It was an email. She complained about women's movies for their treatment of men, but said that Steel Magnolias, while having the faults of the genre, was nonetheless a good movie. I haven't seen it.
I keep hearing people call for "strong women" in fiction. I don't want strong women. I want real women. That means that some of them are strong, and some are weak, and most are strong sometimes and weak other times. Some of them should wear sensible shoes, and some should wear high heels. Some should display bad habits, even the most stereotypically female (especially since there is often a grain of truth behind a stereotype) and others shouldn't. I should like some and not others, I should find some sexy and not others. There should be diversity, but not more diversity than there really is, not diversity just for the sake of diversity.
(Some movies need to be unrealistic to tell their story? True, but it works better to limit the unrealistic elements to what is required. Making everything unrealistic just means the unrealistic bits you need to tell the story get lost in the mess. It's more effective to highlight just a few unrealistic assumptions.)
I consider the Bechdel Test to be a bit risky, though. It needs to be applied with
( ... )
I want woman that are well-drawn and interesting. And making them strong and no longer feminine might be missing the point with some characters.
Most of my favourite movies fail the Bechdel test. I see it as a useful tool to think about the issue, rather than a way to make a final judgement on the quality of a movie.
Most of my favourite movies fail the Bechdel test.
That's the thing, I think. There'll be reasons for the artistic choices in most any piece, and often they'll justify explain make sense of a 'bad' a Bechdel : reverse-Bechdel result. But if you look at our creative media as a whole, or entire genres/subgenres, we haven't a leg to stand on. Pitifully few works 'pass the test', and the ratio B : reverse B is enormous.
p.s. Dykes to Watch Out For was hilarious. For sure Alison Bechdel is not remotely as puritan as her characters. (Duh)
Comments 46
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
I keep hearing people call for "strong women" in fiction. I don't want strong women. I want real women. That means that some of them are strong, and some are weak, and most are strong sometimes and weak other times. Some of them should wear sensible shoes, and some should wear high heels. Some should display bad habits, even the most stereotypically female (especially since there is often a grain of truth behind a stereotype) and others shouldn't. I should like some and not others, I should find some sexy and not others. There should be diversity, but not more diversity than there really is, not diversity just for the sake of diversity.
(Some movies need to be unrealistic to tell their story? True, but it works better to limit the unrealistic elements to what is required. Making everything unrealistic just means the unrealistic bits you need to tell the story get lost in the mess. It's more effective to highlight just a few unrealistic assumptions.)
I consider the Bechdel Test to be a bit risky, though. It needs to be applied with ( ... )
Reply
I want woman that are well-drawn and interesting. And making them strong and no longer feminine might be missing the point with some characters.
Most of my favourite movies fail the Bechdel test. I see it as a useful tool to think about the issue, rather than a way to make a final judgement on the quality of a movie.
Reply
That's the thing, I think. There'll be reasons for the artistic choices in most any piece, and often they'll justify explain make sense of a 'bad' a Bechdel : reverse-Bechdel result. But if you look at our creative media as a whole, or entire genres/subgenres, we haven't a leg to stand on. Pitifully few works 'pass the test', and the ratio B : reverse B is enormous.
p.s. Dykes to Watch Out For was hilarious. For sure Alison Bechdel is not remotely as puritan as her characters. (Duh)
Reply
Leave a comment