Charlie's Angels breaks the Bechdell test - on the one hand, it conforms to all 3 rules, and on the other hand, it's still a masucline fantasy. Other than that, the test is awesome.

Thanks for giving me a new set of videos to use as Feminism 101. Between Sarah Haskins, Nostalgia Chick, and this woman, I'm well on my way to never having to explain things to people who don't really want to listen

yeah, The Bechdel test was a bit of a revelation for me. It didn't occur to me how marginalized and basically non-human women were in movies. It's like they're not people, but props and plot devices :-/

Has anyone collected statistics on this?

e.g. among all the American movies over the past x years grossing at least $y domestically, what percentage of the movies whose main character has gender z pass the Bechdel test and what percentage pass the reverse Bechdel test (i.e. there is a conversation between two named male characters that is not about a woman)?

As someone who works in the industry, I feel the need to defend...and also to shake my head.

Part of the issue is what makes a story easily told and understood. There is a pretty specific formula that makes a story marketable in terms of the way it's told. Basically, it consists of people doing something, then talking about exactly what just happened. Then doing something else, then talking about that thing. The characters are either talking about the plot (which usually revolves around a male) or they're talking about the B-story, which is usually a romance of some sort. And as most movies are about male/female relationships, the woman is usually talking about her man or her friend's man.

I'm watering it down quite a lot, but if you look at movies beat by beat, commercial successes are all very similar. As a writer, it's helpful and frustrating. Movies that break out of that mold too far, are harder for the masses to quickly and easily relate to, and thus, they don't make as much money, and so they don't get made.

That being said, it is shocking to see how having a female lead or leads is such an uphill battle. I was pitching a story to a(n enlightened) friend and the lead of this action/adventure movie is a woman. After about 5 minutes of me explaining the story, my friend said..."wait, who's "she"? Your main character is a woman??"

My other favorite trope in movies is how women love having sex for no reason at all. I was watching this great little indie...great apart from the fact that in the first 20 minutes, like three women just descend on these really unappealing men for no reason. And yes, a man wrote the story. Don't get me wrong, I love a good roll in the hay as much as the next. But women in film really really really love it. Really.

One of the things I've seen that passes the Bechdel Test almost to the other end of the spectrum is the anime Claymore. Any conversation between two men is usually about summoning one of the Claymores, who are demon hunters. And they're all women. Therefore most (there is at least non-female-oriented conversation between named male characters) of the conversations between men happen to be about women. It's kind of interesting to see it reversed.

We need to compare this to the reverse Bechdel test. Does the movie have two men, with names, who talk with each other about something other than a woman.

I'll bet it's a very, very high percentage.

I am quite horrified that all we have on the online front are the Nostalgia Chick, Sarah Haskins and this awesome lady.
I mean... really? These are all women who have something to say visually?
Sarah Haskins doesn't work anymore on Current.com, The Chick... she's more than questionable in the way she comments her topics and this new lady (which is awesome as I said) have only a few episodes (yes, I am complaining) so far.

Come on... we can do better. We need to do better actually.
I am sure that there are many funny and interesting feminist women out there who have something to say...

I noticed wall-e pass by in the flickering movies- there's only one named human character. True, it's a dude, but even if was a woman it wouldn't pass. meanwhile, there's all the instances stated above of things that do pass this test but are pretty misogynistic. I'm calling bullshit.

I saw Watchmen flash by in that list of failures - while there are definitely very few women in the story, there are several conversations between Laurie and her mother, Sally. I suppose the question is (spoilers) whether discussing the attempted rape and subsequent incredibly complicated relationship between Sally and Eddie counts as "talking about men". I'd be inclined to say no, if only because the focus is so clearly on Sally's feelings and Sally's experiences in regard to it.

I do think it's important when talking about the Bechdel test to stress that it really has nothing to do with the misogyny of any given movie. It's just an illustration of the lack of female presence in movies as a whole. And that's actually something I learned from watching this - I had heard of the test before but I did think it was about a movie being misogynist.

A small point: Chuck Palahnuick wrote Fight Club as a men's version of The Breakfast Club or How to Make an American Quilt. That is to say, a book about how to construct a community of men based around something other than not being women. So, of course there wouldn't be a large female presence in the story.

I would be careful about jumping to conclusions here. In films not about romance, massive failure of this test would indeed demonstrate lack of female participation in films. I was shocked for like 1 minute. But then....

1.) I checked the site posted - "http://bechdeltest.com/statistics/" - and it indicates that only 9.4% of films fail this test.

2.) And anyway, I bet many 'chick-flicks' (not just Sex in the City) don't pass this test, on account of not passing #3. It doesn't mean that women are marginal, just that relationships are central to the plot. I think anyone who has seen Sex in the City would agree with that.

But seeing how only 10% of films fail, and some of them (Wall-E) for what I would call technical reasons (were there any conversations at all in that movie?), this is not really as compelling as it at first seems. I would look at the disparity between male and female protagonists. An unassailable case can be built there.

Shameless self-promotion:
http://ofheartandmind.wordpress.com/2010/01/11/y-control-male-dominance-in-film/

Y'know, while I'm glad for the exposure to these clips, and the critical implications of the "Bechdel Test"...something seems amiss to me to talk about it with only passing reference to the original source: http://alisonbechdel.blogspot.com/2005/08/rule.html .

Call me a comievangelist, but I've noticed a lot of creator's works, which are very significant in their own right and own form, only are given their due cultural weight once interpreted into media that /is not/ comics; because comics are usually not allowed to be a part of "high" intellectual and artistic culture.
So while the video has it's own place in the discussion of women's roles in cultural media, I think the primary source is important too.

This is a pretty thought-provoking look at trends in the kind of fluffy big-budget mainstream ensemble films that dominate the box-office. But clearly, there's no accounting for the dearth of dialogue that does more than move the plot forward, or of characters that seem in any way recognizably human.

And that's my biggest problem with the Bechdel Test. One film that would certainly fail the test is Kelly Reichardt's great indie "Wendy & Lucy" (unless one of those female characters is allowed to be a dog). The female filmmaker was so focused on one single character that she completely "forgot" to write in some token dialogue with another woman. For that matter, Sofia Coppolla's last two films also marginally fail, even though all of her work is explicitly about the lives of young women.

A better way to have more women's stories represented in film? I'd say, show your support for more character-driven narratives; skip past the multiplex and seek out films that are actually about people, rather than products or plot devices. It's in this area that you find the work of most of the many great women filmmakers working today whose work is largely ignored by distributors who are convinced that women would rather see weepies and rom-coms and sparkling vampires.

It's no big industry secret that female characters and subplots are often sloppily shoehorned into movies like the ones cited in the video, cynically expecting that the token bursts of estrogen will sell more tickets to women. Inadvertently, the Bechdel Test appears to advocate more of the same.

Movies about men are movies.

Movies about women are "chick flicks".

I once read an article highly critical about gratuitous violence in movies, a few hours before seeing Grosse Point Blank. GPB actually probably handled the violence in it with just slightly enough meta-communication to make its own point, but the article ruined that viewing of that movie for me. A day or so later the article faded from my memory, and I was again happily watching senseless violence and macho behavior.

Now for the next couple of movies I see, I will look critically at the sexism in them, until the Bechdel rule fades to the back of my memory. BTW I went to Oberlin at around the same time as Allison Bechdel, I no doubt saw some of her there, but don't remember it. I do think she is a great cartoonist, and find most of her observations to be relevant and intelligent. Even those I disagree with are more a matter of subjective taste than anything else.

And this set of rules is depressingly informative.

I don't have much to add except I only recently heard of the Bechdel test and I love it. Shortly after I learned about it, I went to see "Nine" (the musical one) at the movie theater and I thought it would pass easily with all those women. But no. There is one line that allows it to squeak by - one female character compliments another female character's dress. That is all. Wow.

The test isn't fair when there is also just one or two named male characters who talk to each other about something other than woman.

Of course, a lot of movies will pass a reverse bechdel test, more than the ones that pass the standard bechdel test, but if you make both tests at once on the same movie, I think there'll be a bunch of movies failing on both tests.

A lot of movies are about two or three characters, while the rest are just foils. Also the test fails to capture the importance of female characters who might not even say anything at all.

Take Up, -minor spoilers for the movie ahead- for an instance, you have a female character that is more than just a foil and is a big part in moving the audience, yet, she is not even alive during the entire movie.

Also, I don't get it, why must two females talk to each other? This is inflexible and just because two female characters never talk doesn't mean none of them are important or that the movie downplay their roles.

