First published April 4, 2014.
Science has an important place in the study of movies at virtually
every stage of the film-making process. But movies are also about
illusion, a shadow box of dreams. Perhaps that is why a lot of the science that gets applied to film is sometimes a collection of smoke and mirrors.
Take for example the Bechdel Test. Conjured up in 1985 by cartoonist Alison Bechdel in her seminal comic strip Dykes to Watch Out For, the test was a pretty savvy and extremely on target dig at the mainstream Hollywood narrative structure.
For years, the Bechdel Test was a major reference in feminist
critical analysis. It was a loosy-goosy but pretty quick opening move in
critiquing material. It was a half-satiric but incredibly accurate jab.
In the right hands, it was even fun to use.
Then, something happened. By 2010, the concepts underlining the
Bechdel Test moved increasingly into the mainstream. That was largely
good. It raised awareness of the celluloid glass ceiling in the film
industry. It brought wider focus to issues that many of us have brought
up over the years about the film industry and its treatment of women. It also still provided a nifty satiric point.
By late 2013, some of the major cinemas in Sweden began using the Bechdel Test as
part of their rating system. That’s OK since the Swedish approach to
rating films is so strongly based in a distinctive Scandinavian cultural
attitude that we neo-Puritans in the States are always baffled by them
anyway. It’s like shopping for furniture at IKEA. Half the time I
don’t even know what you are supposed to do with the thing (but the
Swedish meatballs in the cafeteria are mighty good).
Now, Ted Hope wants indie filmmakers to pledge themselves to the Bechdel Test. It’s a bit like the no liquor pledge from
the old Temperance movement (minus the axes and wild storming of
saloons). Again, I guess that is sort of OK if you are into doing it. In
my experience, talk is cheap and these sort of pledges are utterly
meaningless. So go ahead and sign. Whatever.
But this does force some questions about the Bechdel Test itself. The
first and most important question: is it valid? The answer is pretty
easy: nah. Not really. I mean, how do you define valid anyway? In and of
itself, the Bechdel Test is simply designed to be a informative educational
tool that playfully pokes at a complex series of ideological structures
that have dominated Western narrative tradition since The Epic of Gilgamesh.
Ages ago, Hollywood co-opted a crude (one might even say debased)
version of this tradition. Everything was a love story. Granted,
everything was a male-dominated love story exclusively predominantly
written, produced, and directed by lots of guys. But they were all love stories. Heck, back in 1976 when he was producing his gawd-awful remake of King Kong, Dino
De Laurentiis kept referring to it as a love story. You know, ape meets
girl, ape loses girl, ape drags girl off to the top of tall building
till he gets gunned down. I get choked up just thinking about it.
In turn, this narrative tradition is all part of an ideological structure.
The Bechdel Test (which is based on an ideological theory, not a
scientific principle) touches on this much larger issue ever so
slightly. At its best, it can be somewhat enlightening. Mostly, it has
provided a lot of web sites with long lists of the major movies that
flunk the test. (Word to the wise: most movies will flunk this test – in
fact, some of the movies that pass only do so because somebody
stretched the rules.)
So yes, there is an extremely valid point to the Bechdel Test. Part
of it has to do with the narrative structure. Another part involves the
entire nuts and bolts of the industry. Even though women are now moving
more than ever into various important positions within the film
business, it is still a recent phenomenon. But this has yet to result in
any noticeable change in the movies themselves. Even a recent film like
The Heat is
primarily an adaptation of the buddy-buddy genre rather than a radical
change. We are still a long way off from seeing an American version of Daisies.
What is Daisies, you ask? This 1966 Czech New Wave movie by
Vera Chytilová was an experimental satire in narrative deconstruction
that lampooned the psycho-social ennui of Eastern Europe in the 1960s.
It also made fun of men. Especially men of the official type. That may
have been the real reason why it was banned for a while. It was also a key step toward the development of the modern feminist cinema. Ironically, Daisies would not be able to pass the Bechdel Test. Go figure.
But this film is a lot closer to what I am talking about. A real
change to the current situation will involve something more than adding a
few women to the mix. It will involve major, substantial, even (dare I
say it) revolutionary change. The rest is just window dressing.
However, I do make one little request of anyone who signs the pledge.
If you are a male filmmaker and sign this thing, please fire yourself
as the director and hire a woman instead. That way, you can show your
commitment.
Oh, you don’t want to do that? I had a hunch that was the case. So never mind.
the end is near
-
No one wants to listen to me whine about finishing final grades or the
writing of a dissertation, never mind the curve balls life always has in
store at th...
9 years ago
No comments:
Post a Comment