Bechdel Test Movie List

The fairy Maleficent and the princess Aurora (from the Disney movie <I>Sleeping Beauty</i>) spend significant time together, and talk about Aurora's future and Maleficent's past. They don't bring up men at all, ever. The three fairies who raise Aurora talk to each other about her, and about the things they want, and she talks to them about her plans to leave them. The subject of a man—Aurora's father—only comes into their interactions late in their relationship. Eventually (SPOILER) Maleficent talks to Aurora about their relationship, and how much Maleficent cares for her and regrets cursing her.

And it's worth noting that the entire film is about a woman who's wronged by a man, and takes revenge, and then finds a way out of her fury and loneliness by bonding with another woman. It isn't a very deep relationship or a very deep movie, but it goes beyond a technical I-guess-two-women-say-two-words-to-each-other pass on the test.

One thing that I loved about malificent was that there weren't two named male characters who talked to each other about something other than a girl. I thought that was brilliant.

Really a reverse-Bechdel test fail is just as sexist as a Bechdel test fail. The men don't have any desires or intents that don't involve the female characters.
It isn't something to be praised. It's not a strength, it's a flaw.
Remember little girls, guys only care about women.
Also, is it just me or was the sawing off of Maleficent's wings kind of treated like rape?
And there was too much voice over.
And the writing was terrible.
And they bastardized the characters of the fairies looking after Aurora.
I didn't like this movie.

The point of the test is not that movies that pass are better than movies that don't. The point is that improportionally many movies fail.
So, no, failing the reverse Bechdel test is not as bad. It would have been if it enforced an inbalance, but as the case is, it counteracts an inbalance.

There is one reason to bring up the reverse test. That is when you've got a movie like Gravity, Before Sunrise or Closer etc that doesn't pass the test but doesn't under represent women either. Some movies fail both tests because of structure. A movie about a married couple stranded on an island would fail both tests despite equal casting off its premise alone.

Since the reason the test exists at all is because of the massive disparity in female representation in fiction you have NO CASE claiming that a reverse test fail is sexist against men. That is just plain wrong.

The fairies are incompetent in this version of the story to give Maleficent an excuse to interact with Aurora! If she doesn't then there is no story.

"Since the reason the test exists at all is because of the massive disparity in female representation in fiction you have NO CASE claiming that a reverse test fail is sexist against men. That is just plain wrong."

Sooooo, because sexism exists against females, it's impossible for sexism to exist against males? Brilliant. Wait wait wait, since double standards are different rules for different groups, and double standards based on sex is sexist, then that post is.... sexist. Cool, huh?

But yeah, passes the test, but since every character is an idiot except Maleficent... it's not that good of a movie.

"Really a reverse-Bechdel test fail is just as sexist as a Bechdel test fail."

Which is to say not at all. Neither is sexist. Singular instances are hardly ever sexist. Trends are sexist, and that's what's the Bechdel test is about, trends. The trend of limited female representation in films is a problem. An instance of limited male representation in a film is not a problem because it's not part of any broader trend.

Well it always does get back to the men somehow, eh?

Dr SpaceGoat, there is absolutely nothing sexist about observing that a movie fails the reverse Bechdel test. As another post points out, some movies are constructed to fail and lose nothing by doing so. The Shawshank Redemption springs to mind as an example of a film depicting an all male environment, where the inclusion of lots of women having conversations would be unlikely and looked forced.

However, the point of the Bechdel test is to observe and comment in the sheer number of films that fail this pitifully simple test.

If you can argue that there is a shortage of men's viewpoints being depicted in cinema, that we rarely get to see and understand men's inner worlds, that the relationships between fathers and sons, brothers, male friends are rarely explored, that men's lives are clearly considered uninteresting material for art, then of course we would require a reverse bechdel test, and expect that films should pass this.

Dr SpaceGoat, there is absolutely nothing sexist about observing that a movie fails the reverse Bechdel test. As another post points out, some movies are constructed to fail and lose nothing by doing so. The Shawshank Redemption springs to mind as an example of a film depicting an all male environment, where the inclusion of lots of women having conversations would be unlikely and looked forced.

However, the point of the Bechdel test is to observe and comment in the sheer number of films that fail this pitifully simple test.

If you can argue that there is a shortage of men's viewpoints being depicted in cinema, that we rarely get to see and understand men's inner worlds, that the relationships between fathers and sons, brothers, male friends are rarely explored, that men's lives are clearly considered uninteresting material for art, then of course we would require a reverse bechdel test, and expect that films should pass this.

It is not sexist that a movie doesn't pass the Bechdel or the reversed Bechdel test. There are thousand reasons why one movie could fail any of those! (a movie about a devasted world with only one survivor wouldn't passa any; a movie about a woman/man and her/his daughter/son may not need at all men/women speaking to each other; a movie seen as a men's perspective, focusing ONLY on what he sees can have it difficult to include two NAMED women talking to each other...)
The sexist thing is HOW MANY MOVIES fail the original Bechdel test COMPARED to the fact that almost every movie passes the reversed Bechdel test.
Also, lots of movies just barely pass the Bechdel (one female-to-female conversation about something that's not a man in the whole movie, REALLY?) but how easily they pass the reversed one.

"So, no, failing the reverse Bechdel test is not as bad. It would have been if it enforced an inbalance, but as the case is, it counteracts an inbalance."

Passing or not passing the a Bechdel test, reverse or not, isnt' tremendously bad, and doesn't really show an inherently harmful bias in the entertainment industry.

The rarity of movies failing the Bechdel test just reflects the reality of different typical roles of men and women in real life.

Workplaces will not rarely fail the Bechdel test. History books will often fail the Bechdel test. Family life will in contrast tend to a reverse Bechdel pattern, just not as much since males are not rarely present in relevant "roles" in any family, unless they've died.

Men are more commonly found in non-family-related activities where they will interact mostly with other men, and females in their lives will commonly be in what would be roles that some critics will often try to label as "inferior", and "women hating", like family members or romantic interests.

This reality also makes more likely that men will be the central characters of fiction that appeals to a wider audience (more varied occupations), whereas female characters will more often star in romances or family-centered fiction, where, again, it would be considerably unusual to not have a relatively important male character with whom they will interact, of about whom they will talk about. Even if just as a family member or romantic interest with no other interesting qualities for the "reader".

That makes a reverse-Bechdel more unlikely, except on lesbian romances, perhaps -- but even here they may be often interesting antagonists as the "ideal" romantic rival to a lesbian heroine). That will be hard to avoid even in fiction that is targeted at women. Even a fictional stories about a female-only feminist group will likely have women often talking about men.



If there would be more interesting fiction and films where females get all the prominent roles and even barely if ever talk about men, that wouldn't probably be a bad thing in itself, just as the reverse isn't bad. But it's weird to speak of "counteracting the imbalance", since the imbalance just reflects reality to a great extent, and a reality that isn't in itself also inherently bad. It isn't, therefore, something that is socially "desirable" to be "counteracted", just as there's no need to counteract the relative imbalance of fiction where children are the main characters, like in "Bugsy Malone", a rare example of that. The main interest of "counteracting the imbalance" is a commercial one, not a matter of social justice.

Most of reality outside fiction would remain unchanged, except for a few more roles for actresses. But it's likely that even in the production of such movies most of the off-screen workers will be males, sometimes even in the make-up and costume staffs. It's not unlikely that the situation wouldn't be that much different even in the book industry, with more male authors creating such stories and the industry itself having a disproportionate number of male workers.

This is likely with or without unfair sexual discrimination taking place, sort of like how there will be cultural self-segregation in the music industry, unless something very drastic and costly is made to promote that, in the long run, everyone likes every other type of music just as much as any other style, despite of their ethnic or cultural background.

lmao failing the reverse bechdal test isn't sexist. A movie failing the bechdal test isn't even sexist. What's sexist is the /amount/ of movies that fail the bechdal test, so no, there's nothing wrong with a handful of movies failing the reverse.