Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
I watched 12 Angry Men, Lord of the flies and Sleuth and was disappointed to see they all failed.
I can understand its purpose but there are plenty of great films that have well written female characters but still fail the test. Harold and Maude for example must fail it (I haven't seen it in a while) but gives equal weight to both characters of opposite sexes.
harold's mum and at least one of the "dates" talk about the girl's job
I really need to watch that film again.
possibly my favourite film. only watched it for the first time a few months ago but have rewatched it a couple of times since
tbh tho, the mum is only talking to the girl in the context of whether she'd be a good wife to harold
this site says whether a bunch of stuff passed:
(do they?) but and it's certainly not perfect. eg: Enough Said is a film with realistic female characters that are't there as eye candy or fluffy love interest but it wouldn't pass the test cos it's all about relationships.
But it is a guide(right term?) that shows how women are (under)represented on film/tv.
enough mother daughter stuff surely?
I can't remember. Certainly most of the conversations between the female leads are about a man.
But it's a good film with realistic female characters whether it passes or not.
"Two female characters discuss their children going to college."
think she talks about her job to enough women as well?
such a great film.
Nebraska would fail even though June Squibb is probably the only non-ridiculous character in it.
was pretty ridic
What I meant was more that she's the only character who seems to have a clue what she's doing and why. All the men fumble about a bit uselessly whereas she's pretty driven and determined and constantly telling them all how thick they're being.
Doesn't June Squibb have a scene where she's talking with her sister in law about something? I can't remember the convo but I'm sure it wasn't about a man.
They're talking about the cousin who got arrested for sexual assault aren't they?
They also talk about another woman being pregnant so I think it qualifies as a pass
It only passes as a result of two very incidental conversations that could be removed without any plot consequence, even though on balance it presents women pretty favourably. Similarly I think there are two conversations in Jackie Brown that would get the film over the line even though the film has a strong, intelligent, self-motivated female protagonist.
Oh, and Fargo only passes because Marge speaks to a hotel receptionist.
it's SO easy to pass that it's insane that so few films do
but it shouldn't be used to criticise a particular film, I think it's only useful to look at the trend of films
but trends consist of individual films. i think it's fair to hold individual films accountable for their parts in trends.
for example, i love the film Adaptation. a lot, and the bechdel site points out that it's very borderline. i think it's fair to expect a "clever" film like that to not contribute to a culture in which women are unrepresented
And I think it's fair to criticise a film for failing. Just because you say a particular thing about a film isn't right doesn't mean you dismiss the film entirely.
liar, you love sounding like thatcher
"Baby Got Back" passes the test.
It's sexist code used to belittle women and promote the dominance of men in the world. It's the misogynati.
I couldn't bring myself to do it
But that would be a whole other fascinating authentic pasta debate that we should save for a rainy day (preferably when I am on holiday).
take me dancing, naked in the rain?
I think I've heard of it once and that was from a book on screenplay writing.
They're not like other people.
I have a special slice of people. Makes DiS look like a BNP meeting.
It was worse but I ditched / got ditched by a couple.
I got the whole spectrum. I have far left and far right friends. One of my mates edits the Morning Star. Another is in the NF.
I'm like WHATEVS BRO LET'S HAVE A BEER.
You should be like, WHATEVS BRO I'M FUCKING GETTING THE SHIT AWAY FROM YOU YOU CRAZY FUCKER.
I don't agree with a thing he says about politics but otherwise we're fine.
If you start de-friending people who you don't agree with politically, you're gonna end up with not many friends. Not YOU, I mean "one". As in anyone.
Also, who want to be friends only with people you agree with?
It's like on Twitter, I follow loads of staunch public school Tory and angry UKIP supporters because it's good to discuss these things with them. Challenge yourself innit.
holocaust denial for example
I would never seek to put the National Front in the same bracket as even UKIP, although they probably have some sort of overlap. I'm not sure even the BNP are quite up there with the NF.
I mean, you're talking about an organisation that believes in white supremacy, in the forced 'repatriation' of anyone who's not white and that forges links with Neo-Nazi groups.
It's really fucking dangerous to think the ideas of freedom of speech and live and let live are universally applicable because they never are. They can only extend to those who respect your own freedom of speech and ideas. Patently, with their hardline racist attitude, the NF do not.
I find it hard to imagine you can honestly have a few beers with an committed NF member. It's a reflection of an EXTREME form of views. Would you say, WHATEVS BRO, LET'S HAVE A BEER to a member of the Ku Klux Klan, because that IS a valid parallel.
Your own definition of 'extreme' will become wider and wider until you end up like the kind of people who extend the same welcome to me as a UKIP supporter as they would to murderers and rapists. You're obviously already going down that route in your first paragraph there. There's no black and white and no-one's views are entirely without merit. You can't honestly think of yourself as a well-rounded person if you never sit down with someone with views on the opposite end of the spectrum and try to understand.
but what you're advocating is quite dangerous and wrong. people refuse to engage with fascists not to censor their (violent and hateful) ideas but to stop those ideas being put into practice. you can't reduce anti-fascism to a battle of ideas because fascism, as an ideology, is not about an exchange of ideas. how could you possibly engage in an exchange of ideas a political position that calls for the elimination of whole groups of people? unlike, for example, UKIP, fascism is uniquely placed to undermine democracy for everybody.
you need to distinguish between the expression of racist ideas (or hate speech) and the actual practice of recruiting members to fascist organisations and organising violent demos. there is simply no debate to be had with organized fascism.
nb. 'fascism' not 'fascists' - the issue of whether we should reach out to individual people who are currently on the far right, e.g. by proposing class-based political alternatives is another issue (and one something I support).
allowing democratic outlets for fascism hasn't and doesn't work. the 6 million people murdered by the Nazis didn't die because their arguments weren't good enough.
You're doing that thing again that people love to do on here, assuming anyone holding right wing views have been somehow strong-armed into it by the media or the people around them.
You seem to be advocating isolating these people which I think history has proved drives them underground and compounds the problem. Sometimes it just takes a bit of dialogue. Case in point, Tommy Robinson's recent defection from the EDL after a documentary which forced him to engage with the people he was rallying against.
nb. 'fascism' not 'fascists' - the issue of whether we should reach out to individual people who are currently on the far right, e.g. by proposing class-based political alternatives is another issue (and something I support).
^ not arguing for 'isolating' people who hold far right extremist views
You've not engaged with my main point: we need to treat fascism uniquely because it is unique. Your point before about a 'slippery slope' of treating more and more things we disagree with as 'extreme' is ridiculous. I'd very much argue for a clear distinction to be drawn between UKIP's (albeit quite xenophobic) right-wing population and the neo-Nazism of the BNP or the Golden Dawn.
Please try to understand why people treat fascism in a specific way and why liberal principles of "free speech" and "open debate" don't apply to Nazis.
about how neo-nazis are a real, violent and anti-democratic threat, take a look at what's been happening in Sweden or Greece recently
this not something we can engage with democratically. the only possible strategy is a working-class based resistance (because by and large these are disaffected, alienated white working class men) which takes place within the communities most affected by this.
even if you find the views of those people abhorrent. When your democracy is dominated by a self-proclaimed intelligentsia that consistently dismisses the often valid concerns of disaffected groups of society it's not surprising to see these groups spring up. We're seeing a mild version of this in action here with the increasing popularity of UKIP. When you get to this point as a nation then it's time to start thinking about compromise.
They'll start believing in it themselves. If you think immigration is too high, you're a racist, etc.
there are some "valid concerns" in the ideology of BNP...
i.e. a too rapid shift in the cultural make-up of some areas of the UK, which morphs into this violent ideology when the powers that be continually ignore it.
When you've got a serious problem with it, e.g. a Nazi party becoming likely to get elected into the European parliament as in Greece, the problem's obviously extending beyond a small group of twisted individuals and may be the government should take some culpability in encouraging it.
that makes me laugh long and hard at your completely cretinous bullshit.
watch your language Theo,ffs
Uproariously laughing with your pants down your ankles and a laptop on your knee
I have no desire to swing people's view as to whether I'm right or wrong - people will think what they like anyway and it's my life and I'll be friends with whoever. Go me.
Anyway bros (and hoes), the guy in question is a very good friend since early school days. His Dad stood for the NF in the 70s as a candidate. He's clearly been indoctrinated by his Dad, obvs.
I don't know whether he's an actual member. He sometimes claims these things to wind me up. But I do know he has views that I do not agree with. At all. But he has good friends who are ethnic minorities. I went out with an Indian girl and he never once objected to mixed race relations. He's never been openly racist to anyone, ever. He's very affable and keeps his family views to himself. Whatever they may be.
I have to crowbar politics our og him when I'm drunk and start calling him a cunt about it.
"It's really fucking dangerous to think the ideas of freedom of speech and live and let live are universally applicable because they never are."
Well, I disagree. Anyone can think what they like in their head. Acting on it is a different matter. I’m sure that many people think things they’d never share and that’s fine. No matter what the thought. Why should I be some moral judge and defriend someone I've been close to for years because I don't agree with his views? He's never suggested ever he supports repatriation and I doubt he does.
Last election he said he voted UKIP. Because he hates Europe. As did Tony Benn.
If he was an NF marching, racist thug who peddled hate, then there's a difference. If he says he supports the NF and that's only when I won't let the subject go and even then he doesn't want to talk about it, then fine.
He thinks I'm wrong, I think he's wrong but believe it or not GUISE, we manage to get on as human beings with a mutual respect for the fact that people can think what they like.
I really cannot see this issue extends further than that. If other people are offended by this then cool. Be offended. I have no agenda to influence anyone’s judgement nor do I seek their approval on this. I'm just giving the facts and my view on it.
quite well-known isn't it
but is only useful when films which pass/fail it are discussed within its context. it's also useful to illustrate trends in cinema
generally, so many films fail it that really really don't need to
films with women talking are usually pretty boring
Is there a My Dinner With Andre type film with women instead?
...no doubt by A MAN!!!11
They spend the whole time talking about him/her...
Haven't seen it in ages but doesn't it all start with one of their husbands cheating? Was thinking the same thing about Nine to Five, off the top of my head I can only think of one conversation that isn't about their boss and it's about the photocopier.
Kind of figured the Simpson's parody had probably ruined it.
But its a film with two female leads in almost every scene; they must talk about something other than men at some point right?
how often do you watch thelma and louise out of interest?
Do you want the answer in years, months, days, weeks, minutes or seconds?
but there's also a lot of conversation about other things (I think)
some really interesting thoughts on this here i think.
he's got some great things to say about writing in general actually, so maybe you should follow him.
Don't think Celine And Julie Go Boating has much in the way of men talking to each other, not about women
Features absolutely no conversations in which women aren't directly involved.
They just have the decency to not be in it very much.
Obviously it's an imperfect test but as long as people are clear about what the test is measuring, I don't see the problem in using it. It's one indicator, out of many possible, to highlight how gender biased cinema is. It doesn't mean films are any good or "feminist" but then it's not meant to...
"Hi Laura, so hot outside!"
"Hi Martha, it really is, I need to take off this skirt right away!"
"That's a nice bra." (Martha takes off Laura's bra)
I mean, stop being trivial, right now
Annoying twats worth punching hard in their stupid faces...