Failing the Bechdel Test

There are numerous reasons why so many movies fail the Bechdel test. Most of these reasons directly correspond to the exact nature of this assessment, and what it reveals about society. Still others of these reasons pertain to the function of films within society. For the most part, they are used to reinforce societal values and mores. To a lesser extent, this medium is also widely deployed as a means of introducing new societal norms which will one day become part of the social establishment.

Finally, still other reasons directly correlate to the notion of gender and gender constructs in Westernization today. A thorough examination of these different reasons reveals so many movies fail the Bechdel test because they reflect the values of a male-dominated society. In examining the specific way in which this this thesis applies to some of the theorists analyzed within this class, it is first necessary to elucidate the different facets of this instrument and what it states about society as a whole.

The first requirement of this test is for the movie to have at least two women with names in it. Many movies fail this test because of this initial requirement, simply because women are not central to the plot. Moreover, there is typically only one woman who plays an integral role within the plot of many films, typically in either the Madonna or the proverbial whore role.

The critical point about this particular component of the Bechdel test is it does not preclude films from having more than one woman in it with a speaking role, but more than one woman who speaks and has a name. Coates alludes to this point by writing her son that the very notion of the term people in this country "did not mean your mother or your grandmother" (1), partly because they were marginalized as women.

There is a degree of importance associated with names in movies, as named characters frequently are imbued with the sort of characterization denoting they are significant parts of the movie's plot. Many movies fail this facet of the Bechdel test because women are not deemed important enough to warrant more than one character with a name in it by today's society.

Another important characteristic of the Bechdel test which many movies fail, and which corroborates the fact that they are simply mirroring the values of a male-dominated society, is that the women do not speak to one another. It is important to realize that this facet of this test is so fallible for several films firstly because there are not enough of them with more than one female character with names.

When there are films which are able to pass this initial criteria, it is not infrequent that the women with names do not speak to each. Perhaps more than any other aspect of this evaluation, this characteristic of the test attests to the male-dominated nature of both the film industry and the overall society which it in turn reflects. The principle reason that most films do not incorporate a substantial amount of dialogue between women is because they are mostly cast in supporting roles.

Again, the standard is either the Madonna or the whore stereotype. The crux of this stereotype is these characters typically only exist in relation to men. In reality, there is a world of distinctions between men and women and even in between them. Fausto-Sterling mentions that there may be as many as six genders (2). By circumscribing the interplay between female characters, films are reinforcing the notion that there is not only a limit to genders, but also that the only importance among genders is associated with the male gender.

Therefore, the nature of gender itself is overly simplified and downplayed, which is a tenet Judith Butler addresses by writing "gender refers not to something we are but to something we do, which, through extended repetition and because of the vigorous suppression of all exceptions, achieves the appearance of a sort of coherent psychic substance" (3). This passage partially explains why women do not speak to one another in films, because of the thinly veiled "appearance" that they are just representations of a less important gender.

In films, they are not truly fully formed characters who have enough importance in a film to interact with one another. This fact attests to the reality that most films are centered around men to cater to the needs of a male-dominated society. The previous point is reinforced adequately by the final attribute of the Bechdel test, which requires for the female characters to speak to one another about something other than a man when they do share dialogue.

This criteria is not as substantial as the others, because there are typically only two types of people one can speak about -- either a male or a woman. Nonetheless, there are several movies which fail this criteria because the women are only placed in them as supporting characters to identify certain characteristics of male stars. Therefore, when there is a rare movie allowing women with names to interact with one another, it is not uncommon for these women to solely discourse about the man.

Men, after all, are typically the main characters in Westernized films, and in other cultures as well. Women are merely used to identify some additional facet of that man's character. Oftentimes they are love interests, or victims. When they are able to share scenes with one another with attendant dialogue, they are usually brought to reinforce the superiority of this male-dominated culture by discussing some attribute of a male character.

There are traces of this reality found in Foucault's notion of Panopticonism, the quintessential prison in which inmates are constantly monitored by unseen viewers. Such monitoring represents a critical characteristic of power -- it is so present, so complete, that the monitored is not even aware of the existence of the power because "the perfection of power should tend to render its exercise unnecessary" (4).

Thus, when women only speak to one another about other men, the salience of the male-dominated society is so complete most viewers are not even aware of it.