This movie passed 3 of 3 tests. It was entered by pargoletta on 2010-06-12 13:19:32.
Reviews
No reviews listed.
Comments
pargoletta said:
Classic example of a movie that passes the Bechdel test with flying colors (Anna and Cesca's tarot card reading introduces and shapes each new segment of the story, and said reading at first appears to be about Anna's future, but is in fact . . . well, it's not about a man) and is still objectifying and deeply, deeply unfeminist. Of course, the poster image showing the naked woman's body as violin soundbox/object of lustful gaze is probably fair warning in that regard as well.
Message posted on 2010-06-12 13:19:32
ShawmK said:
While I agree with Pargoletta that this film passes with flying colours, I would strongly disagree that it's unfeminist, or that it objectifies women.
First, there are strong female characters throughout the film; characters who drive the plot and are very complex, well defined human beings (especially in the Communist China sequence, as well as the Greta Scacchi character in Victorian Oxford).
The tarot reading, which is revisited throughout the film, is conducted between two important, named characters, and is the backbone of the entire film.
If Pargoletta is arguing that the violin itself is objectifying a woman (if you've seen the film you'll know what that means) I would argue that the violin-maker has created the instrument as a loving monument to his dead wife. Far from reducing her to an object, he was trying to immortalise her soul. To me, this is actually the opposite of objectification. Her body may have died in childbirth (sorry - spoilers!) but her character carries on through the violin.
One could almost argue that the violin itself is a named, female character in the film. If robots can be gendered characters (Star Wars, Metropolis etc) then why not a violin?