While writing Female characters exist to promote male leads for network profits, I realized something I had never quite put together in so many words. It’s important enough to deserve its own article (thanks, Bellatrys!), so here it is: my screenwriting professors taught me not to write scripts that passed the Bechdel/Mo Movie Measure/”Dykes To Watch Out For” test, and I can tell you why, and this needs to be known.
The “Dykes to Watch Out For” test, formerly coined as the “Mo Movie Measure” test and Bechdel Test, was named for the comic strip it came from, penned by Alison Bechdel – but Bechdel credits a friend named Liz Wallace, so maybe it really should be called the Liz Wallace Test…? Anyway, the test is much simpler than the name. To pass it your movie must have the following:
1) there are at least two named female characters, who
2) talk to each other about
3) something other than a man.
So simple, and yet as you go through all your favorite movies (and most of your favorite TV shows, though there’s a little more variety in TV), you find very few movies pass this test.
It’s not a coincidence. It’s not that there aren’t enough women behind the camera (there aren’t, but that’s not the reason). Here’s what we’re up against (and for those who have requested a single post that summarizes my experiences in film for linking reference, now you’ve got it).
When I started taking film classes at UCLA, I was quickly informed I had what it took to go all the way in film. I was a damn good writer, but more importantly (yeah, you didn’t think good writing was a main prerequisite in this industry, did you?) I understood the process of rewriting to cope with budget (and other) limitations. I didn’t hesitate to rip out my most beloved scenes when necessary. I also did a lot of research and taught myself how to write well-paced action/adventure films that would be remarkably cheap to film – that was pure gold.
There was just one little problem.
I had to understand that the audience only wanted white, straight, male leads. I was assured that as long as I made the white, straight men in my scripts prominent, I could still offer groundbreaking characters of other descriptions (fascinating, significant women, men of color, etc.) – as long as they didn’t distract the audience from the white men they really paid their money to see.
I was stunned. I’d just moved from a state that still held Ku Klux Klan rallies only to find an even more insidious form of bigotry in California – running an industry that shaped our entire culture. But they kept telling me lots of filmmakers wanted to see the same changes I did, and if I did what it took to get into the industry and accrue some power, then I could start pushing the envelope and maybe, just maybe, change would finally happen. So I gave their advice a shot.
Only to learn there was still something wrong with my writing, something unanticipated by my professors. My scripts had multiple women with names. Talking to each other. About something other than men. That, they explained nervously, was not okay. I asked why. Well, it would be more accurate to say I politely demanded a thorough, logical explanation that made sense for a change (I’d found the “audience won’t watch women!” argument pretty questionable, with its ever-shifting reasons and parameters).
At first I got several tentative murmurings about how it distracted from the flow or point of the story. I went through this with more than one professor, more than one industry professional. Finally, I got one blessedly telling explanation from an industry pro: “The audience doesn’t want to listen to a bunch of women talking about whatever it is women talk about.”
“Not even if it advances the story?” I asked. That’s rule number one in screenwriting, though you’d never know it from watching most movies: every moment in a script should reveal another chunk of the story and keep it moving.
He just looked embarrassed and said, “I mean, that’s not how I see it, that’s how they see it.”
Right. A bunch of self-back-slapping professed liberals wouldn’t want you to think they routinely dismiss women in between writing checks to Greenpeace. Gosh, no – it was they. The audience. Those unsophisticated jackasses we effectively worked for when we made films. They were making us do this awful thing. They, the man behind the screen. They, the six-foot-tall invisible rabbit. We knew they existed because there were spreadsheets with numbers, and no matter how the numbers computed, they never added up to, “Oh, hey, look – men and boys are totally watching Sarah Connor and Ellen Ripley like it’s no big deal they’re chicks instead of guys.” They always somehow added up to “Oh, hey, look – those effects/that Arnold’s so awesome, men and boys saw this movie despite some chick in a lead role.”
According to Hollywood, if two women came on screen and started talking, the target male audience’s brain would glaze over and assume the women were talking about nail polish or shoes or something that didn’t pertain to the story. Only if they heard the name of a man in the story would they tune back in. By having women talk to each other about something other than men, I was “losing the audience.”
Was I?
There certainly are still men in this world who tune out women when we talk, but – as I and other students pointed out – this was getting less common with every generation, and weren’t we supposed to be targeting the youngest generation? These young men had grown up with women imparting news on national TV (even I can remember when that was rare), prescribing them medicine, representing people around them in court, doling out mortgages and loans. Those boys wouldn’t understand those early ’80s movies where women were denied promotions because “the clients want to deal with men” or “who would take a woman doctor/lawyer/cop seriously”? A lot of these kids would need it explained to them why Cagney & Lacey was revolutionary, because many of their moms had worked in fields once dominated by men.
We had a whole generation too young to remember why we needed second wave feminism, for cryin’ out loud, and here we were adhering to rules from the 1950s. I called bullshit, and left film for good, opting to fight the system from without. There was no way Hollywood really believed what it was saying about boys who’d grown up with Ellen Ripley and Sarah Connor as action heroes, and so there was no way to change the system from within. I concluded Hollywood was was dominated by perpetual pre-adolescent boys making the movies they wanted to see, and using the “target audience” – a construct based on partial truths and twisted math – to perpetuate their own desires. Having never grown up, they still saw women the way Peter Pan saw Wendy: a fascinating Other to be captured, treasured and stuffed into a gilded cage. Where we didn’t talk. To each other. About anything other than men.
Follow-up post: Why discriminate if it doesn’t profit?
{ 148 comments… read them below or add one }
← Previous Comments
Next Comments →
The frustrating thing, William, is that the media gatekeepers are saying that you (and guys like you) don’t exist either, which is just as insulting in its own way as saying stuff like Women only care about the Diamonds! and Clean Floors! and Shoes! and other shallow nonsense. It’s like they have these cliches in their heads of What A Man Is and What A Woman Is, and no amount of factual evidence can overwrite that.
bellatrys(Quote) (Reply)
This is eerily similar to the counter-arguments people make when I go on the various Lego forums and declare that Legoland Needs Women! “The audience is mostly males and won’t buy sets with female characters”, they say, never mind that on the auction sites, the most expensive mini-figures are the various “Princesses” (which is another peeve, why can’t they be proles?).
Mike Crichton(Quote) (Reply)
Then why is it that the Lego Batman set I’m most excited about is the one with Harley Quinn, her enormous mallet, and oh yeah a couple vehicles or something?
Patrick(Quote) (Reply)
brilliant post, here’s hopin that financiers in hollywood run across your blog as well
Elyse Ribbons(Quote) (Reply)
I think the most disappointing moment I’ve had in my cinematic experiences was watching “Death Proof” for the first time in theatre (I was excited about it for months) with my girlfriend. I was awestruck by the witty dialogue penned by Tarantino amongst the group of female roles, especially since Tarantino is quite famous for writing fantastic dialogue for women – and they talked about subjects OTHER than guys (and even when talking about guys, it wasn’t petty). And at the end of the movie, my girlfriend complained about the conversation amongst the women! Here’s what she said – “my girlfriends and I don’t talk like that. girls mostly just talk about other girls and their boyfriends/guys.” I was dumbfounded. And my girlfriend is NOT an airhead by any stretch of the imagination.
Eric(Quote) (Reply)
Eric, I’m sure that really is her experience… or at least her perception of her experience.
There are safe topics for each gender when getting to know one another. For men, it’s sports, beer, etc., for women it’s the men and children in their lives, or appearance stuff. These are the topics most people start out on, and then they get to know each other better and feel safe talking about more profound and random stuff. Well… women do. Some men swear to me men NEVER get beyond the sports and beer talk, but that’s so sad I hope it’s not true for most men.
Anyway, if your girlfriend hasn’t gotten too close to women over the years, it’s possible she doesn’t realize there is a point where you get past those topics to other stuff.
