![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Odd things cross my brain pre-caffienation:
In other news, Rock Band 3, oh holy crap, I'm going to fall over and die from awesome. The game itself is tighter and sharper, and demands more out of you. And keyboards. Gnnnrrrarrgh keyboards. With the exception of "Need You Tonight" (trust me, everyone will be able to play this one on expert pro keys) that shit is not easy. I found myself having the usual issue I do with guitar hero and rock band where I can't really anticipate what I'm doing fast enough to actually hit things and when you throw black note keys into the mix? aaaaaaaaaaaagh. Also I finally encountered the "Rock Band vs Actual Instrument" cognitive dissonance where the music is going in a completely different direction than my hand is. Okay, I finally get what the guitar/bass players have been fussing about all these years. Still. Nice that they added an instrument that I actually gravitate towards other than vocals. I'm just a little sad that I won't have all that much opportunity to practice. On the other hand, it's making me want to haul out the synth and start playing again. Music is good.
ETA: aha, I just realized what probably was fucking me up so badly on pro-keys, or at least what would have helped a ton - a key signature of some sort. It's a moot point on regular play because you only have five keys to worry about; when you have two octaves worth of chromatic scale to deal with? oh fuck no. When you have regular sheet music you have some warning before each section what keys you're going to need in general, and I think most piano/keyboard players default to C major (no black keys) if not told otherwise, so spontaneous black key wandering down is going to mess you the fuck up. Something for Harmonix to think about for #4?
Raining and warm, looking forward to another day of SVU and being utterly crushed/demoralized by my to-do list. Le Sigh. One paw in front of the other, right? Oh! wait there should be Sons of Anarchy, yes? All right, today doesn't seem that bleak. :) And there's bells later.
- I dreamed that all my and
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
cell23's clothing had vanished out of our closets. Just a bar full of haphazard hangars. What the fuck. - I woke up with "Werewolf Bar Mitzvah" firmly stuck in my head. [barrowman] 30ROCK! [/barrowman]
- While I blearily shuffled and groaned my way to the coffeepot, a voice in my brain decided it needed to point out that almost the entire Muppet franchise, with the possible exception of "Sesame Street," fails the Bechdel Test. It most definitely fails if you eliminate the human guest stars. I mean, really, have you ever seen Piggy and Janice talk to each other about anything?
In other news, Rock Band 3, oh holy crap, I'm going to fall over and die from awesome. The game itself is tighter and sharper, and demands more out of you. And keyboards. Gnnnrrrarrgh keyboards. With the exception of "Need You Tonight" (trust me, everyone will be able to play this one on expert pro keys) that shit is not easy. I found myself having the usual issue I do with guitar hero and rock band where I can't really anticipate what I'm doing fast enough to actually hit things and when you throw black note keys into the mix? aaaaaaaaaaaagh. Also I finally encountered the "Rock Band vs Actual Instrument" cognitive dissonance where the music is going in a completely different direction than my hand is. Okay, I finally get what the guitar/bass players have been fussing about all these years. Still. Nice that they added an instrument that I actually gravitate towards other than vocals. I'm just a little sad that I won't have all that much opportunity to practice. On the other hand, it's making me want to haul out the synth and start playing again. Music is good.
ETA: aha, I just realized what probably was fucking me up so badly on pro-keys, or at least what would have helped a ton - a key signature of some sort. It's a moot point on regular play because you only have five keys to worry about; when you have two octaves worth of chromatic scale to deal with? oh fuck no. When you have regular sheet music you have some warning before each section what keys you're going to need in general, and I think most piano/keyboard players default to C major (no black keys) if not told otherwise, so spontaneous black key wandering down is going to mess you the fuck up. Something for Harmonix to think about for #4?
Raining and warm, looking forward to another day of SVU and being utterly crushed/demoralized by my to-do list. Le Sigh. One paw in front of the other, right? Oh! wait there should be Sons of Anarchy, yes? All right, today doesn't seem that bleak. :) And there's bells later.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-10-27 02:15 pm (UTC)From:The Bechdel Test is meaningless, an arbitrary benchmark set without much forethought. If a female character contains one line of dialogue even as a throwaway line to another female character, the movie passes the test. In addition, a movie set in a way that requires an all-male cast (such as a prison movie) automatically fails the test, but are you gonna be the one to tell Shawshank Redemption or Saving Private Ryan that they lack meaning or depth? Now flip that last bit around: a movie set entirely in a women's prison would inevitably pass the test by default, but it would do so in a way that rings hollow.
TL;DR: I mean, fuck, Sister Act passes while Alien 3 fails? What is that all about?
no subject
Date: 2010-10-27 02:29 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2010-10-27 02:35 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2010-10-27 02:52 pm (UTC)From:I know what you're trying to say regarding this example, but wanted to point that out in general.
no subject
Date: 2010-10-27 07:09 pm (UTC)From:The Bechdel test is not meaningless. You are making the assumption that its purpose is to measure the overall worth and quality of a film, which it does not. You are also taking extreme examples (all male vs all female casts) when it's purpose is to evaluate trends in the middle of the bell curve.
The purpose of the Bechdel test is to underline the point that women, if they exist at all in movies or television, are essentially one-note: they are either the romantic interest/girlfriend/wife or the man crazy sex bomb. If you get a character that is none of the above, she is the ONLY presence on screen; "one of the guys" essentially. To take one of your examples, Ripley. No one's saying she's not a strong female character or that she doesn't kick major ass. However, for those of us ladies that would occasionally like to see more than one of those archetypes on screen at a time, we're usually shit out of luck.
Interesting side note: Alien 3 is the ONLY movie in the Alien franchise to not pass. It's also the weakest in the series, I think, for unrelated reasons. Not quite sure why you picked that installment as your example, but it doesn't do much for your argument.
Is it a simplistic measure? absolutely. But the point its trying to make is anything but meaningless. You guys have the privilege of seeing yourselves or men you'd like to emulate everywhere without, by default, having their characterization either underscored or undermined by their ability to score/have a relationship.
One more generalized point - I can think of several excellent prison dramas right off the top of my head, set in all male prisons. I can't think of one on the opposite end of the spectrum. The closest I can manage is Girl, Interrupted, and mental institution ≠ prison. I'm sure they're out there, but I think the idea that if they are, they have not acheived the profile of, say, Oz, or Shawshank Redemption says something by itself, namely, "who besides a bunch of chicks are going to be interested in watching this
(unless they all get naked)?"/$0.02
no subject
Date: 2010-10-27 07:55 pm (UTC)From:I think my main problem is the idea that some people DO use the test as a methodology for determining whether a film is worth seeing, whether it's meaningful. Those people are, as they say, doing it wrong.
"You guys have the privilege of seeing yourselves or men you'd like to emulate everywhere without, by default, having their characterization either underscored or undermined by their ability to score/have a relationship." - Though I'll accept this, I'll also point out one interesting thing: for the past two decades, 90% of the males on standard primetime sitcom television have been shallow, boorish, or just plain stupid while the women get to roll their eyes and drag their drooling idiot husbands around or provide the only morals in the show.
I'd say that Bechdel is wrong in the assumption that "If you get a character that is none of the above, she is the ONLY presence on screen; "one of the guys" essentially." It's far from universal, and frankly how long has it been since the test was established? Twenty-five years? I honestly think the modern media has begun to evolve past that at this point.
no subject
Date: 2010-10-27 08:16 pm (UTC)From:Again, you're missing the point. It's not that Ripley isn't any of these things, it's that she's the only one on screen who IS all of these things. One could even argue that she is in fact so strong that she crosses the line into a cartoon herself, in an attempt to completely circumvent stereotype. Would it have detracted at all from her utter badassness to have ONE competent female member of her crew in that movie?
think my main problem is the idea that some people DO use the test as a methodology for determining whether a film is worth seeing, whether it's meaningful. Those people are, as they say, doing it wrong.
Fair. However, I think it's a valid point that a fair amount of movies don't even pass this bare-minimum benchmark regarding representation, and as you pointed out earlier, even if they do, in most cases they are still problematic in terms of stereotyping, tropes and characterization. To cite something you brought up, prison movies. Ever seen Chicago? Yeah, about that. Does it pass? Barely. Is it an excellent movie and I love it to peices? yeah. Does it have well rounded female characters? ehhhhhhhh..... not really.
frankly how long has it been since the test was established? Twenty-five years? I honestly think the modern media has begun to evolve past that at this point.
Begun, maybe. But we're nowhere near the point where this sort of dialogue isn't necessary. Just because progress has been made does not mean the work is done. We're not post-gender yet. :/
no subject
Date: 2010-10-27 08:20 pm (UTC)From:Regarding post-gender, it's as likely to happen as post-race. Fine lines to walk between identity in terms of what differentiates us and embracing unity, etc etc.
no subject
Date: 2010-10-27 08:35 pm (UTC)From:*Edited for a missing r.
no subject
Date: 2010-10-27 08:39 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2010-10-27 08:45 pm (UTC)From:I agree that there are some problems with the test (which, to be fair, Bechdel neither named or meant as anything more than a pointed joke and commentary on media in society) if someone uses it as the end point of discussion, rather than the jumping off point, but I do still think it's incredibly useful as a discussion tool.
no subject
Date: 2010-10-27 08:44 pm (UTC)From:To me, telling the story is the important part, not making sure that everyone gets a nice representation. In order to tell the story and tell it well, you need good characterization for all the characters, regardless of race/gender/orientation/etc; weak characters make for weak stories, after all. Sometimes telling the story well means not passing this test because the story as written doesn't need to pass the test to get its point across nor to be told well.
I guess what it all boils down to is telling the story, and I'll take into account Bechdel's thoughts on the matter about as much as I'll take into account Jim Davis' thoughts on Mondays.
no subject
Date: 2010-10-27 08:53 pm (UTC)From:There's also the fact that often, when people say that the gender/race etc of characters shouldn't matter, they then use that as an excuse to make all the characters white men, because it doesn't matter, right? So conversations like this are good because we're saying that a) white men shouldn't be the "default human" and b) if it truly didn't matter, I'd expect to start seeing a lot more diversity. But we're not seeing it yet (starting to yes, but Andee said above that we're not there yet), so we're going to keep pointing it out.
no subject
Date: 2010-10-27 08:53 pm (UTC)From:No, not every movie has to or should pass the Bechdel test. But it would be really nice if even HALF did.
no subject
Date: 2010-10-27 09:03 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2010-10-27 09:07 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2010-10-27 09:10 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2010-10-27 09:17 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2010-10-27 08:47 pm (UTC)From:"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 demonstrates how 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."
That person summarized it better than I could. It's meant to illustrate a general trend. If an individual movie passes, it is actually notable because the majority DON'T.
One more note on Alien 3. Ripley by herself as a character I think can be considered feminist, sure, which makes this argument all the more infuriating because putting her in all of her badass glory in an all-male context reduces her to a token.
no subject
Date: 2010-10-27 02:16 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2010-10-27 03:06 pm (UTC)From:Apparently, my Paper Valentines works with Pro Drums because there's no toms. RAWK.
no subject
Date: 2010-10-27 03:08 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2010-10-27 03:14 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2010-10-27 03:22 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2010-10-27 03:37 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2010-10-27 03:42 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2010-10-27 03:54 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2010-10-27 03:23 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2010-10-27 03:26 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2010-10-27 03:38 pm (UTC)From: