The Bechdel Test is a simple way to gauge the active presence of female characters in Hollywood films and just how well rounded and complete those roles are. It was created by Allison Bechdel in her comic strip Dykes to Watch Out For in 1985. It is astonishing the number of popular movies that can’t pass this simple test. It demonstrates how little women’s complex and interesting lives are underrepresented or non existent in the film industry. We have jobs, creative projects, friendships and struggles among many other things that are actually interesting in our lives… so Hollywood, start writing about it!
Check out other great blogs and commentary about the Bechdel Test:
The Bechdel Test Movie List: here you can find a long, long list of movies and where they rate on the Bechdel Test.
The Hurt Locker is a movie that while, not hitting big at the box office, hit big with critics, and racked up the awards at the Oscars – Best Director, Best Screenplay, Best Picture. Portraying the story of a bomb technician in Iraq without being Anti-War or Pro-Bush, Kathryn Bigelow is having a good year in Hollywood. While this certainly isn’t the first time Bigelow has directed a “manly”/”masculine” action movie, it’s the first time she’s garnered this much attention. She directed a successful, and, in my opinion and the opinion of many others, brilliant movie, but also became the first for women in many places – first to win a Director’s Guild Award, first to take home the Oscar for Best Director.
Both pre- and post-Oscars, much has been written, some praising, some criticizing Bigelow and The Hurt Locker. In the midst of award season, Martha Nochimson wrote an article at Salon that resorted to personal attacks on the director. Nochimson took issue with the fact that while Bigelow was racking up awards and nominations, Nora Ephron and Nancy Meyers, two other female directors who direct “life-affirming situations of romantic comedy” were cast by the wayside. However, it didn’t seem to be a case of gender divided media, (i.e. all books that feature stories about women are considered “chick lit”). Sometimes shit is just shit, no matter of the gender of the writer, director, producer, or characters. I saw Julie and Julia, and personally, I didn’t think it could even compare to The Hurt Locker in terms of worthiness of awards, and truly amazing filmmaking. My criticisms did not come from the fact that the person behind the lens has ovaries, but rather because the movies are simply not as good. These romantic comedies which Nochimson wrote so highly of, are sometimes just as (if not more) damaging than a typical “guys” movie. I don’t feel put down while watching Zombieland, but get depressed about the state of women in Hollywood while watching the trailer for All About Steve. Jeremy Renner, in a recent interview, was told by the interviewer, that everyone she knew was shocked that such a “macho” film had been directed by a woman. Renner simply responded, “What does having a set of ovaries have to do with directing a film? It’s through her eyes that she sees, not through her mammaries or anything else that defines her as a woman, right?”
Nochisom (or possibly an editor at Salon) felt an appropriate title for the piece was “Kathryn Bigelow: Feminist Pioneer or Tough Guy In Drag.” I feel that calling Bigelow’s gender into question in the headline was just downright disgusting . Nochimson put forth the idea that Kathryn Bigelow acts all tough, being such a badass in directing a war movie, to impress all the cool dudes – she couldn’t possibly be interested in making a war movie because she wants to, right? On top of her hypercritical anger at Bigelow, Nochimson took homophobic shots at the successful director, writing that while Quentin Tarantino referred to her as the “Queen of Directors” (after her DGA win), a more accurate description would have been “Transvestite of Directors.”
The writer directed her anger at the fact that the whole movie is about this guy who diffuses bombs, and they focus on him the entire time! Nochimson failed at both the movie and social/pop culture critical levels. In criticizing the fact that Kathryn Bigelow failed to give the female characters (the daughter and wife of the main character, Will) a voice in the film, she simply came off as someone who participates in faux feminism. That she wrote such a scathing piece about Bigelow because she’s successful, and did it while not having female characters (no matter their role) in her film, pointed out a much bigger failure on Nochimson’s part than Bigelow’s.
Following Bigelow’s historic win at the Oscars, one would think the anger and grievances for her and her film would slow, or even stop. Instead a new set of issues sprung forth, people complaining about her male centric career up to this point, questioning her win based on the subject matter of The Hurt Locker and taking issue with Bigelow’s apparent lack of recognition of what a milestone moment it was for women.
Susan G. Cole wrote a critical piece, titled “Kathryn Bigelow: The Absentee Feminist.” Cole makes assumptions based on Bigelow’s 120 second long acceptance speech – she must not celebrate International Women’s Day, appreciate the historic moment it was when she won, or care about her gender. Seeing the almost immediate criticisms that appeared online after her win, my boyfriend said “She directed the best film of the year – period.” To say I agree with that sentiment is an understatement.
Apparently praising her fellow nominees, dedicating her award to the troops, and thanking the critics who supported the film, along with the cast and crew who helped her make The Hurt Locker wasn’t good enough. Cole compares Bigelow’s speech to Halle Berry’s 2002 Best Actress win at the same awards show, stating, “Berry wholly acknowledged that she’d made history, emotionally responded to the Oscar’s significance, reeled off the names of those actors who paved the way before her – from Hattie McDaniel onwards – and grasped that she didn’t do it on her own. Not Bigelow.” While it was Berry’s prerogative to mention the achievement in her award speech, I don’t think it’s right to position that against Bigelow for not doing the same. The media talked about Bigelow’s gender constantly, and it’s pretty obvious she must’ve known what a big deal it was.
Cole’s piece feels unfocused – she writes about how feminist bashers love Kathryn Bigelow’s supposed stance on her gender, but then goes on to write about the attack on Women’s Studies courses and programs throughout the country. The last line of the article is particularly bothersome – Cole blames Bigelow for ruining the week (Oscars on Sunday, International Women’s Day on Monday), writing “All in all, what could have been a great week for women turned out to be a bit of a washout.” To blame Bigelow for ruining the week for 50% of the population is a little offensive to say the least. It’s unfair to put all that on her shoulders. While I think it’s important to examine gender and the role it has played historically in movies, Hollywood, and the award shows that praise them – I don’t think it’s worthwhile to attack this moment, to dissect every minute detail of Bigelow’s films, speeches, interviews, looking for flaws to criticize her on. I’ll simply repeat the sentiment I felt after watching Bigelow take the stage twice in a row on Oscar night – The Hurt Locker was awesome, Bigelow is brilliant, and that’s that.
So plenty of criticism has been thrown Victoria’s Secret way in the past few years. They’ve been criticized for advertising that seems to be made for men instead of their female customers, stealing, and sometimes going overboard with photoshop, but what bothers me the most is their new ad campaign. (more…)
Frankly, I can’t say I’m surprised even though I was hopeful (see my post from March 5).
Here’s the word on Jessica Simpson’s Price of Beauty via Ms Online:
I had felt a bit optimistic about this show’s potential, although the network’s track history in its reality shows–and in its treatment of women, particularly women of color–made this wishful thinking. In fact, Jessica and pals were immature at best and offensive at worst. They laughed through a Buddhist monk’s illustration of meditative practices in Thailand. They gagged as their beauty ambassador showed them a few Thai delicacies, and Jessica remarked thatshe was disappointed she didn’t get a “happy ending” at the end of her Thai massage.
Like myself and many others, Young was hopeful despite the network hosting said Simpson series. Based on the summary above, things are worse than expected and positively embarrassing. As Jezebel describes it the episode showcased the “ugly American,” the ethnocentric, superficial and immature American. Ugly, indeed (and entirely disappointing given the amount of viewers this show reaches and *could* inform thoughtfully and intelligently).
The best part of Courtney Young’s review and analysis, though, is her suggestion for episodes that examine our own bizarre, if not perverse, obsession with manufactured and surgically enhanced definitions of beauty:
Why waste such an opportunity to engage folks in thoughtful programming about the impossible beauty standards that torture women worldwide?
Although the premise of the series involves going around the world, why not just start in the U.S.? Consider these possibilities to explore in U.S. episodes:
Visit Heidi Montag to discuss her outrageous transformation at the beginning of this year, when she underwent more than nine surgeries at the mere age of 23. (But don’t expect illuminating answers.)
By the end of 2010 there will officially be more women in the workforce than men. Both the Speaker of the House and the Secretary of State are women. And, 20% of U.S. armed forces are female. Because of these aberrant shifts we feel like we’ve won the war when the reality is that those are only a few battles. We tend to take for granted the positions that most women in America find themselves in in this “post-feminist” society.
In recent weeks, both Time magazine and The New York Times have published articles on the egregious number of women being raped in the military. Time reported that…
“…a female soldier in Iraq is more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire.”
I was shocked to read that female soldiers stop drinking water at 7 p.m. so that they don’t have to go the bathroom in the middle of the night as this reduces their risk of being raped. Though the NY Timesreported that the number of assults reported is up 11% from last year, Timestatesthat the Defense Department still estimates that 80-90% of sexual assaults go unreported. Additionally, they differentiate an assault from sexual harassment which undoubtedly brings the number of women assaulted OR harassed up exponentially. They may as well just say, “If you’re female and you join the military you will be abused in some way.”
We live in a world where we fight to have universities install campus security buttons and cameras and we teach women how to protect & defend themselves against attackers and we create program upon program for victims of sexual assault. All of the security measures we take only further perpetuate the idea that WOMEN need to learn how to protect themselves. Why aren’t we teaching men how to be respectful and responsible? How do we transform the dialogue from Women’s Issues to EVERY ONE’S issues??
I don’t say any of this to discourage women from joining the military or going to college (or from leaving your house!) or to promote the fear that is already so rampant, I say this because as a woman living in a supposedly “post-feminist” world, I believe we need to inspire more people – NOT just women - to struggle, to act!
