Titanic. The Star Wars trilogies (good one and shitty one). The numbered Star Treks. Dirty Harry and Magnum Force. The Dollars trilogy. Shoot, even Casablanca and The Maltese Falcon (does Effie even talk to Brigid?).

Lemme think. Last movie I saw was The Red Shoes. You know, I think that fails, too.

What I love about the Bechdel test is that the movies that fail it can still be good (even excellent)... it's just that when you take the sheer number of movies that do fail it you get to see how many other stories are not being told.

An interesting point is raised by this test, but lets face it, as a male it's easier for me to relate and understand male protagonists. When was the last time I remember a female lead that was slightly interesting in a film other then a rom-com? Melanie Laurent's character in Inglorious Basterds comes to mind and that's about all i can remember off the top of my head.

Majority of the big writers are males, so it would be easier for them to write male characters, no? So when it comes to females, they just end up being stereotypes that are there just to add some sort of romantic interest.

I think Sex and the City might actually fail this test too, and, oddly, Death Proof would pass it. The very nature of Hollywood films dictates that conversations and events only pertain to what's going on in the film. So even if you have extremely strong female characters in a female dominated cast in a movie written for and by females, but it's a hetero-romance film, the film would fail this test because the conversations more often than not are only going to center around what's integral to the film--the romantic relationship with a man that drives the plot. That leaves conversations about politics, college memories, and, usually, the characters favorite car chase sequences, on the cutting room floor. Even if it's a film about female empowerment, if the women are trying to overcome their abusive husbands, or steal from their under-appreciative male boss, the film could still fail the test. Also, in many movies, the male characters, when speaking amongst themselves, only talk about the other male characters in the movie. I realize this test does bring to light a "systemic problem", but it's not enough to say the characters have to simply have a conversation about something other than another man in the film. They can do only that and be 'Clueless', or strong characters, as long as the filmmakers craft them that way.

What is truly astonishing about this to me is how pervasive it is. Is this really just indicative of Hollywood or US culture as a while? Hmmm...

I understand and appreciate the point that she's trying to make here, but I really feel that including the Pixar movies kind of undermines that point, personally. That's really kind of a cheap shot...Unfair and irrelevant...

It's an interesting test but some of the films she listed seemed off the mark with the point she was trying to prove. A huge portion of the [terrible] plot of Alien3 has to do with the fact that Sigourney Weaver's character is the only woman in the colony.

I'm also not terribly shocked to see that Fight Club didn't pass this test. Likewise, Milk and Bruno.
I'm pretty sure the only woman with a sizable part in the Shawshank Redemption was Rita Hayworth.

Even if it's a film about female empowerment, if the women are trying to overcome their abusive husbands, or steal from their under-appreciative male boss, the film could still fail the test.

Not that the above commenter is necessarily guilty of this (he was making an entirely different point), but I think it's a mistake to think that the fact that these kinds of "female empowerment" movies fail the test reveals a fault of the test.

Even though these movies contain central female characters, those characters are still defined primarily through their relationships with men. Hollywood film teaches us to see women the way the male characters in the film see them (thanks, Laura Mulvey!).

A bunch of female characters sitting around talking about their terrible ex-husbands still take that ex-husband as their basic characterizing trait. Meanwhile, when Bruce Willis appears onscreen and makes things happen, we don't need to know whether or not he has a wife or girlfriend or daughter or mother to care about his character. Female characters seem to be limited to telling stories about their relationships with men, while male characters can tell any story.

Single. Never married. No kids. Straight, not Gay. Female. Artist. Canadian. Educated. Well-read. Collector of various toys. Been overseas three times and as far as Venice.

My shoes are comfortable because I don't own a car. I don't work in an office (never have) and my closet reflects it; no dress suits. No business attire. The art world = wear whatever you want.

I use PRESCRIPTIVES "Virtual Matte" liquid foundation make-up: $50 for a 1 oz. bottle. I own jewelry; nothing expensive.

I own a variety of Power Tools and love watching "This Old House" and "The New Yankee Workshop" on PBS. I built my own Quiddich Tower; 6 feet.

