Historical Moments: The Bechdel Rule
I felt daring and took my 2 daughters to see “Night at the Museum” today - we never go to these popular type movies in theaters, but it was their birthday and something different felt in order, and the movie turned out much funnier than the trailers made it out to be, and the trip through history was much more diverse than the prequels showed.
Except.
There were 3 females in the whole movie. One was the ex who’s found a geeky but stable new boyfriend. One is the to-be-squeeze, an attractive museum guide who seems unable to resist the cliched advances of a loser night watchman despite a pretty pathetic verbal exchange. And then there’s Sacajawea, whose main claim to fame seems to be as an object of desire for a wax Teddy Roosevelt (the better-than-he’s-been-in-a-decade Robin Williams). Oh, and Sacajawea’s main lines seem to be “I can’t hear you, there’s soundproof glass between us!” Quite the historic figure she cuts - a rather unique minimalist take on one of the most famous translaters of all time.
Yes, in a movie that traipses through history with a sympathetic Attila the Hun, a resurrected Akhmenrah, western railroad workers and a rather hip Octavius behind the wheel of a dune buggy, we can only summon up a single famous woman with no dialogue in the context of being TR’s girlfriend (she even melts TR’s wax torso back together for him, what a gal).
Oh, did I mention that besides Stiller & Williams, they manage to find some other serious actors like Dick van Dyke, Mickey Rooney, Owen Wilson, and the quite familiar if not household name Bill Cobbs?
When I tried to explain this phenomenon to my young girls, I got to thinking about Bechdel’s Rule, named for a woman whose friend never went to a movie unless it a) has at least two women who b) talk to each other about c) something besides a man.
Or as Jennifer Kesler explains, Bechdel’s Rule is a test a good scriptwriter should always fail. And that’s in enlightened “liberal” Hollywood. I suppose because as long as Hollywood wants to make money, movies with white male leads who aren’t bitterly clinging to guns and religion sell better than chick flicks? (Hmmm, is there a version of this rule that sums up the political landscape?)
In any case, we’ll have to fill in our daughters’ image of women in history from a different source than Hollywood. One of my favorites is Lise Meitner, a physicist who wasn’t allowed work in a Berlin lab so she came in for free anyway and discovered nuclear fission in the process (but got left out of the Nobel Prize for the sake of the dudes). And her compatriot, Hanna Reitsch, perhaps the greatest test pilot ever and winner of the Iron Cross. I’m thinking of a filmscript I could write. Where they get together and talk. About the war, about Meitner’s exile as a Jew, about Reitsch’s first tests of the helicopter and the V-1. And most of all about their completely opposite takes on their most important career and personal and moral decision - in Hanna’s case to stand by, in Lise’s case to work against. A man. Adolf. The Great Dictator.
Think it’ll fly or bomb?
I like your script idea.
But then again I'm wishing someone would make a movie about Henry Wallace. So my tastes probably don't line up with (so-called) Joe the (so-called) Plumber.
Among other interesting women, you could do worse than Gerda Lerner, the "godmother of women's history". She spent some time in jail (including her 18th birthday!) after joining the Austrian anti-Nazi resistance. And since then she's been a one-woman force of nature.
November 23, 2008 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yet another Des blog, when so many questions from her former ones are left unanswered. I am really tired of your unchallenged crap. I know I will get pilloried for saying so, but you are a shallow, one-sided, single-minded blow-hard who every now and then has a brilliant thing to say.
But considering how you monopolize this site with your multiple blogs, and your extensions onto blogs that could not accommodate your original changes, etc. I am just worn out trying to respond without getting responses to my reasonable responses.
OK, according to you every woman is right, and every challenge to any woman is sexist.
I am tired of trying to engage you in any reasonable level of discussion. You can keep on posting and posting and posting, and wearing everyone out.
Eventually, though, at some point you might have to admit that you are sometimes (often) just plain WRONG.
November 23, 2008 9:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and I make this critique knowing that this will be one more for the most rec'd list. So I won't bother to rec it myself.
PS when you are "explaining" everything to your girls, do you include the idea that being a victim is not that great?
November 23, 2008 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cville.
This may or may not make any difference to you, but regarding the line "her former ones," you may want to check out the following blog from a couple of weeks back.
You may not have seen it, and it may not fundamentally alter your opinion, but the blog- and the comments - may cast a slightly different light on it. Cheers.
November 23, 2008 10:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right, CVille, the point of observing you're being shit on is not to enjoy the taste of shit - it's to get out of the shower or at least find an umbrella.
As per one link I included, a female scriptwriter discovered that interesting scripts that didn't break the Bechdel Rule would be discarded. So based on her realization, she can either tailor her scripts to succeed within the rules, or try to find Indie movie makers and develop an alternative career. If she becomes successful enough, who knows, maybe she can change the rules of the industry, but I'm not so much into fantasy.
