphors.

>The reason films don't meet my criteria or hers very often is because they cater to the market. The majority of cinema goers are young adult white males.
But which came first?

>>3167

Films are meant to be exiting and/or mentally stimulating, it's been scientifically proven that womens conversations are the aural equivalent of watching paint dry, what the fuck do they expect?

Feminist in Bullshit Opinions Shocker.

>>3172
>>3173
You guys are oversensitive to trolling, you even react correspondingly when you're not actually being trolled. Never visit a chan other than this one, you might not survive it.

>>3174

Interesting definition of trolling you've got there...

>>3174
Are you implying that the nice lady was trolling?

>>3175
Learn to read.

>>3176
I'm implying that >>3172 and >>3173 don't have the necessary mental capacity or maturity to participate in this discussion.

At least women are better off in films than black men, who are always either pimps, druggies, or druggie pimps.

Not to mention English people - we're always the bad guy. English accent is shorthand for evil in Hollywood. I for one am offended, If it really was an evil ladm8 vs an amerikan hero, there's not a chance in hell the latter would outwit the former, but that is yet another lie Hollywood spreads.

>>3178

>>3179

That's cos baddies have to be interesting characters and yanks are shit actors.

>>3178

>I'm implying that >>3172 and >>3173 don't have the necessary mental capacity or maturity to participate in this discussion.

>You guys are oversensitive to trolling, you even react correspondingly when you're not actually being trolled. Never visit a chan other than this one, you might not survive it.

These are two entirely different things. Don't throw your toys out the pram because people have different opinions to you.

>>3179
Black men are also "the black guy who dies at the beginning" or the "wise mentor". Black women do not exist which is odd since they would combine both social groups white, male directors don't really like to put in their films put have to because the studio told them to.

>>3183
If they only had phrased an opinion. You know, arguments and stuff.

>>3184

>>3186

>>3187

I don't get it.

Uh, Pulp Fiction had this...

http://www.youtube.com/v/Mna7zBCv0XI

But I get the point. I think it's maybe because women don't talk about anything interesting ever?

Watchmen had a scene where a female character talks to her mother about her past. Now, I'm guessing this only doesn't count because she talks about events in which men are involved. So the accepted topics of conversation are very limited in themselves.

I don't see why it would be in any way admirable for every movie to include a scene where two female characters talk about something that doesn't involve men in any way. I think this is just another example of meaningless post-feminist rambling.

>>3190
I'm pretty sure one of those two doesn't have a name.

>>3191
>I don't see why it would be in any way admirable for every movie to include a scene where two female characters talk about something that doesn't involve men in any way.
And the girl isn't asking for that at all either.

>>3192

>And the girl isn't asking for that at all either.

Well what exactly is she asking for? What's the purpose of all this?

>>3192

Why does the character need a name? It's completely superfluous to the story.

>>3194

First year media student has decided to enlighten us about post-feminist film theory.

>>3196

I think you're being generous there.

>>3194
Highlighting how many films aren't told from a female perspective, even if you put the bar for "female perspective" as low as this test. It's an interesting fact, considering that half of the population are women.

>>3200

That's cos no one wants to watch them. Hollywood is a money machine, it gives people what they want.

>>3201
Oh please, don't tell me now that the free market works. If we switched the importance of genders, all the important characters suddenly being female, I wouldn't want to watch too many movies anymore either. If all the writers and producers agreed that going for the female audience was the magic formula for financial success (because that has always worked), the male market would shrink more and more. It seems plausible that this is the current situation, genders swapped, of course.

>>3202

No, someone would figure out that men want to see films with men in them and make them and men would go and see them.

Their are films made for women, they don't do as well as your standard Hollywood action stuff.

>>3200

That's not particularly interesting or noteworthy though. Hollywood cranks out hundreds of films a year, and some of the films she mentions are nearly thirty years old.
Not every film needs two female characters engaging in a specific conversation to keep the plot going.

>>3203
>No, someone would figure out that men want to see films with men in them and make them and men would go and see them.
Yes, I already had understood your dream world. Hint: Markets don't work in the real world because of information imbalance.

>>3205
OK, keep missing the point. It's funny how nobody even bothers to read posts when someone says "feminism" somewhere. Your reply is going to imply that this is the feminists' fault.