I’ve met some women who seemed to only talk about men and whatnot for a very long time, but after a while of me talking about everything under the sun, they always prove to have thoughts on other subjects. I think some of them don’t feel safe defying gender expectations until they know a person well. It’s like they’re afraid people will perceive them as something other than the “nice, normal person” niche they’ve fit into through careful work. (Remember, we’re a society that values conformity rather than being exceptional, so there’s a cultural advantage in fitting into stereotypes.)
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
Very interesting, but not so surprising. Your analysis seems dead on! I’m glad you had what it took to walk away.
Brendon(Quote) (Reply)
Strangely enough, the military put a great deal of money into a study concerning response and attention to voice. They wanted their fighter pilots and such to have the quickest response possible at times of emergency. The results showed that the men not only responded faster to a female voice but also retained the information longer and more accurately. So that is why fighter planes speak in a female voice. Tell me again how men won’t listen to girls talk.
Vasi(Quote) (Reply)
There is a principal I call “the law of opposits.” basically most peoples justifications are the exact opposit of the truth. Hollywood has a vested intrest in “dumbing down” its audience. Discriminating pigs wont eat whatever is thrown at them, to get them to do that you must DENY them better food. This is hollywwods primary motive, aclimating peopler to lifless art effectivly nutralizes them emotionally. A society is only as good as its myths…they are what guide a nations future. our future is aparently cheap ignorant and lifeless. Movies are PROPAGANDA, ours make evoking impotence into a fine art, like a herd of steer we may be MALE dominated, but only males who lacks testicales compleatly are allowed. Hollywood is the throne of cowardice, it is the shepard that follows the sheep because it dosen’t have the guts to lead. Its disgusting
bill wesley(Quote) (Reply)
Chick flicks can be quite profitable. Just don’t expect men to want to see them.
Frankie(Quote) (Reply)
This is a fabulous post and fantastic discussion. Hat tip to my husband, a statistically non-existent man, for sending it to me. For those of you who haven’t already, you might want to check out an oldish article by Thomas Cripps called “The Myth of the Southern Box Office,” which basically details how Hollywood execs pulled analogous bullshit on black men and women for decades by claiming that though they themselves *really really wanted* to stop casting black men and women as grinning, eye-rolling, shuffling idiots, if they did so, then they would offend and lose the patronage of southern moviegoers.
Edward Campbell’s book The Celluloid South extends and amplifies the argument, talking about how Hollywood basically created a whole genre of “Southerns” (comparable to “Westerns”), movies which advanced the ideals of white supremacy, and of the pre-emancipation south as an agrarian eden where everyone was happy and understood their place.
It’s amazing that now the excuse is not about just one region of the country, but a even more nebulous and more effective general “they.”
Oy. Anyway, thanks for the great post: I’m putting it up on my Facebook page.
Miriam P(Quote) (Reply)
Oh, wait a minute. So every film with a major leading female character is a “chick flick,” to you Frankie?
No wonder I can’t stand this sexist bullshit in Hollywood.
DEAF FEMINIST PUNK!!!(Quote) (Reply)
Now, I must ask – does this failed Bechdel test apply largely to live action, human characters? Or is it just female characters in general? For example, what about the medium of animation? (Of course traditionally, the story in animated films is developed visually via storyboards, and not a script – but let’s just set that aside for now!) Are the Bechdel test requirements avoided even if your two female characters are cartoon bunnies, or somesuch? ;-P
On a related note, I can’t help but wonder if there’s a Bechdel equivalent for film settings. Why is it that about 70% of mainstream U.S. films take place in New York City, when the vast majority of the audience is only familiar with the abstract idea of the place? Is isn’t as though the audience “knows” the city, more than they are familiar with its imagery through constant exposure, as 95% of them have never set foot there. Meh. Just more U.S. Powers-That-Be furthering the effort to maintain a myopic view of the world, I suppose.
Lindsay(Quote) (Reply)
Absolutely not limited to live action, human characters. C.L. Hanson wrote a post about recent-ish animated films and this test about a year ago. See it here.
Tacking this on:
USA Network’s In Plain Sight does not only revolve around a lead female, but also features two other women. All have had conversations not related to men. It’s not without faults, but overall the show does a decent job of lending complexity to most of their characters, male or female. (I love Marshall, and I love that he’s very clearly the supporting character…)
AMC’s Mad Men also has a decent line-up of women who manage to talk about things other than men. It’s a bit more problematic, given that it’s set in 1960 (and in NYC, hee).
sbg(Quote) (Reply)
Miriam P, that’s really fascinating. That essay doesn’t seem to be available on line, but if I can find it in a book I’d like to read it and maybe report on it here. Thanks!
DEAF FEMINIST PUNK!!!, of course it is. Hollywood thinks “mainstream” can apply to one narrow segment of the populace, and you can designate half of humanity as a “niche.” Frankie has learned this like we all did, but unlike some of us he still hasn’t thought it over analytically.
Lindsay, anime tends to do better on the Bechdel test than live action. But mainstream animation – as in Disney, Pixar, etc. – tends to do worse than live action movies. As for animation’s use of human substitutes – talking rabbits, robots, whatever – it’s extremely rare they have two female characters in the first place, a la The Smurfs. This sends a clear, disturbing message that men are useful for many roles, but women are only useful when caretaking or baby-related functions are required.
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
SunlessNick(Quote) (Reply)
How broad is the “not related to men” requirement?
I started to play the game of seeing what novels pass the Bechdel test, and I ran into one that is feminist in message and has strong female characters, but places them in a Dark Age society. It posed some interesting questions. Does it or does it not count when you have a female overlord, who inherits her demesne because the laws deem it better for a woman to rule than for the demesne to leave the clan, sitting and discussing with her two serving women and closest confidantes how to deal with her rebellious vassals? The vassals, after all, are all men, but on the other hand, the women in question are essentially talking about the first woman’s job.
Amanda Weinstein(Quote) (Reply)
Amanda, we discussed some hypotheticals earlier in the thread, and not everyone agrees exactly, but as I see it… maybe, maybe not. For me, it depends on other factors. If there was a lot of logical opportunity to have women talking to each other and I feel the author just didn’t exploit that opportunity, I give it a fail. If I don’t see that the author left opportunities on the table, and find there’s at least a tiny nod to women being fully human creatures even when men aren’t around to observe it, I might be inclined to give it a pass.
Also, the passing or failing of the Bechdel test is not the sole measure of a film’s feminist value, so even when a movie fails it, it might still be valuable from a feminist perspective. For example, I like Fight Club because as *I* read the story, it breaks down the myth that the cult of masculinity is where a man finds his identity and value. Doesn’t say a damn thing about women or our journey, but the obsession with manhood (and lack of corresponding value put on “womanhood”) is definitely part of why we need feminism, so I think the movie has value even though it only features one woman and therefore fails Bechdel. (Also, I acknowledge some people get almost an opposite read on Fight Club – that it celebrates the cult of masculinity. I disagree: the deeper “Jack” gets into his “manhood”, the closer he gets to realizing it’s a construct – Tyler – that’s doing him a lot of harm and no good. He has to destroy the construct to become himself again. Hmm, I just realized I never stated this flat out in my articles on Fight Club – looks like I should write another, LOL.)
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
Also, I wouldn’t want anyone to fall into the trap of assuming that just because a movie does pass the test means it’s either a feminist movie or a great movie. Beaches passes the test. I’m not going to stand up and say it’s either great cinema for the ages or a great feminist story (again with the breakdown of women’s friendships over men *sigh*), but I still own it and watch it.
Anna(Quote) (Reply)
As someone living and working in the entertainment industry, this is all quite depressing and not remotely surprising.
I am, however, going to make a point watch “Death Proof” soon, and that exchange in the comment thread reminded me of an older woman who used to be in my knitting group who commented one day that all we women talked about was men… After being in our group for months and months where we talked about career, the entertainment industry, the health industry, politics, and a million other things, and yes, sometimes, men. I seriously could not abide that woman after that.
That’s the hardest, I think. To work in this industry where we have so far to go, and then have some woman in a meeting make some comment about how women get all crazy when they have their period. (True Hollywood story)
lizriz(Quote) (Reply)
But it is true! And it’s great fodder to set up a man’s confused expression or long suffering sigh as they watch a woman turn into some unrecognizable thing right in front of them.
Because a truly female experience is somehow still about the menz.
/end sarcasm and tangent
sbg(Quote) (Reply)
I had a friend who studied writing and his professor told him that main characters needed to be straight white males. If they were female, black, gay, etc, then the work needed to be an “issue piece.” Having a gay main character in a work that wasn’t about homosexuality was just too distracting.
terry(Quote) (Reply)
Lizriz, I’m not surprised by your true story. To get anywhere in the business as a woman, you have to demonstrate that you’re one of the boys by showing you harbor the same sexist notions about women that they do. And while a guy who’s not sexist can just hold his tongue and keep doing his best to write non-sexist material around all the assholes, a woman who holds her tongue is immediately pegged as “offended” and therefore incapable of handling the “realities” of the world and her job.
Terry, exactly. If it’s a story about a Whitey, it’s a story about being Whitey. If it’s a story about any other variety of human being, it’s a story about the hardship of not being Whitey. Interesting how it all comes back to Whitey, isn’t it? He must be at the center of all things, including the things that supposedly aren’t meant for his enjoyment.
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
a woman who holds her tongue is immediately pegged as “offended”
THAT is how I got labeled as the Radical Feminist when I didn’t say ANYTHING about sex or gender roles! Well, except to call down some homophobic “jokes” made about an out gay coworker. (“But he doesn’t mind! He laughs along at them!” was the objection to my tart asides.)
The mere fact of not joining in with the Hipster Liberals at the SCLM outfit I used to work at, in their constant put-downs of (other) women, the jokes about how nasty (yet oh-so-desirable) whores and strippers were, all that “edgy” “ironic ” crap – I was TRYING to avoid trouble because I couldn’t afford not to pay the rent, to miss a single paycheck, because unlike them I didn’t have a wife with a full time job and good benefits or a mom in whose basement I could live, but might as well be hanged for a sheep – my attempts to keep my head down and be Nice and Sweet and professional by ignoring the sexism directed at me were taken (correctly, but still) as proof of my radicalism and hostility.
So, like I said – might as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb…
bellatrys(Quote) (Reply)
Excellent post. Thank you for sharing!
Arcee(Quote) (Reply)
Not only is this whole sexist thing offensive to women, I think it should also be considered offensive by men.
I mean, do ALL men just want to watch men fighting other men? If we really did, we would ALL watch WWF. That’s such a stereotype.
So it is a case of stereotypes reinforcing stereotypes. Like so many other cultural things, it is really hard to change.
I think we need to create a culture of change and acceptance, so as to make up for our natural tendency not to change.
I wonder, if one would write a story, but only assign genders to the characters afterward and randomly… I think there will be some people saying that I am not respecting the differences between the genders. Are they right or wrong?
Jaco(Quote) (Reply)
I reread this after hunting it up to link somewhere, and this bit got me to pondering.
Is it possible the all-knowing “they” is also looking at it from both sides, as they perceive it? As in men don’t want to watch women talk about something not revolving around the menfolk, but also that women in the audience only want to see “romance” stuff, even if it’s an action flick.
Could either be taken as “they” really think women only want to see romance, or better yet, expect women should want to see romance, because they’re worthless to the story (and in their personal lives) without it.
Possibly a bit of both, depending on who you ask. I know I’ve seen some shippers (and slashers too) that could find Tru Luv chemistry between a character they like and a piece of paper, based on favorite character getting a papercut.
Nialla(Quote) (Reply)
That’s absolutely one of the assumptions at work here. The reason they toss bits of romance into action movies is to appeal to the girlfriends and wives they presume will tag along disinterestedly with their menfolk. If they want more female viewers, they often rely on romance to get the job done. If a mainstream movie does well with women (say, Titanic), they tend to assume it’s the romance, not the SFX or the story or the gutsy female lead who didn’t just stand around waiting to be rescued.
I think there’s some of that going on, too. It sounds terribly misogynistic the way you put it (and it is, ultimately), but I believe it’s an insidious side effect of the idea that white men are the default and every other sort of human only needs to appear when you need a character to do/experience something a white man can’t.
And yeah, there are women who are obsessed with seeing romance in everything. But far more common in my experience is the viewer – male or female – who assumes two characters of the opposite sex who appear on screen simultaneously must have sexual tension. This isn’t because they want to see it – it’s because they’ve learned to expect it, since TV/film never strays far from that formula.
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
Jaco, I’ve been reading a fascinating blog series which is about the contextual history of the X-Men comics, and apparently something like that happened several times when Claremont was writing – he was it seems famous for saying “but why can’t this character be a woman?” in brainstorming sessions when the default Bechedel-Test-failure mode was to have every character/plot role be male unless you needed a “chick” to be the love-interest for one of the heroes. Which obviously made for a more interesting storyline as well as providing a more diverse and well-rounded cast, but that wasn’t the norm 30 years ago – nor is it today, alas.
On a personal level, in one of my original fic projects that I’m working on, I’ve changed a couple characters’ gender (and orientation too) from the original outline because I realized that they were very much in Traditional patterns and a) this was boring, b) a good opportunity to demonstrate my ideals, and c) an even better opportunity to stretch my writerly skills, by breaking the molds. What does it do to the story dynamic – and reader expectations – when a “typically male” aggressive career leadership role is played by a heterosexual woman (can’t be written off as “butch”), or a “typically female” nurturing role or “in distress” role is played by a straight guy…or when one of your square-jawed, swashbuckling, debonair hero characters is a gay working-class dude?
[SNARKLOCK ON] But gee, Jennifer, what else is there for two characters of the opposite sex to have in common, except sexual tension? Everybody knows it’s impossible for men to look at women as anything but sex objects, and women to look at men as anything but potential husbands! [SNARKLOCK OFF]
[SNARKLOCK OFF]
[SNARKLOCK OFF]
…Snark key is still stuck on….
bellatrys(Quote) (Reply)
I’ve been giving a lot of thought to this lately, since my 29th birthday prompted me to get off my ass and start working on the screenwriting that I abandoned when I went on dialysis a year ago.
The problem the industry has with the Bechdel test seems to be a consequence of good screenwriting intersecting with bad social ideas. In a conventional film (specifically, one with a single lead, not an ensemble) you do want everything to reflect on your lead, and having a conversation that neither features nor is about your lead draws the screenplay away from that. It’s bad screenwriting.
The part where the test becomes important and enlightening, of course, is when it comes to the sex of your lead. After all, with a female lead, you have ample opportunity to pass the test, but little to pass the test in reverse. So all those films with female leads shoul be fine, right, putting things about equal. Right?
What’s that, Hollywood? “People” don’t want to see films with female leads? “They” only want to see films with straight white men as the leads? Hmm… now we have a problem.
In short: Everything must be about the lead: sound screenwriting. The lead must always be a (straight white) man: sexist bullshit.
As I said, I’ve been giving a lot of thought to this regarding my own writing. The screenplay that I’m currently working on is fundamentally about a young man’s relationship with his father, so trying to pass the test would probably work to the detriment of the story. But I’ve got another screenplay in mind focusing on a group of teenage girls, and there’s barely a speaking male part to be found in it. In both cases the sex of the leads determines its Bechdel/reverse Bechdel status before I’ve even written anything.
Patrick(Quote) (Reply)
← Previous Comments
Next Comments →
{ 58 trackbacks }