But if I were raising sons, I wouldn't send them at 100 pounds in to play linebacker against kids already 160 pounds - maybe as wide receiver if he were fast enough (but watch out for illegal hits). There are a variety of biases against boys in school and how they have to act as portrayed in movies if they don't want to be a dork loser. Would it be victimizing him if I pointed out that as a pudgy kid with black rim glasses that he better steel up or find a way to modify his appearance?
Had a bunch of kids over - split up automatically into gender groups, the boys took over the Barbie House to turn it into a war theater. Am I bizarre in noting the rules and behavior of the world we live in?
November 24, 2008 4:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Des, Sorry. I was cranky and uncivil. I apologize for everything except the comment about you being brilliant from time to time.
Jan
November 24, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
From ornery to delusionary in 5.4 secs ;-)
November 24, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, perhaps the word is "delusional" if I only bothered to consult a dictionary now and then. Anyway, all in good fun, until someone puts an eye out.
November 24, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is no other industry as bottom-line oriented as Hollywood. If you aren't seeing enough females in movies or their topics of conversation aren't to your liking, it's the same reason why you don't see the WNBA command the salaries of the NBA: no one will pay the money to watch them play.
Hollywood movies are generally aimed squarely at the demographic who will spend the most money in a theater: young males.
On the other hand, it's possible to finance your own film, play by your own rules, and get it distributed (via the Internet if all else fails). Of course, you will have to convince investors and distributors that there is a market for such a film... and marketing research suggests there is not.
November 24, 2008 4:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, FLASH OF GENIUS didn't even make the top 10 in its opening weekend. What came in first?
http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=beverlyhillschihuahua.htm
Go to www.imdb.com and see what FLASH OF GENIUS was about. You can't get more Capra-esque than this. So where were all the TPMers ready to go to the movies to support this film? No guns in the film, just the little guy against the evil corporation.
November 24, 2008 4:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, well, I started capriciously throwing in kids and dogs into my posts just to drive the numbers up, but that didn't even work well (contrast Boyd with some 300 Recs for his kid pulling the handle). All Hollywood. But they'll remember me as the Ed Wood of TPM, and for that I'm grateful.
November 24, 2008 5:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
And I'd suggest that politics plays to the same consumer realities as Hollywood does. I'm sure marketing research bears me out.
November 24, 2008 4:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
If the WNBA was smart, they'd have done the same thing the NBA did back at its inception: Draft regionally, so the college stars who would bring fans out play most of their games in front of people who are familiar with them. The CT Sun do OK anyway, they'd do better if Diana Taurasi was playing there, much as the MN Lynx would fare much better with Lindsey Whalen and Janelle McCarville in uniform. Just to name three.
And yes, there's a reason they call it "show business" and not "show social commentary".
November 24, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I daresay that over and over again, most women sports, save tennis -- and perhaps roller derby, have shown themselves not to be big money makers.
The easiest comparison is to look at attendance at college games.
I was making a sociological comment, not a marketing one!
November 24, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ever been to the museum of Natural History, Desidero? It's not like there is a preponderance of females represented there, as "history" was mostly written by men. I didn't find Stiller's movie to be sexist. In fact, his portrayal of Sacajawea wasn't without some irony. While Lewis & Clark were utterly oblivious to her as well as the world on the other side of the glass, she was quite aware of it. Oh, and the cranky monkey was probably female. ;)
What struck me most about the movie at the time, was the heartbreaking conversation Stiller had with his son, who said something to the effect of, "Maybe it's time you grew up dad and realize you're ordinary, and get a job." Of course, Stiller's character was far from ordinary, and I found the movie to be a surprisingly decent "light" watch. Could have been due to the talent you mentioned.
I think that the problem may be that Hollywood, like Broadway, has been taken over by unimaginative corporate hacks that won't take a chance on anything new or different. Hopefully that will change, and perhaps it is changing. Independent studios and Arthouse divisions seem to be having a larger impact then they did before. One example I can think of off the top of my head is Pan's Labyrinth, which had 3 female leads, and despite being in Spanish, got a couple of Academy Awards. I'd think your girls would be too young for it, (it's a DeToro film, so watch out), but it certainly would fit the bill if one was following The Bechdel Rule.
I appreciate the essay though, it was well done. Thanks.
November 24, 2008 8:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
As I noted, I thought the movie was funny, and as it was just on the edge of tolerable fear wise for the kids, Pan's Labyrinth would have been too heavy when it came out. Perhaps now.....
If only they'd done a decent job of Tank Girl.
November 24, 2008 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink