I picked Alien 3 because Ripley is perhaps at her strongest there as a woman; in terms of the action genre, in this film she's one of the strongest iconic examples, equal with Arnie or Stallone or any of the standard male "big names." And yet, this pinnacle of equality fails the test because the story of a woman staying strong in the face of complete adversity somehow doesn't measure up to a cartoonist's idea of feminism.
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
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.