I'm not trying to deny the obvious here, that women are underrepresented in movies, I'm just saying the test isn't really fair, regardless of how simple it sounds.

The only movie that passes this that I can name off the top of my head would be the kung-fu Police Assassins 2, aka Yes Madam. Two women in the two lead roles, both of whom do little besides fighting (and torturing prisoners).

If you want to see a movie that passes the Bechdel Test, make a movie about kitchens. That's where women belong.

This is in no way an accurate gauge of anything. I mean, really. I'm not even going to get into why.

If you except college friends (who also talk about homework and the sorority they're in), my life would probably fail the Bechdel test, mostly due to point #3.

A helluva lot of women are like this in reallife. The movies just reflect it.

Wow... I just showed this to a few of my male friends, and to my utter surprise and dissapointement, they all completely dismissed it, laughed at it, missed the point, and made stupid jokes about tit. One even said something to the extent of "ah, feminists, you're so cute when you're mad".
I was completely shocked. I have known and enjoyed the presence of these usually very smart, educated, modern guys for years, and never knew they were like this...

if people wanted to actually see movies that passed this test, THOSE MOVIES WOULD GET MADE. when women have names (lololol) and talk to each other (giving men a break), if they're not talking about men, explosions, swords, guns, tanks, fire, demons, spikes, precarious situations, danger, honor, war, bombs or werewolves, they're talking about sex in the city, shoes or cooking. sex in the city sucks, shoes aren't interesting and cooking only is when it's being done for the person that's going to eat the food being prepared.

get over it, feminists. you're even allowed to vote and drive cars, what more do you want? god.

well i only saw hollywood shit movies, hollywood movies are just trying to sell and that's the formula for people to buy, it's only a bussines after all
but what about art cinema? VERY FUCKING DIFFERENT, you'll find that most will pass or most wouldn't pass it on men either
annyways, this opinion is only getting one perspective about cinema...

It's too bad the test is bullshit. Have you ever heard women talk to each other? It's always about men, clothes, bitchy gossip, or TV shows or some combination thereof. That's it. I can't stand it. That's why I pretty much only talk to men. At least there's something else going on upstairs.

Change women, and you'll change the world. But even the feminist movement couldn't do it. Good luck.

Well who wants to see women talk about shopping and cooking and raising children?

Women are boring. Lovely, but boring.

oh look the d00dz are here to tell us we can't talk about anything other than them.

So... most movies pass the test? Fine then.

Nobody cares. If it's a good movie it doesn't matter if there are two or more women in it and if they talk to each other. Also most movies made to suffice women are sappy.

Let's validate our own opinions by selectively taking evidence from a test devised by some random woman 50 years ago. Sounds logical to me. One of her last statements really made me turn my head: They don't want women, or womens' stories told. I had to think about that because it doesn't make sense. Hollywood is interested in dollars, and as long as there's a market for it, they'll make a movie of it. Would the entertainment industry deliberately cut their profits by catering only to men? What about movies made specifically for women? This test doesn't validate the movie's merits, and it's a matter of subjective opinion to generalize it to society. I really hate it when people bring sex into every societal thing for the purpose of pointing out divisions.

Fascinating. This proves that quality, enjoyable movies can be made without women providing practically any contribution!

All you've shown is that studio execs are aware of the fact that nobody wants to watch a movie about women nattering to each other.

The problem is that no man, It doesn't matter how much he pretends, cares at all about anything two women are talking to each other about. So if you make movies based on female to female conversation, you automatically lose 50% of your audience, and probably most of the women too because they only really like to hear themselves and men talk, not other women complaining about their own problems

This topic has really brought the misogynist to the comments, I see... If only they knew how pathetic they really sounded.

Biggest shock to me is Revenge of the Fallen apparently passing the test. Proof that even movies amongst the 50% that pass the test may not be feminist, and may even be misogynistic. Still a fun test, though.

Gwen and Lisa - is there a reason you're letting the comment section on this post fill up with trolls and misogynist comments? Why let this great neighborhood slide into blight? If it's a matter of time constraints, how about cutting off commenting after a certain number of days?

To put it context, a movie with a male protagonist, shot in limited perspective, will have that male protagonist in the majority of scenes. Scenes that have no male protagonist might not have any characters. Those scenes that do have characters might not have two women in them. If they do, those women might not both be main characters or have names. If they do have names, and talk to each other, most likely, since the story is being told through the protagonist, they will talk about him, but rarely, the might talk about something else. Suddenly I'm not so surprised that so many movies don't adhere to this rule. It actually seems reasonable.

Her qualms have nothing to do with Hollywood not wanting to make woman centered stories, and everything to do with the writing process. As a writer, I'm going to construct scenes and interactions that further the plot, not adhere to some contrived rule.

For the women who are reading this and talking about trolls:

A troll is someone that pretends to be a way in order to illicit a response from people falling for the guise.. I promise that anyone posting "misogynistic" (not even going to point out the judgmental irony of that word) would tell you the exact same thing in real life to your face and mean it, I know that i would.

Maybe instead of feminist focusing on the fact that people don't like women in movies, they should focus on WHY they don't like women in movies.. bit of advice: you cant cure the disease by treating the symptoms. I guess even irrational and illogical minds of females can understand that.

My friend is very savvy in the workings of the film industry. He says that it is very hard to sell a movie with a female lead. It is much easier to sell a movie with a male lead. If the industry is sexist, it must be because it is based on some underlying sexism in the movie viewer population.

Is there such a thing as incidental sexism? That would be where a gender is discriminated against but only because of unintended consequences of some non-sexist cause.

I would also like to see the percentage of movies that pass the female Bechdel test but don't pass the male version.

Oh, I noticed that fight club was in the list. I know it doesn't pass the Bechdel test, but most of the men in the movie are unnamed, too. I wonder if there are two named male characters that talk to each other.

And it is decidedly a movie for and about men.

Maybe the reason I love Joss Whedon's work. All his TV and movies that I have seen pass this test with ease.

At first, I refused to believe Lord of the Rings didn't pass the test. As it turns out, it doesn't. Given how long the trilogy is, you'd think it'd just happen automatically.

"Oh, Eowyn, could you pass me that sharp stick over there?"
"Sure, no problem."

I wonder why it's so difficult to sell a movie about a female lead. We womenfolk have money. We sometimes watch movies. You'd think someone would tap into that market with something other than Sex and the City.

If we were smarter, we would also use improper spelling and punctuation!

Interesting to apply the test to the western literature 'canon.' Huge fail on that level too.

This is a fascinating discussion, yet my first reaction is: aren't we reading too much in a pattern. Movies have patterns. Human behaviour has patterns. Thoughts have patterns.

It brings the famous "Wilhelm Scream" pattern to mind. Fascinating, but ultimately meaningless (or of unclear meaning).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdbYsoEasio

I guess this is the internet after all so maybe I shouldn't be surprised but ...
What is with so many male commenters pulling at any tenuous little thread to try and escape conclusions which would be blindingly obvious with or without the Bechdel test? Seriously, coming over all "Ahem! I think I know a thing or two about external validity and I can tell you that this test is simply not rigorous. Furthermore ..." Get over yourselves.

feminism is white knight without a dragon to slay

Chick Flicks! But I'm still unsure how it works with Lord of the Rings?
And it would be nice if you were to define "talk about a man."
And it it really fair to blame Wall-E? After all, they are a bunch of robot... Its not like they talk as it is.
Eh, I guess I just don't find myself a fan of the actual test and its qualifications. Seems to vague.. but I guess that's just an inherent property in such a test which is supposed to cover so many different movies.

Not trying to be offensive and I do think you have a very strong point, but it seems like most of the movies you listed are what I would classify as “action flicks.” Aren’t those marketed towards a male audience?

Movies from your list I consider “action flicks”:
The Dark Knight, District 9, Terminator Salvation, Watchmen, G. I. Joe, Bourne Supremacy, Bourne Identity, Transformers, Ghostbusters, Wanted, Pirates of the Caribbean I, II, III, Austin Powers I, II, III, MIB, Fight Club, Fifth Element, Hellboy II, Reservoir Dogs, Point Break, Quantum of Solace, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Aliens III, Lord of the Rings I, II, III, From Dusk Till Dawn, Mission Impossible, Braveheart, Gladiator, X-Men I, III, Back to the Future II, III, Tomb Raider, Pulp Fiction, Interview with the Vampire, Seven
(Total 40)

Movies from your list I excluded from “action flicks”:
Slumdog Millionaire, Shrek, Bruno, Hackers (didn’t see it so not sure), The Big Lebowski, Wall-E, Ocean’s Twelve, Clerks, The Princess Bride, Milk, The Wedding Singer, Shawshank Redemption, Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, The Truman Show, Trainspotting, Toy Story, When Harry Met Sally, Home Alone, Up
(Total 19)

I agree that it is somewhat mind-boggling to consider that there are so many blockbuster movies made within the past decade or so to which the Bechdel test applies. However, I think when you consider most of the movies I put in the “action flick” category, it is clearer as to the “why” of the issue. The movies I put in the “action flick” category demonstrate subjects, plots, characters, and/or ideas which I consider stereotypically male interests: comic book heroes, spies, warriors of fantasy/the past, battling robots, aliens, ghosts, and lots of guns, swords, or other violent displays.

I would argue that most “action flicks” are target towards a male audience. The movie industry seeks profits obviously, so it makes sense to me that most of the movies you listed (~68%) would primarily consist of male characters. Because of this, I would assume those movies would be coming from a male point of view.

I would be interested to see if this works the other way as well, seeing if movies targeted towards the female population feature important male characters. However, I myself would not be able to bear sitting through the “Sex in the City” movies to discover the answer.

The most intriguing point of this to me is the fact that so many of the movies you listed I would consider “blockbusters.” I feel this is the important window into our societal norms. While movies that feature male interests are often blockbuster sellouts, movies seen as “feminine” have much less hype backing their releases and pushing audiences through the theater door. I think this is because women are not seen as “weaker” for wanting to see a movie that features explosions, while men are often regarded as strange for wanting to see a movie about sensitive issues dealing with lots of feelings.

My argument is done without any research and is simply my humble opinion, but I wanted to post because your video really got me thinking. Thanks for the input.

#4: when they talk to eachother, are they in a kitchen?
if not, this is not a movie worth seeing.

Its just marketing, because traditionally on a date the man payes for the woman's ticket, and if it isn't a movie the guy wants to see he doesn't buy the ticket. Its a simple reminder of the nuclear family unit in a dating situation.

That's a really vague test.

The reverse Bechdel Test is also interesting as comparison.

Does the movie have two or men in it, who have names?
Do they talk to each other?
Do they talk about something other than a woman?

I challenge readers to find a movie that does NOT pass this reverse Bechdel Test, then ponder the implications.

Sample bias.

no one really wants to watch two or more women talk,it not that entertaining. thats why people watch movies to get away from reality.

I like how she doesn't talk about the movies that do fit those qualifications. Really? You can't just attack a movie for having a lot of men. You need to look at the social context.

Also a lot of women actors suck.

The Bechdel test questions the assumption that reality is all about the absence of women. Clearly, a lot of people (mostly men) still prefer a reality based on the absence of women or the marginalization of women.

We women think, oh, just being half of humanity, that we are a normal presence in the world. We think we should be part of what is considered real, normal, vital, meaningful. Just because we are here, we think we should be here.

The Taliban, and some others, think we are basically livestock who should be kept away from men except when needed for breeding and recreational purposes. They see us as abnormal presences in the world, something to be controlled and kept powerless whenever possible.

The Bechdel test reminds us that the definition of "normal" still rests squarely on the idea that men are the only ones who matter and are the only ones with anything important or meaningful to do or say.

Men consider themselves, and their point of view, as the default. Therefore, women are Other, and a threat to the status quo at all times and in all places.

The more situations that exclude women, the more this mindset is solidified. It works both ways -- for example, women are the default better parents and nurturers until a few good men turn out to be good parents too.

But any realm that is overwhelmingly dominated by one sex or the other is bound to set up a way of thinking that considers the "Other" as abnormal and disruptive.

Nothing on romance movies?

Not.... a single thing?

It seems to me that if a man is the main character, and to have a scene where two women are talking to each other about something that is not related to the main character, would be superfluous to the plot.

What about films which have developed female characters who interact only with men. SALT, for example, would fail this test there being only one main female character.
Having the "not talking about men" indicator is viable but why does this need to be 2 women talking together. Surely a woman discussing non romantic issues with a man is also viable.

Does Labyrinth pass this test? The two females talk about a male baby. Does this count?