There was a great article in The Guardian, the UK based newspaper about men and feminism. In it they mentioned a program that was started by Oxfam called “Gender Equality and Men.” Here is a quote from their page:
There are potential gains from focusing on men and boys. As Kaufman has suggested [1], such efforts may:
create a broad social consensus among men and women on issues that previously have been marginalised as only of importance to women;
mobilise resources and institutions controlled by men, resulting in a net gain in resources available to meet the needs of women and girls;
isolate those men working to preserve men’s power and privilege and to deny rights to women and children;
contribute to raising the next generation of boys and girls in a framework of gender equality;
change the attitudes and behaviour of men and boys, and improve the lives of women and girls in the home, workplace, and community.
That about sums it up! So, instead of continuing to shake my fist and scream about men not taking responsibility for violence and ignorance - I’ve made a list of some ways in which men (and women!) can become involved in the movement…..which despite those post-feminist doubters…..is still very much moving!
1) Start simple: Read This
2) Take a Women’s Studies class!
3) Join the feminist club on campus or START one!
4) Get involved in community outreach organizations. Lead by example and show young men and boys how to be!
5) Encourage local organization to implement programs like Oxfam UK did!
6) Be creative! Find ways to encourage change through things you like to do or are good at! Activism isn’t the only way. Music and art speak volumes!
And, if you’re still confused and wondering what you can do – come to WAM! Los Angeles next week Thursday, March 25, 2010!
Recently, Kamala Lopez and Tobie Loomis, partners on the ERA Today campaign and the film A Single Woman, visited my classes to discuss the ERA Today campaign and the many large and small ways we can make our voices heard and create change.
The class discussion was electric and we all left feeling empowered and inspired. Kamala and Tobie have continued to dialogue with the class and myself through blogging and email (I’ll blog more on the incredible collaborative outcome in the future). This post is simply to share the following email from Kamala, received yesterday.
I just landed in Dallas where I am presenting the revised version of the ERA short to the Veteran Feminists of America! Tell your class that I used their input from the survey and now Gloria Steinem, who is the keynote speaker is going to be seeing it! I’m going to be blogging the conference for Ms online!
Kamala’s revised presentation of the ERA short to the Veteran Feminists of America in Dallas is a small but powerful reminder that all of our voices count.
Jean Kilbourne has had it right for years. She said that “advertisements are America’s real pornographer” and ads have made porn mainstream.
We owe her immense gratitude for shifting the lens on advertising and making advertising a subject of inquiry to take seriously. I’ve been influenced, inspired and indebted to her since I saw Killing Us Softly 3: Advertising’s Image of Women in 2001. I mean, I’d been a feminist for nearly a decade at that point, studying the mass media for approximately 6 years and I knew advertisers weren’t exactly the most noble of folks. Advertisers have always been in existence to sell a product by any means necessary.
But to see ad after ad, reinforcing the same images and themes over and over again was mind blowing. Her film was the final piece of the puzzle. I continued to examine and collect ads in the same way Kilbourne did at the beginning of her inquiry decades before.
Each semester my students collect and deconstruct ads. In my newly created class, Women and Popular Culture (my dream class if you will), Anita Sarkeesian of Feminist Frequency created a blog for the students and myself to share our observations, thoughts and create a collective resource base and solidify the community. It is in this incredible virtual space that my students posted 3 ads they chose to deconstruct. Kristin E. caught on to the intensity of these advertising messages after seeing one after the other posted, creating an eerie and pornified collage. She took it upon herself to take many of the images the class had posted and put them together. After all these years, to examine the ads in this way, is still shocking and disturbing.
Take a peek.
NOTE: Edited April 16, 2010 after several people emailed me about the spoof ad in the round-up. I’m glad some people are paying attention and are already familiar with ad spoofs and culture jamming. Can *you* spot the spoof ad? Do you know who created it? Answer below in the comments.
Rielle had sex with a married man and has thus become the modern day scarlet woman. She made no promises to Elizabeth Edwards and in fact had no relationship with Ms. Edwards, therefore; it puzzles me why she is being shamed alongside John Edwards.
If he had truly wanted to stay faithful to his wife, nothing that Rielle did could have caused him to sway. Edwards made an active choice to be unfaithful and therefore; if we are going to judge or blame (though I feel we should do neither) it should be him. Edwards was the one that was deceitful.
People have latched onto the photos [in her GQ interview] of Rielle to justify the slut shaming. Attacking how a woman chooses to dress and then making a correlation to sexual behaviour, is one of the most obvious ways in which patriarchy works to eliminate female agency. What disturbs me most, is watching women jump on their high horse to finger wag, completely oblivious to the fact that they are supporting their own oppression.
