Bechdel Test Movie List

OMG! No comments? This is the ur-text of Bechdel heaven in the classical Hollywood cinema! If you have come to this site for any reason, you need to read the also-classic feminist-film-crit essay "Pre-Text and Text in Gentlemen Prefer Blondes,” by Lucie Arbuthnot and Gail Seneca. Now.

All they talk about is men!

It's not true that "all they talk about is men." For example, Jane Russell (Dorothy) and Marilyn Monroe (Lorelei) have this exchange about geography:

Dorothy: Not "Europe, France," honey. France is *in* Europe!

Lorelei: Who said it wasn't?

Dorothy: Well, you wouldn't say, "Is this the way to North America, Mexico?," would you?

Lorelei: If that's where I wanted to go, I would!

I have read "Pre-Text and Text in Gentlemen Prefer Blondes,” by Lucie Arbuthnot and Gail Seneca alongside studying Laura Mulvey's "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema", and while I recognize Arbuthnot and Seneca's findings that observe the ways in which Gentlemen Prefer Blondes subverts the male-gaze as defined by Mulvey, I ultimately don't believe you can fully shave away the fact that at the end of the day it's all-in-all a typical Busby Berkeley spectacle.

I understand that Arburnoth and Seneca acknowledge the male-gaze and how it appears in GPB, but just because we can see sequences of Jane Russell and Marilyn Monroe talking about anything but men with each other (which is what what- a few seconds talking about a trip?) and that some sequences didn't align with the, as Arbuthnot and Seneca brilliantly put it, "mammary madness of the 50s" and instead focused on their faces, do we really want to promote this film as a breakthrough film regarding feminist film critique? The film where, if Jane Russell and Marilyn Monroe aren't talking about men they're talking about money (ala, "Diamonds Are a Girl's Best Friend")? On a technical level I suppose it passes but I really don't believe those small bits can justify a pass when all over this film we can still see the quite literal objectification of women for spectacle (just look at "Diamonds Are a Girl's Best Friend", the women are part of the chandelier for spectacle: they are imposed upon an object both literally and figuratively!)

I have read "Pre-Text and Text in Gentlemen Prefer Blondes,” by Lucie Arbuthnot and Gail Seneca alongside studying Laura Mulvey's "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema", and while I recognize Arbuthnot and Seneca's findings that observe the ways in which Gentlemen Prefer Blondes subverts the male-gaze as defined by Mulvey, I ultimately don't believe you can fully shave away the fact that at the end of the day it's all-in-all a typical Busby Berkeley spectacle.

I understand that Arburnoth and Seneca acknowledge the male-gaze and how it appears in GPB, but just because we can see sequences of Jane Russell and Marilyn Monroe talking about anything but men with each other (which is what what- a few seconds talking about a trip?) and that some sequences didn't align with the, as Arbuthnot and Seneca brilliantly put it, "mammary madness of the 50s" and instead focused on their faces, do we really want to promote this film as a breakthrough film regarding feminist film critique? The film where, if Jane Russell and Marilyn Monroe aren't talking about men they're talking about money (ala, "Diamonds Are a Girl's Best Friend")? On a technical level I suppose it passes but I really don't believe those small bits can justify a pass when all over this film we can still see the quite literal objectification of women for spectacle (just look at "Diamonds Are a Girl's Best Friend", the women are part of the chandelier for spectacle: they are imposed upon an object both literally and figuratively!)

definitely passes, they talk about how to steal the pictures, about the tiara, get accused of stealing the tiara by another woman, and about running from the cops lol