>>3208

It is the feminists fault. The primary goal of every film maker is to make an entertaining film, not to further the political goals of a niche group of internet dwellers.

There really isn't anything to discuss here.

>>3210
Either you're really bad at reading, or you're an incredibly boring troll.

>>3208

>information imbalance.

Care to expand on that? I'm not sure I know what you mean.

>>3211

No, I just think you're really bad at getting your point across, I don't think you've even really tried.

>>3212
Markets only work when everyone knows what everyone buys and sells, and at what price. For example, when people can't accurately assess the quality of the product before they buy, they tend to become dependent on a certain vendor, leading to monopolies. The film industry is a business where it's almost impossible to know beforehand whether a film will hit your taste or not (for a significant share of the films produced, anyway), and a certain style of filmmaking can even be an acquired taste, raising the price of their production.

Now when someone comes along and points out that women characters are underrepresented in most films (just look at your DVD shelf and see how many films even meet the ridiculously low criteria of the Bechdel test), saying that this situation is a result of the free market at work is probably true, but saying that the free market produces desirable results, is highly doubtful. A more even distribution in male and female characters might maximise profits for both studios and viewers, but we'll never know.

>>3215

>>The film industry is a business

Exactly. It's a private industry and can do what it wants. It owes you nothing.

>>Markets only work when everyone knows what everyone buys and sells, and at what price.

This information is available.

>>The film industry is a business where it's almost impossible to know beforehand whether a film will hit your taste or not (for a significant share of the films produced, anyway)

erm...film reviews?

Btw, Hollywood is one of the most intensively market researched industries in the world. The only reason why you don't see many women having bollocky conversations on screen is that no one really wants to see it.

>>3219

Well, no one apart from pig faced lesbians.

>>3219
>Exactly. It's a private industry and can do what it wants. It owes you nothing.
Never claimed it did. Nor did the girl, I believe.

>This information is available.
a) Not at all. b) If it were, people still wouldn't get their hands on it or be able to process it all.

>erm...film reviews?
You've got to be kidding me.

>>3220
>Well, no one apart from pig faced lesbians.
Not been getting too much action lately, huh?

>Not been getting too much action lately, huh?

lol, I love this response. A woman's worth is purely her ability to give heterosexual sex to a man. If you do something to upset a woman, you will not be getting any sex.

We are one, sisters!

>>3167
but its all from a female point of view, we could do a simmilar test and i could pull a few hundred movies where the male role adheres to simmilar stereotyping and rules.
tldr: bollocks.

If they're (apparently) not actually arguing for all movies to feature two women having a conversation, then the entire purpose of the OP's video seems to be to point out that not all movies are about women; and it does this in a very drawn out and frankly stupid way.

>>3223
At least you're more amusing than the other guy... Oh, and I'm still not female, sorry.

>>3226

Oh, sorry, you're just under the thumb.

>>3226

I've just invented the Anon violent portrayal of males test:

A) Are there any angry men in the film?
B) Do they at any point in the film, kill somebody?
C) Do they appear to show little or no remorse for this action?

If 'yes' to all three, it's failed' You'd be surprised how many films fail the test - imagine here I am showing you a list of these films and smugly drawing attention to the fact that it's quite a long list - and this test just goes to show how we men are portrayed as violent murderers.

>>3230
Above test arguably shows the lack of women and the way the few women are being portrayed.
Your test just shows that in some films there are men who happen to be angry at some point, happen to kill someone and happen to show no remorse. But these men might be portrayed very positively, they might have "good reason" for their anger and action like revenge or saving a loved one and they might be very nuanced, round characters.

>>3234

It doesn't show the lack of women though. She's pulling films out that are thirty years old. If she said "These are the theatrical releases for 2009, 25% of them didn't pass this test" she would have a point, but as it goes she's pulling these things out of her arse.

Without a set sample size this is pointless.

>>3230 Surely this is a valid point its self, rather than a counter-arguement to the Bechdel test? Having said that, I cringe at the thought of an arbitrary womens conversation shoehorned into every film. Besides, there are plenty of 'strong' but often poorly written women characters nowadays.

>>3240

>there are plenty of 'strong' but often poorly written women characters nowadays.

Which is precisely what happens when hollywood offers any concession to keep these people happy.

>>3240
That reminds me of something Yahtzee once wrote about male protagonists and the difference between being manly and macho. Many "strong" female characters are unlikeable 63!machos.

sage because I'm a twat

>>3240

>Surely this is a valid point its self, rather than a counter-arguement to the Bechdel test?

Of course - my point is, really, that there are so many cliches in Hollywood, it's not hard to find one to suit your worldview.

Right, let's analyse all her examples.

The Dark Knight, Slumdog Millionaire, Bourne Identity/Supremacy, The Big Lebowski, Wanted, Ocean's Twelve, The Shawshank Redemption, Reservoir Dogs, Point Break, James Bond, Trainspotting, Mission: Impossible, Pulp Fiction, Se7en, Fight Club, and, I suppose, Home Alone, are all about crime and the criminal underworld, which doesn't really have a lot of female members.

Shrek, Pirates of the Caribbean, Austin Powers, The Princess Bride, Lord of the Rings, Braveheart, Gladiator, and Back to the Future are all films set in a time and place where women are not dominant or significant, like the medieval period, so you can't really accuse them of being anti-feminist when there is no historical feminism to work with.

The Big Lebowski, Watchmen, Milk, Ghostbusters, Hackers, Bruno, Ferris Bueller, The Truman Show, and Up are all about an individual or a close group of friends who happen to all be male. It's common, you know. So you wouldn't expect them to know a lot of women, or for women in the film to talk about or to anything other than the characters in focus.

Terminator, G.I. Joe, District 9, Wall-E, Transformers, Men in Black, The Fifth Element, Hellboy, Indiana Jones, Alien, From Dusk till Dawn, X-Men, Tomb Raider, and Interview with the Vampire are all about supernatural shit like aliens, and action films tend to have big strong men dealing with that sort of subject matter by convention, and not a lot of talking anyway.

So I say the only films that don't really have a case in that list are The Wedding Singer and Toy Story.

>>3244

The majority of those films are aimed at young men (and young american men at that), because they're the single biggest movie audience. You don't have to like them, go and watch something else instead.

>>3245
Did you not read the post?

>>3255

Yeah but I thought the point needed to be rammed home to the OP.

The exact same counter-argument could be made by listing a bunch of chick-flicks where the men only exist to flatter the women.

Feminists upset about nothing shocker.

>>3244

Very good post, very well made.

>>3244

>Right, let's analyse all her examples.

But you didn't. You basically just said (several times) how in order to conform to expectation, each genre of movie needs be dominated by men... because that's how it's always been.

That's how it is, therefore that's how it should be. That's not analysis; it's circular logic. Which makes no sense, and is even sort of the point being made by the youtube video in the first place, that this bizarre imbalance is prevalent to the extent that we don't even notice it anymore, and therefore we accept it by default.

>The Dark Knight, Slumdog Millionaire, Bourne Identity/Supremacy, The Big Lebowski, Wanted, Ocean's Twelve, The Shawshank Redemption, Reservoir Dogs, Point Break, James Bond, Trainspotting, Mission: Impossible, Pulp Fiction, Se7en, Fight Club, and, I suppose, Home Alone, are all about crime and the criminal underworld, which doesn't really have a lot of female members.

So in real life crime doesn't involve women? I think you possibly meant to say "crime and the criminal underworld doesn't really have a lot of female members... in mainstream cinema" And you'd be right. Because mainstream movies concerning crime do usually target a young male audience who (the studio assumes) want to see alpha males leading the narrative, with token female 'characters' providing little more than occasional eye candy.

>Shrek, Pirates of the Caribbean, Austin Powers, The Princess Bride, Lord of the Rings, Braveheart, Gladiator, and Back to the Future are all films set in a time and place where women are not dominant or significant, like the medieval period, so you can't really accuse them of being anti-feminist when there is no historical feminism to work with.

These films are fantasies, so artistically they could go any which way they want, surely? And the ones mentioned do test the boundaries, often to comic effect... except of course when it comes to writing for women, where they feel compelled to adhere solemnly to 'the rules'.

>The Big Lebowski, Watchmen, Milk, Ghostbusters, Hackers, Bruno, Ferris Bueller, The Truman Show, and Up are all about an individual or a close group of friends who happen to all be male. It's common, you know. So you wouldn't expect them to know a lot of women, or for women in the film to talk about or to anything other than the characters in focus.

Wait, what?

A group of guys who are close friends... you wouldn't expect them to know a lot of women? Women who speak to each other about things other than those men? Really? Bear in mind we are talking about real life, and not what you would expect from an episode of Entourage or whatever.


>Terminator, G.I. Joe, District 9, Wall-E, Transformers, Men in Black, The Fifth Element, Hellboy, Indiana Jones, Alien, From Dusk till Dawn, X-Men, Tomb Raider, and Interview with the Vampire are all about supernatural shit like aliens, and action films tend to have big strong men dealing with that sort of subject matter by convention, and not a lot of talking anyway.

So... because these sorts of films tend to feature men instead of women, you take that as some form of truism, that it simply isn't possible to write the same sorts of films... but with more credible female characters/interaction?

>So I say the only films that don't really have a case in that list are The Wedding Singer and Toy Story.

Why? What makes them any different? That weddings and toys are in your view female-freindly 'girl fodder'? You just have a very conventional idea of genre, and cinema in general. The Hollywood studios who pump out all this shite (in European cinema you get a much more balanced mix of male and female narrative) just love people like you, who blindly accept their formulaic, self-referential (and in this particular case chauvanistic) outlook on life.

I saw a movie once which had two women, Maria and Helga, who had a conversation about a blocked sink before the plumber arrived to fix it.

>>3272

You made pretty much every point I couldn't be bothered to make, and for this I commend you - though for the last point, I think what he was trying to say was those last two films don't pass this test, and also don't have an excuse (in his eyes) for failing.

In all though I'm almost certain this isn't a concious thing that writers to do follow a trend or fit in with demographics - I just think the average screenwriter has very little to say about women because of his own interaction (or lack thereof) with them.

Tell me this man knew any woman other than his mother before he became a superstar.

I don't see why any of this matters, at all...

Should we now be angry if painters don't include two black people in every picture that features at least four people?

Surely, any film that follows a male protagonist is destined to fail this test.

>>3275
I haven't seen Kill Bill but I bet that blond woman talked to that Asian woman before slicing her up. And I haven't seen Jackie Brown either but since the protagonist is female chances are fairly high that it does pass the test. And if talking about killing a man is not "talking about a man" Death Proof passes, too.

>>3277
It matters because it's "formulaic, self-referential" and plain boring. Variety is the key.

>>3279
So is painting formulaic via the lack of variety in what is portrayed? Are books formulaic if they fail the "Bechdel Test" this thread is about?

>>3280 Yes.

>>3281

But if your goal is to pass this test, you've got to follow a formula to do it....

>>3281
So as I said, maybe we should invent tests for all things, to check that they include certain things so that they don't become formulaic?

I think we should just ban everything and have done with it.

>>3280
It's not about one book, but the sum of it.

>>3285
No one wants to ban films that don't pass this or any other test. This "test" is just a way of rising awareness of the poor portrayal of women in American cinema.

>>3287

"raising awareness"? I don't think anyone is really surprised that not all movies are about women.

>>3289

Do you honestly require everything explained to you?

Of course not all movies are about women. Of course this is common knowledge. But you'd agree it's less obvious to the average person that most mainstream movies do not even contain a conversation between two named female characters which is not about a male protagonist, wouldn't you?

>>3290

No, why would they? If the main character is a male, why would he be watching two women have a conversation about a subject that is in no way related to a male? It simply wouldn't fit into the movie, unless it's a film about a voyeur.

>>3291
This is kind of where I was going with my "male individuals/friends who don't know or speak to women" genre. I wasn't being literal when I said they wouldn't know any women, it's just that films about someone usually only feature scenes involving that person talking to someone, or secondary characters talking about that person. You get the opposite side of the coin as well, the 'Sex and the City' films would fail a Bechdel Test for Men.

>>3291

>why would he be watching two women have a conversation about a subject that is in no way related to a male? It simply wouldn't fit into the movie, unless it's a film about a voyeur.

You say that as if the only scenario two characters might converse in a film, is in the way you describe, but that's just plain fallacious because most films (and certainly most of the ones mentioned) do not consist entirely of the protagonist observing other people speak, do they? Generally, at least some narrative is shared by characters other than him/herself. This narrative needn't be exclusively 'about' the protagonist either, if you see what I mean.

For example, in Pirates of the Caribbean, not every conversation is about Jack Sparrow, is it? It's just that no 'named' female characters are having those conversations with each other. Do you see? In most mainstream cinema, men talk about all sorts of things - from the location of Dave Jones' Locker, to what their favourite comic is, or what bank they will rob next. The women in these films only discuss men. As if that is all they can possibly contribute to a narrative. Which is patronising to either gender, whichever way you look at it.

>>3292

>films about someone usually only feature scenes involving that person talking to someone, or secondary characters talking about that person.

Really? That doesn't sound like any of the films mentioned to me.

>You get the opposite side of the coin as well, the 'Sex and the City' films would fail a Bechdel Test for Men.

So if say 80% of mainstream cinema has no meaningful female characters, you think that is fair enough as long as the other 20% (Sex and the City et al) have no meaningful male ones? The fact that you even use the phrase 'Bechdel Test for Men' suggests to me that you haven't properly understood the discussion.

Wouldn't it just be easier just to write films that actually reflect real life, and ditch all this 'films for boys', 'films for girls' nonsense?

>>3294
Would be nice to be rid of alot of gender specific things, like colours.

>>3294

Pirates of the Caribbean isn't shot from the perspective of a single human being though. learn the difference between a first and third person narrative.

>>3294 I agree with this, although it should be acknowledged that films set in a particular time are accurately dominated by men, and the presence of any women atall women is quite a novelty. In this example, Elizabeth Swan on a pirate ship.

>>3297

>Pirates of the Caribbean isn't shot from the perspective of a single human being

Your point being? How many of the movies mentioned in the clip actually are? Not to mention the fact that movies written from a single character's perspective do still often contain dialogue between supporting characters that isn't simply about the protagonist.

So congratulations, you've managed to be both petty and ill-informed about something which is mostly irrelevant to the actual films we were discussing in the first place ie those accused of failing the Bechdel test.

The only question really is, if the roles were reversed, and fight club was about women, would you mind? I know I wouldn't, but I imagine the sort of women who read magazines with dyke in the title would probably complain that it was just a pornographic violent fantasy.

They're never happy.

Also, I don't think Sex and the City does pass the test - all they talk about is blokes.

I still don't see why it matters, one of you said it was "formulaic" if a film fails the bechdel test but it clearly isn't the case, because you can't compare films just for failing this arbitrary and arguably meaningless "test."

>>3300

>The only question really is, if the roles were reversed, and fight club was about women, would you mind?

For the roles to truly be reversed though, we would have to have the entire movie industry dominated by films featuring strong female leads, with vacant pointless men only existing as eye candy. I think anyone would get pissed off with that eventually.

And the point the youtube clip is making is that this isn't about just one film; it's the norm.

>>3301

You don't see the significance? And if you think the test is 'arbitrary' you've somewhat missed the point of it, I think.

>>3302

What I'm saying is I'd have absolutely no problem if the films listed had the male and female roles reversed. I'd still enjoy them.

I don't know if this means I want women in films to have 'male' dialogue, or just that I don't give a fuck if a man or a woman is the protagonist, but what I'm trying to say is I'd have no problem enjoying the films if such were true.

I think what I'm trying to say is that in that alternate universe I wouldn't be whinging quite as much about it as some are about this, but that's quite harsh, I just want to enjoy my films damn it, if you can act you're allowed in the film, beef curtains or not.

>>3304

But isn't that a bit like saying you don't perceive skin colour as being important, and so therefore find it difficult to empathise with victims of racist prejudice eg "in that alternate universe I wouldn't be whinging quite as much about [racism] as some are".

And going back to what you said before... wouldn't switching Fight Club to a predominantly female cast completely change the film's tone? Think about it.

Can you even imagine a film like Fight Club but with female leads, being considered by a major studio? Without them turning it into Charlie's Angel's or something? I can't. And there lies the problem.

>>3305


>>3305

>But isn't that a bit like saying you don't perceive skin colour as being important, and so therefore find it difficult to empathise with victims of racist prejudice eg "in that alternate universe I wouldn't be whinging quite as much about [racism] as some are".

Perhaps you're right. You probably are. I don't think that is necessarily a problem here though, I'm just trying to be as unbiased as possible.

>And going back to what you said before... wouldn't switching Fight Club to a predominantly female cast completely change the film's tone? Think about it.

This is my point. If you do think that Fight Club starring women (or any other film listed in the video) would massively change, then surely this is an argument that it is very important indeed to the film that it does not pass this test? I realise all OP's video wanted was extra presence of women, and not necessarily a massive upheaval of gender roles in film, but even scaling it down to a couple of scenes of women engaging in dialogue with each other - would it really do anything for the film?

>Can you even imagine a film like Fight Club but with female leads, being considered by a major studio? Without them turning it into Charlie's Angel's or something? I can't. And there lies the problem.

Exactly. This, I suppose, is the crux of very point we are discussing. We expect nothing less but for Hollywood to turn something involving mainly women into some sort of farce, simply because that's what they've always done.

If anything, in this current state, any film that does pass the test is even more highly regarded than if it was predominantly male. Juno is a good example. Yes, it's a good film, but I'm not sure it would have been quite so universally raved about if we 'expected' a good film centring around women, if you see what I mean. That's not an argument for continuing to have predominantly male centric scripts, just something that enterprising filmmakers should bear in mind.

>>3299

I really don't think you understand what you're talking about. You're woefully ill informed of the subject.

Ok, because this dumb fucking thread doesn't go away, because it's being bumped by a white-knight internet nerd who probably complains that women don't like him because he's too nice.

This video doesn't prove that any kind of bias is systemic. The sample size is laughable. She's picking these movies from anywhere in the past thirty years. If you tried to get away with this in an academic setting, you'd simply be ridiculed; this is more the kind of argument you'd see in the Daily Mail or The Sun.
I could pick fifty chick-flick movies from the past thirty years and say this is proof that men are under-represented in movies; it wouldn't be true, but I can cherry-pick the films that suit my own political motives. The single biggest flaw here is that she's started with a conclusion, and selectively tried to prove it; rather than starting with a hypothesis and seeing in an unbiased way if it's supported by you know, reality. If she took a look at, say, all the movies theatrically released in the US in 2009, and see if they passed the test, you'd get a far clearer result as to whether or not women are under-represented in movies, rather than just picking big-budget block busters over the past thirty years that support your theory.

>>3311

While it's true her sample size is poor and she's selectively chosen examples, I don't think you can deny that in the broader scope she's absolutely right. You only have to look at every film in the cinema right now, or in the last month, or in the last year, or in the last ten years, to see that this still holds true. If you are trying to say there isn't a predominance of male leads and an almost complete absence of substantial female characters in the majority of Hollywood films just because the video isn't academically sound, then you are as naive as Dyke magazine.

>>3312

Have you actually looked at what's playing in your local cinema? I very much doubt all the screens are filled with big budget hollywood blockbusters

>>3313

Probably not, my local cinema is very good. My closest Odeon though, I imagine that's exactly what it's filled with. I don't really see what bearing that has on my point though.

>>3313
We were talking about American cinema anyway.
My local cinemas are very good and many films they show pass the test but those films are French, German, British, Swedish etc. and arthouse/indie/not Hollywood.

>>3302
Twilight was already very good with the male eye candy. Not so much with the strong female leads though.

>>3317

Before.

I've seen 4chan threads with fewer idiots in them.

>>3303
Then what is the point, what does it show? That some films don't have women in, I'm sure some films should have and would benefit from more female characters, and likewise some from more male ones, but for a lot of films there is no justifiable reason for fulfilling the requirements to past this test, for example, why would Fight Club, The Road, and The Descent would benefit from more male or female characters?

>>3319

And yet, no sage.

>>3320

It seems to me as if you've either overlooked or not properly understood the discussion in this thread, so I'll try to break it down into the simplest of terms:

The test does not attempt to show or suggest that "films would be better with more women". The point that I believ is being made, is purely that we have come to expect women to play such a minor role in mainstream cinema, that we don't even notice it any longer. The test is merely a way of getting you to notice a trend which you may have otherwise overlooked.

It isn't about "fulfilling requirements", you muppet. Nobody is suggesting each film should meet a quota of male and female characters. As I say, the test is merely about highlighting an overall trend. How many women feature or speak in these films can indeed seem an innocuous or arbitrary question, if you only take into account each film individually. But when you look at the overall trend, you'd have to agree that women do seem under-represented considering that they make up at least 50% of our population. Why is this?

Well, it could be that...

Women just don't have interesting lives.
History never involves them directly.
Female parts just aren't necessary to the type of films mentioned.

OR... it could be that:

The mainstream film industry has a bit of a chauvanistic attitude towards women, which we just blindly accept because that's how it's always been.

I suspect you don't see the problem, simply because you accept it as the norm. The same way for a long time, people just accepted racism. For example, there's no clear "justifiable" reason for america having black government officials is there? Never mind a black president. Of course ther is no "benefit". But given that they make up such a significant portion of that country's population, wouldn't it be a little worrying if there weren't? Wouldn't there be an implication there?

You could instead of course do what you (and others) have attempted to do in this thread, and merely reduce the discussion to face-value.

But that's just ignorant and close-minded. You might as well say there's no significance in anything, and that implication is now redundant as a concept altogether.

Our society has evolved a long way, since the advent of cinema. What this test highlights, is that attitudes within the mainstream film industry haven't evolved quite as fast. And many of us haven't even noticed.

>>3326
>attitudes within the mainstream film industry
but the industry is solely driven by profit, by bankable investments. Isn't it just the case that not enough older women go to the cinema, and that the industry doesn't see any advantage in going out of its way to cultivate such a market?
If films like Erin Brockovich made more money than Transformers then modern mainstream cinema would be totally different, whatever the chauvanistic hangups of the Hollywood moguls. If the money was with the adult female audience then that's who they'd pander to, but its not, it's with teenage boys.

Basically women need to start going to the cinema in large groups, watching any old crap, dragging their whole familes along against their will and buying branded merchandise.

>>3326

>>Female parts just aren't necessary to the type of films mentioned.

THE MAJORTIY OF FILMS MANTIONED IN THE VIDEO ARE AIMED AT YOUNG MEN.

YOUNG. MEN.

WHY THE FUCK CAN'T YOU COMPREHEND THIS?

>>3326
>I suspect you don't see the problem, simply because you accept it as the norm.
This is my point, what problem? Some films don't have women in, some do, I don't spend all day thinking about who's in films, I just enjoy them for what they are. You seem to confuse fiction and real life. Yes it'd be worrying if no women/blacks/whatever were in positions of power in real life, this isn't real life.

You say they have minor roles in many films, could this possibly be related to the fact that many films are incredibly stupid action films with no substance of any kind, that'd fail any test featuring meaningful conversation.

>But when you look at the overall trend, you'd have to agree that women do seem under-represented considering that they make up at least 50% of our population.

I also take exception to this, what "overall trend" there is no overall trend, if you're selective you can find evidence to back up whatever your argument is, but if you take cinema as a whole women aren't systematically under-represented as you claim, except in areas like, as I said, the lowest common denominator action film.

You've also hit on two major elements of this:
History never involves them directly.
Female parts just aren't necessary to the type of films mentioned.
Several people have pointed out the latter, and in the past the world definitely was this chauvinistic place you claim, so the male side of history is mostly what we're left with, thus films set historically don't feature women.

Finally this test doesn't actually prove anything, it's completely arbitrary, a film could have 2 central characters, one man and one woman who have incredibly detailed and meaningful parts, but it would still fail this test, despite representing women fine.

As I didn't say this explicitly I'll also point out that if you go beyond the action and romcom trash (and whatever else) most films have properly realised female characters.

Whinge because this whole thread is like saying we're all racist in this country based on how some football fans act.

>>3327

>isn't it just the case that not enough older women go to the cinema, and that the industry doesn't see any advantage in going out of its way to cultivate such a market?

Who said anything about "older women"? But that market certainly exists, and doesn't Hollywood exploit it for all its worth - how many Sex and the City films are we likely to be subjected to? My suspicion is that it will become a franchise that would make Jason Voorhees cringe.

The point not that a certain market is catered for though. I don't care if they are or not, in fact I think producing films designed to target a specific demographic is creatively bankrupt in itself.

The point is that Holywood screenwriters appear reluctant to write A CONVERSATION BETWEEN TWO WOMEN THAT IS NOT ABOUT A MAN, unless of course it's a designated 'chickflick', and even then the dialogue will often revolve around 'Big' or his equivalent. Seriously, how hard is it to write the kind of conversations that men have onscreen... but for women? Is it really that dangerous and subversive???

>If films like Erin Brockovich made more money than Transformers then modern mainstream cinema would be totally different, whatever the chauvanistic hangups of the Hollywood moguls. If the money was with the adult female audience then that's who they'd pander to, but its not, it's with teenage boys.

I'm not convinced that significantly more men go to the cinema than women. I'd like to see a recent survey, but I do remember reading an article about this a while back that suggested the problem wasn't a lack of female audience, but rather a lack of female screenwriters.

>>3328

>THE MAJORTIY OF FILMS MANTIONED IN THE VIDEO ARE AIMED AT YOUNG MEN

While I don't entirely agree with that statement, so what if they were? What is the rule to say that such films mustn't contain meaningful dialogue between females? And what is the rule to say that young men only go to the cinema to watch... men? If they exist, then these rules were surely the creation of lazy and mysogynistic screenwriters, whose only point of reference when it comes to women is their own shitty DVD collection.

>>3329

>Some films don't have women in, some do,

How do you analyse anything in any depth, if you insist on oversimplifying to that extent?

>I don't spend all day thinking about who's in films,

So your advice is 'not to think about it'?

>I just enjoy them for what they are

Blind acceptance, yay! Critical analysis, what's that?

>could this possibly be related to the fact that many films are incredibly stupid action films with no substance of any kind, that'd fail any test featuring meaningful conversation.

If 'meaningful conversation' was defined as it is in this thread ie 'not purely about a man', then clearly they would pass because the men do have conversations that aren't simply 'about a woman'. How hard is it to do that for female characters too? It's not asking a lot.

>>3330

>'ll also point out that if you go beyond the action and romcom trash (and whatever else) most films have properly realised female characters.

So, if we ignore all the films who fail the test, then all that's left is films which pass (care to mention a few?), meaning that the film industry isn't so bad after all. Apart from all the films we chose to ignore, of course.

>>3336
Once again you completely miss the point of what everyone is trying to point out to you.

>>3336
Here are some interesting statistics about the demographics of UK cinema goers: http://sy09.ukfilmcouncil.ry.com/action/printBasket/?sectionId=42188
It's actually more gender balanced than I thought, although men do slightly outnumber women in the 15-24 and 25-34 age groups and men do seem to go to the cinema slightly more than women.
Anyway, i'm still inclined to see the absence of decent female parts in movies as the result of the moviegoing habits of the public rather than ideological hangups of movie makers. After all it's the audience and their money that's driving the whole machine.

>>3167

That was stupid, how is such a small sample supposed to prove whatever point she was trying to make?

Some of her examples aren't even right either - In Watchmen the two Silk Spectres are both named and talk to each other, and.

Plus a lot of the films centre around one or two characters - Bruno, The Bourne Trilogy or The Truman Show. And what about films with women as main characters, like Alien 3 Shrek, Dusk Till Dawn or When Harry Met Sally? Would these films be better if they arbitrarily added a female sidekick?

The test doesn't make any sense, what's it supposed to prove?

I don't think there are enough men in The Sex and The City films, I think Rory Braker and Big Chris from Lock Stock should be on screen any time a woman is, and whenever a woman talks they should intermediately fire large guns into the air and shout about traffic wardens until the talking stops. I will accept no less.

Brothers! There is overwhelming evidence that Hollywood is perpetuating matriarchal emotional and sexual gender identities.
Consider this. How many movies have you seen in which
1/ two people hug, and
2/ they are not a couple
3/ neither are female?
There is a shocking paucity of movies in which these two friends are men!
(List of imdb's top 50 movies of the last 30 years scroll by)
Clearly, this is tacit proof of the feminine agenda in Hollywood and the media at large.

Brothers, let us burn our boxers! Overthrow the shackles of repressive female rule.

(lol feminism)

>>3503

Did you honestly believe it was worth bumping this awful thread for that?

I thought it was funny.

Apologies if you didn't.

>>3368
>the two Silk Spectres are both named and talk to each other
Yeah, but what about, eh?

I looked into it a bit, and it turns out this 'test' is from a comic called "Dykes to watch out for" make of that what you will.

>>3529
Great research, bro. That's what she says in the video.