I love how our hero modifies the test, just as she sees fit.
For example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PH8JuizIXw8 / 3:20
2 named women talk about something but a man. Buuuuut this doesn't count, because a man is involved somewhat (in the same room with them and talks too, how dare he does that, he should shut up of course).
So the question is what test do we look for? The original one? the extended modified one? 2 women in a movie. Both with names. Both have to talk to each other about something not being a man (and even if it's the death of man character, this is a big no-no as well) AND there also must not be a man in the same room and involved in that conversation at all.
You seem to be missing the point of the test, which is strange because she goes on to elaborate on it in that very same video. The bechdel test isn't really a
test and passing or not passing doesn't reflect on the quality of a film one way or another, so Sarkeesian can modify it any way she likes in order to illustrate the point more clearly and there aren't actually any negative repercussions.
In real life, you see, there are often more than two women in a given environment. They all have names and they talk to each other and frequently those conversations are not solely about men. This is not the reality of film and TV where the women frequently exist as compliments or extensions of the central (often male) characters' storylines, so really there's no reason for them to talk and interact with each other. Whose plot would they be furthering when the women themselves have no plot that doesn't revolve around their male counterparts?
The point of the bechdel test isn't to shame or criticize any one specific film, as Sarkeesian herself clearly says, it's to illustrate that in film
women almost don't exist and when they do they tend to only exist as extensions or compliments to male characters.
honest question: did anyone test movies about this the other way round? 2 named male characters, having a discussion about something but a female. Oh and a female must also not be in the same room when the conversation takes place. Only if you do both and then compare the difference AND also check the gender of the protagonist, only then would this test make any sense at all. I mean having a female protagonist automatically means that such a scene would be way more probable. A male protagonist makes such a scene less probable. Same situation in games. And at least for games, of course there are more games with a male protagonist - why? Because of sexism? No. Because that's the main audience.
Again, you don't seem to really understand the point. Nobody
has to "test" to see if there are many movies with more than one man who does something in a movie that isn't connected entirely to a woman because
that's almost every single movie in the world. Most movies are about men. In them there are usually at least two male characters and most of them have identifies outside of "the girl." That's because in real life men interact in these ways and the frequently male screenwriters often
understand these interactions on a more than superficial level, and so they're included. These guys could be talking about their job, their aspirations, their families or even the meaning of life. Sometimes these conversations happen over a beer or while walking or even while in the line of fire, but most of the time spent in dialogue in most movies is with men talking to each other.
Think of your favorite movie. Is there more than one man in it? Do they talk to each other? This clause, by the way, about "talk to each other about something other than a man" is because otherwise nearly every romantic comedy would pass, but for wholly superficial reasons. In most of those movies a second or third woman gets to appear but
only so she can advise the lead female on how to nab the guy. Otherwise, she doesn't exist. Their friendship with each other is only a function of furthering the male lead's romance, nothing else.
I also love how she says that a movie that's about a male baseball team doesn't have enough females, so it fails the test. Really? Really? That's like saying a movie about vietnam fails the test, because all the soldiers are male. Obviously sexist. I mean seriously. If someone puts such a scene in that type of movie, it would scream "got to pass that test".
Wait, what? I don't even understand this.
Women don't work at baseball stadiums? Women might not be fans of baseball? There is literally
no reason a woman might exist in a sports movie whatsoever? Her point isn't that the
team should have women but that -- and again, this is the
entire point of the bechdel test -- when people think of a new character, when they try to envision
any type of random person, they generally think of a man. Then if that man is married, there can be a woman. If he needs a dramatic foil who is going to contrast him in certain ways, maybe
then they create a woman. Maybe if they want a character who is strong and aggressive but with a "surprising" twist! Then they create a woman.
But in general, when someone thinks, "Security guard," they think "male." When they think "person in stadium" they think "male." When they think "random encounter at diner" they think "male." They think of generic personhood in terms of men and specific gendered traits when they think of women. Now this isn't a condemnation of those specific writers or creators, certainly, but meant as a means of illustrating a prevalent theme within the creative arts in hopes that more creators becoming
aware of the ways in which they are limiting themselves might result in more inspired and realistic portrayals of life as we know it.
Women
exist in the real world, in a variety of roles. They talk to each other! They have relationships with each other for reasons other than snagging that man they all need so badly and it'd be really cool if the fiction we all interact with reflected this with more regularity.
Pay attention the next time you watch a movie to how often the men are talking solely to each other and then keep an eye out for a second woman who ever speaks to the female lead at any time in the entire hour and a half running time. That's the whole point of the bechdel test. It's not about passing or failing; it's about making people who never think about these things more aware of a pattern in creative works that does not represent reality for 50% of the population.
