Cinema verité? : Thu Nov 07, 2013 2:51 pm  

It seems that some cinemas in Sweden are about to start giving films ratings dependent on their level of 'gender equality'. Now there are plenty of point about in the story, and how, in using such a simplistic set of criteria, it would 'penalise' some films that are not remotely sexist or stereotyping etc. For example, Star Wars would fail under the criteria set out, yet it has female characters who hardly go around squealing and behaving in said stereotypical manner. But it also begs the question of just how much difference people really believe most films make to how people live and behave. On the other hand, Sweden is a very equal society. Story And am I really alone in reading this story and finding my head hitting the desk shortly thereafter?

It seems that some cinemas in Sweden are about to start giving films ratings dependent on their level of 'gender equality'. Now there are plenty of point about in the story, and how, in using such a simplistic set of criteria, it would 'penalise' some films that are not remotely sexist or stereotyping etc. For example, Star Wars would fail under the criteria set out, yet it has female characters who hardly go around squealing and behaving in said stereotypical manner. But it also begs the question of just how much difference people really believe most films make to how people live and behave. On the other hand, Sweden is a very equal society. Story And am I really alone in reading this story and finding my head hitting the desk shortly thereafter?

Re: Cinema verité? : Thu Nov 07, 2013 4:10 pm  

Mintball wrote: It seems that some cinemas in Sweden are about to start giving films ratings dependent on their level of 'gender equality'. Now there are plenty of point about in the story, and how, in using such a simplistic set of criteria, it would 'penalise' some films that are not remotely sexist or stereotyping etc. For example, Star Wars would fail under the criteria set out, yet it has female characters who hardly go around squealing and behaving in said stereotypical manner. But it also begs the question of just how much difference people really believe most films make to how people live and behave. On the other hand, Sweden is a very equal society. Story And am I really alone in reading this story and finding my head hitting the desk shortly thereafter? Personally, I've always had mixed feelings about the Bechdel test. I see the merit of the point it is designed to make, but as mentioned it is also far too simplistic to use on its own, and to apply a score. For instance, the Harry Potter films as mentioned in the quoted article. Now, my understanding is that to pass the Bechdel test it has to be 2 women, i.e. adult females. Given that the Harry Potter films are about children, and the vast majority of all adult conversations are about either Harry or Voldemort, how likely was it to ever pass, and for that matter would any of them pass a mirror test about 2 adult male characters? I really don't think they are sexist films though, I'd say that the strongest and most impressive character of the lead 3 is Hermione, Harry and Ron are idiots. In fact in general, how many films would pass a mirror test, especially if you also took sports out as a conversation topic? I think that many films failing the test on the conversation requirement do so not out of sexism/misogyny, but out of lack of imagination by the writers. IMO context needs to be added for the Bechdel test to mean anything. It's a discussion point, not a method of judgment. In that respect this is a good initiative, as it will garner some attention, as long as films aren't unfairly boycotted/not shown as a result. Passing some sort of verdict on the film using such simplistic measures is still a bit contentious, however. I think it's important to ask why a film/book might fail, and how justifiable the reasons are, because there are (some confirmed) cases where casting decisions have been made hiding behind the 'audience response' excuse that is little more than accepting sexism/racism/insert prejudice here within society and pandering to it in the pursuit of more $.

Mintball wrote: It seems that some cinemas in Sweden are about to start giving films ratings dependent on their level of 'gender equality'. Now there are plenty of point about in the story, and how, in using such a simplistic set of criteria, it would 'penalise' some films that are not remotely sexist or stereotyping etc. For example, Star Wars would fail under the criteria set out, yet it has female characters who hardly go around squealing and behaving in said stereotypical manner. But it also begs the question of just how much difference people really believe most films make to how people live and behave. On the other hand, Sweden is a very equal society. Story And am I really alone in reading this story and finding my head hitting the desk shortly thereafter? Personally, I've always had mixed feelings about the Bechdel test. I see the merit of the point it is designed to make, but as mentioned it is also far too simplistic to use on its own, and to apply a score. For instance, the Harry Potter films as mentioned in the quoted article. Now, my understanding is that to pass the Bechdel test it has to be 2 women, i.e. adult females. Given that the Harry Potter films are about children, and the vast majority of all adult conversations are about either Harry or Voldemort, how likely was it to ever pass, and for that matter would any of them pass a mirror test about 2 adult male characters? I really don't think they are sexist films though, I'd say that the strongest and most impressive character of the lead 3 is Hermione, Harry and Ron are idiots. In fact in general, how many films would pass a mirror test, especially if you also took sports out as a conversation topic? I think that many films failing the test on the conversation requirement do so not out of sexism/misogyny, but out of lack of imagination by the writers. IMO context needs to be added for the Bechdel test to mean anything. It's a discussion point, not a method of judgment. In that respect this is a good initiative, as it will garner some attention, as long as films aren't unfairly boycotted/not shown as a result. Passing some sort of verdict on the film using such simplistic measures is still a bit contentious, however. I think it's important to ask why a film/book might fail, and how justifiable the reasons are, because there are (some confirmed) cases where casting decisions have been made hiding behind the 'audience response' excuse that is little more than accepting sexism/racism/insert prejudice here within society and pandering to it in the pursuit of more $.

Re: Cinema verité? : Thu Nov 07, 2013 5:34 pm  

You add further entirely valid points – you're spot on about the Harry Potter films, for instance.

As the article points out, war films would mostly fail, if only because there's damned few that would have that all-female 'conversation', but that doesn't mean that all war films that don't do that don't have strong representations of women.

It also touches, I think, on how cinema audiences have changed, post Star Wars, to being particularly young male – and are apparently changing again, to include more mixed, older audiences – hence the rise in the number of films about older people.

Historically, in terms of Hollywood, there were a lot more big female stars who would open a film – who didn't necessarily conform to ideas of idealised beauty (Katy Hepburn, for instance) and who played very strong characters and well into old age.

And it's interesting to examine why we seem to have lost that in mainstream cinema.

But I also dislike the idea – the suggestion – that we consider such things when choosing to watch a film. And the implication that such films, if they fail the test, have a negative impact on society.

You mention racism, and I think that's an interesting one, where, with people such as Morgan Freeman and Will Smith, we are seeing black actors being cast in roles for who they are and not on the basis of a perceived idea of the race of the character.

Re: Cinema verité? : Thu Nov 07, 2013 6:22 pm  

http://bechdeltest.com/

http://bechdeltest.com/

Re: Cinema verité? : Thu Nov 07, 2013 7:05 pm  

The book I'm writing would fail that effing test – which tells you nothing about the plot, the characters, their relationships etc.

It's a head > desk thing.

Re: Cinema verité? : Thu Nov 07, 2013 11:38 pm  

Mintball wrote:

The book I'm writing would fail that effing test – which tells you nothing about the plot, the characters, their relationships etc.

It's a head > desk thing.

If you're talking about books, surely it should be pen > sword

Re: Cinema verité? : Thu Nov 07, 2013 11:39 pm  

I'm pretty sure Hamlet would fail

Re: Cinema verité? : Fri Nov 08, 2013 12:23 am  

Mintball wrote:

You add further entirely valid points – you're spot on about the Harry Potter films, for instance.

As the article points out, war films would mostly fail, if only because there's damned few that would have that all-female 'conversation', but that doesn't mean that all war films that don't do that don't have strong representations of women.

Period pieces would be another genre that will largely fail, particularly old novel adaptations.

Mintball wrote:

It also touches, I think, on how cinema audiences have changed, post Star Wars, to being particularly young male – and are apparently changing again, to include more mixed, older audiences – hence the rise in the number of films about older people.

Although a film's target audience is still not necessarily an indicator of a positive portrayal of/attitude towards them. Look at the Twilight series (although I must confess to only seeing the first 2 in full). They are mainly aimed at teenage girls, but I can't think of a worse character in film (other than murderers, etc) for girls to have as a role model than Bella Swan. She is selfish, manipulative, and seems to promote the idea that life is only worth living if she has a boyfriend. Yet the films sail through the Bechdel test with flying colours. I would personally be far more concerned if my daughter was to grow up idolising a character like that than Princess Leia.

Mintball wrote:

Historically, in terms of Hollywood, there were a lot more big female stars who would open a film – who didn't necessarily conform to ideas of idealised beauty (Katy Hepburn, for instance) and who played very strong characters and well into old age.

And it's interesting to examine why we seem to have lost that in mainstream cinema.

I think in general there seems to be a 'lost years' period for actresses. At around 40-45 work seems to dry up a bit (at least in terms of quality parts), before returning around 55-60, when they are then cast as mothers and grandmothers of lead characters, but seldom lead actresses themselves any more. This is a hideous inequality, made most clear in the multitude of examples of male leads of 50ish playing opposite leading ladies 20 or so years younger. This is not new though, it goes back to the era you mention, look at Cary Grant and Humphrey Bogart. So I'm not sure whether it's something that has been lost, or something that was never really there in decent numbers but the exceptions to the rule are memorable. For Katharine Hepburn then, see Meryl Streep now. (Obviously I'm open to being corrected about the amount of actresses from the past, I may well just have not seen enough from past eras.)

Mintball wrote:

But I also dislike the idea – the suggestion – that we consider such things when choosing to watch a film. And the implication that such films, if they fail the test, have a negative impact on society.

I thoroughly agree.

Mintball wrote:

You mention racism, and I think that's an interesting one, where, with people such as Morgan Freeman and Will Smith, we are seeing black actors being cast in roles for who they are and not on the basis of a perceived idea of the race of the character.

It's great that this is improving. That Morgan Freeman could be cast as a ginger-haired Irishman and be the best thing in an excellent film is truly remarkable, and definite progress.

It's disappointing that there are still stories of race influencing casting decisions, however. You mention Will Smith, and there's a good example. After he was cast as the lead in Hitch, he said it was then decided that the Eva Mendes character (at that point uncast) should be Latina, as a black-black couple could affect international ticket sales, whilst a black-white couple could affect ticket sales in America. So it was good that Smith was initially cast simply because he best fit the personality they were after, but then such a shame that it apparently had a knock-on effect because of perceived/feared attitudes.

Re: Cinema verité? : Mon Nov 11, 2013 10:16 am  

carl_spackler wrote:

I'd say that the strongest and most impressive character of the lead 3 is Hermione, Harry and Ron are idiots.

Its not real you know

Re: Cinema verité? : Thu Nov 14, 2013 11:28 am  

Chris28 wrote:

Its not real you know

Muggle.