I also watch "Dexter" (Showcase) and "Being Erica" (CBC.) My favorite classic episode of Doctor Who is "The Caves of Andronzani" with Peter Davidson. Currently I prefer Sherlock over Doctor Who.

I walk the hiking trails near where I live. I'm not afraid of dirt. I hate spiders. I like jello. I have a rhino beetle encased in Plexiglas. I own Batman comics. I drink Kilkenny. I have a small stuffed teddy bar and a chunk of the Berlin Wall. I still use Windows XP Professional - VISA can go "BEEP" itself.

I do have a social life but keep it mostly private; I'm not a narcissist or exhibitionist and don't feel compelled to compete with others by way of publicly sharing intimate personal details online, hello Facebook. My friends are the same way. I believe there's a word for it: discretion.

Note: when I was a teenager, my girl friends and I used to talk about actors and pop stars, guys we liked, had crushes on, fashion, etc. Then we grew-up and other things became more important.

And that woman is nowhere to be seen.

She doesn't exist in film. It's inconceivable to the predominant male gaze that such a creature could be no less content than her opposite; women who fit the popular stereotype.

I went to see a friend last Saturday, a fellow artist, married; no kids. I went online and showed her a program called Movable Type on the server at the Chicago Sun-Times. I basically explained my job as Ebert Club secretary, what my duties entail, how you make a Newsletter etc. (She works in post-production; she encodes the Closed Captioning and subtitles onto DVD's.) I went to her workplace once and saw the special equipment they use. It was interesting.

Point being:

Two women talking software on a Saturday afternoon. We didn't talk about shopping or men or dating - and we don't hate men; they're just not the center of the universe.

Where is she? Where am I?

Exactly.

A greater truth about women exists but you wouldn't know it; not based on what you're seeing in the movies.

Meanwhile...

"Sanctuary" is a Vancouver-based Canadian science fiction-fantasy TV series currently airing on SyFy and SPACE. (Sssh... The second assistant director is actually a member of the Ebert Club; smile.)

Important bit:

The show centers on Dr. Helen Magnus, a 158-year-old English scientist (actress Amanda Tapping, 45 yrs old and one of the show's Producers) and her team of experts who run the Sanctuary; an organization that seeks out intelligent non-human creatures known as Abnormals, and tries to help and learn from them while also needing to contain the more dangerous ones.

And when she talks to another female character on the show, it's NOT about domestic issues or men who suck, etc.

True; the series has its failings, but even Supernatural took time to find its feet.

Whereas SALT with Angelina Jolie was about men - and for being shot with their gaze in mind.

@ Zach wrote on October 23, 2010 9:23 PM:

"I think Sex and the City might actually fail this test too, and, oddly, Death Proof would pass it. The very nature of Hollywood films dictates that conversations and events only pertain to what's going on in the film. So even if you have extremely strong female characters in a female dominated cast in a movie written for and by females, but it's a hetero-romance film, the film would fail this test because the conversations more often than not are only going to center around what's integral to the film--the romantic relationship with a man that drives the plot. That leaves conversations about politics, college memories, and, usually, the characters favorite car chase sequences, on the cutting room floor. Even if it's a film about female empowerment, if the women are trying to overcome their abusive husbands, or steal from their under-appreciative male boss, the film could still fail the test. Also, in many movies, the male characters, when speaking amongst themselves, only talk about the other male characters in the movie. I realize this test does bring to light a "systemic problem", but it's not enough to say the characters have to simply have a conversation about something other than another man in the film. They can do only that and be 'Clueless', or strong characters, as long as the filmmakers craft them that way."

The truth:

Hollywood is run by men and more often than not, they cater to their own gaze. And so if you're a woman and want to be a filmmaker in Hollywood, you either conform to that gaze - or get out.

Basically, women are allowed to work as long as they don't offend male sensibilities or rock the boat. If you want to work outside that box, you have go Indie. Find your own financing.

Bret Easton Ellis: "Women Can't Direct. Female directors lack the 'male gaze'..."

I suspect that attitude is the norm in Hollywood and why we see what we do. Ie: it's not about what you'd LIKE to make as a female filmmaker. It's about what you're allowed to.

Ebert: Pretty much a perfect comment.

Look on magazine racks. Besides muscle magazines do you usually see any gender on the front cover besides a women? If you're going to complain about the industry, complain both directions. In my opinion, the world caters to women quite fine. If they're seen as nothing but sex objects that might be their own fault. Like for example on Halloween. Men usually wear scary costumes but what kind of costumes do women wear? Usually sexual!

@Troy wrote on October 25, 2010 2:20 AM
"Look on magazine racks. Besides muscle magazines do you usually see any gender on the front cover besides a women? If you're going to complain about the industry, complain both directions."

Why do you suppose magazines tend to feature women on their covers? Who do you think choses who will be featured on the cover? Who do you think has the final say on which image makes it to the cover? Would you rather see more sharply dressed men on magazine covers? What about men in revealing clothing making in come-hither poses, like in the Zach Galifianakis Swimsuit Calendar? Why do you think you feel this way?

@Troy wrote on October 25, 2010 2:20 AM
In my opinion, the world caters to women quite fine. If they're seen as nothing but sex objects that might be their own fault. Like for example on Halloween. Men usually wear scary costumes but what kind of costumes do women wear? Usually sexual!

Do you think society's expectations of how men and women should present them has anything to do with this? How do you think the lack of diverse representations of women on film, as pointed out by the Bechtel Test, relates to the lack of diverse Halloween costumes for women available in stores?

@ Troy wrote on October 25, 2010 2:20 AM -

"Look on magazine racks. Besides muscle magazines do you usually see any gender on the front cover besides a women? If you're going to complain about the industry, complain both directions. In my opinion, the world caters to women quite fine. If they're seen as nothing but sex objects that might be their own fault. Like for example on Halloween. Men usually wear scary costumes but what kind of costumes do women wear? Usually sexual!"

Fine. Let's trade places.

Globally, women will now earn more than men, unless men take their clothes off or market their sexuality to the female gaze.

Ie: Men go where the money is. Women do too; as there's no "exceptions made for gender" when it comes to paying the rent.

Stop paying women MORE for being sexual objects, and they'll be less likely to take that route.

If you can make $1,000,000 a year as a teacher, and only $30,000 for posing in Playboy, there ya go.

Too many men create problems they complain about while pointing the finger elsewhere. Ahem.

@Marie Haws

An interesting addition to your point:

You describe "two women talking software on a Saturday afternoon. We didn't talk about shopping or men or dating - and we don't hate men; they're just not the center of the universe"... and some might say, well this kind of character doesn't have any conflict, so they're not in movies, yada yada yada.

Except they are in movies, but only as males. The comic book/sci-fi/video game aficionados, the Anthony Michael Halls of the '80s, Kevin Smiths of the '90s, Michael Ceras of the '00s, they could easily fit into the mold you describe if you described a male. Lately, they are romantic heroes, in the past, affable second bananas. Female characters like that, as you said, are rarely, if ever found.

I don't disagree that there is a systemic problem in Hollywood, but I feel that both the Betchel Test and looking at the issue as "Hollywood is man's world and women must bow down" are too simplistic.

Just because one guy who wrote a book about a man who slaughters women believes women can't direct, doesn't mean every male in Hollywood does. I think there are plenty of capable women in charge all across town who fight to have films made or released that they like, and are proud of. Take the Hurt Locker, for example, or the development executive I once worked the desk of who loved romantic comedies and wanted nothing more than to produce them. Just because films don't depict an underrepresented female mindset, or aren't always made "for women" doesn't mean the women behind them are always funneling their vision through a man's lens.

It is not a dichotic, either/or relation - all (iow, men) are diminished when women are limited.

As for the movies listed in the video well.. for most of them what would you expect. Their portrayal of men is equally as stultifying. Let's agree that honest and balanced portrayals of human nature and social memes are not your typical Hollywood box office fare.

@ Jenn wrote:

"Why do you suppose magazines tend to feature women on their covers? Who do you think chooses who will be featured on the cover?"

Thank-you! I have been waiting for an opportunity to use these IMDB quotes. :)

English actor Paul Bettany (married to actress Jennifer Connelly) had this to say once...

"Recalling once attending a photo-shoot with Connelly where she was asked to wear just a bra: And she said, 'No, no, not gonna do it,' and so they asked her to wear a man's dinner jacket. And I'm thinking, 'How many times have I seen this, you unimaginative bastards?' So she does it, and then the magazine cover gets pulled, 'cos she wouldn't wear the bra. Because that's what's men's magazines that are sort of soft porn want. They're more insidious than p0rn magazines."

"On how Hollywood treats its female actors: In general it's so much more of an objectification. You know the drill, it's a true story. For instance, if I am being asked to have a picture taken on the cover of a magazine, maybe they're wanting me to look sexy, maybe they're wanting me to look rugged, maybe they're wanting me to look fragile. With a woman, they want you to look available, essentially, that you are in some way inviting. And that's just f-cking depressing." - Paul Bettany

I think a lot of men don't actually realize how things work.

@ Zach wrote:

"Just because one guy who wrote a book about a man who slaughters women believes women can't direct, doesn't mean every male in Hollywood does."

I never said that. Nor was it implied.

His comments are indicative. He's not alone in holding his views and they don't establish a precedent for them. They're an example of how some men still think, and given they were made in the context of Film-making speak to a certain mindset which can be found in Hollywood regarding women. He's a case in point.

As for the Hurt Locker, that was an independently financed film. Hollywood had nothing to do with it.

I also don't think that unless a woman is making a film I want to see, she's not making the film she wants to.

There's nothing wrong with a good romance. I loved "Sabrina" with Audrey Hepburn. My issue is with how MOST female characters are written. What they get to do, what they're allowed to be, etc.

You spoke on conflict.

Seinfeld was a TV series about nothing. And yet a visit to the soup Nazi was more than enough material to create sufficient drama. :)

Imagine you're a woman with a PC and it dies and you loose everything, or fear you have, and so you call a techie and she arrives and what follows is a nightmarish comedy of errors; whatever could go wrong, does. Who couldn't relate to a REALLY bad day with technology? Many movies are built on less.

Men aren't excluded, it's just not about them.

I'm not literally saying make that film, I'm just saying there's an example of what we don't often get to see: women talking about something other that the expected norm.

And for what it's worth, I loved American Psycho. I thought he was pleased with the film, so I'm not sure where he was coming from.

Unless something struck a nerve and Director Mary Harron reveled more about Patrick Bateman than Ellis knew was there.

And for seeing through the female gaze.

In my time working with A-List celebs I have worked with stars who have had similar anxiety challenges as Robbie. On X Factor you could tell he was shall we say "up"!. It is key he creates the right mindset, so that when the Take That tour finishes he is in a place of centredness. Interested to hear what you guys think.

If men make lousy movies, you have the right to make anything you want in response.
If distribution is controlled by men, then distribute over the internet.
DO IT YOURSELF, from start to finish. If the points are relevant, they will spread.

An example of the film that would pass the Bechtel Test would be The Help. I mention this to illustrate the difference. No, not every movie can involve groups of women telling their stories. But here, these women discuss their lives and obstacles. A real woman may be greatly desirous of romance, or not at all. But we have other matters on our minds.

What I see highlighted above by genuinely baffled male readers is the idea that women can only carry certain films. That is, romantic comedies - where the topics will, of course, revolve around men.

In other genres, we are the wives, girlfriends, mothers, sexual conquests. We exist as a different species of human. Perhaps, while men go about their pressing matters (after we have counseled them, had sex with them, or cooked for them) we disappear into another dimension, like domestic cats. Or maybe we are furnishings, like a lamp beside the bed- just turn us off when you leave.

For a male viewer, this is an invisible phenomenon. For a woman (and especially for a lesbian) the male-centric lens can be exhausting. I don't like romantic comedies, so where can I find my female voices?

(For now, I'd like to laud Bridesmaids. Now that was fun.)