telophase | (no subject)

I've been reading the replies with interest on last night's question about the Bechdel Test, on DW and LJ. To remind you, I asked:

So...if two women who are having a conversation are detectives and the conversation they're having is about a male suspect and is non-personal, does that count as passing or not? Still theoretical as the two detectives in question then started discussing a male colleague, but the question occurred to me.

We're of course arguing over technicalities, as I'm sure all of us would agree that if the only time a show passes the Bechdel test is when two female detectives are impersonally discussing a male suspect, then it really doesn't pass overall.

It's made me think about how I see the Bechdel test, and I don't think that just "discussing a man" works for me - it's that the characters or the conversation need to be in some way defined by their relationship to that man. For example, if two women are discussing politics and complaining about a male U.S. President's stand on a particular policy, then I'm perfectly fine with that, as neither the conversation nor the characters are seriously affected by whether the president is male or female.

But in the case of one conversation in New Tricks, we have a female detective questioning a female witness about the male victim of a cold case ... and the witness is the victim's daughter, and the conversation is about her rocky relationship with him, which may or may not be a possible motive for murder. I very much does not pass the Bechdel test for me, even though this would be a normal occurrence in the detective's working day, because the point of the conversation is exploring that relationship.

Anyway, on a slight tangent, still loving New Tricks, which is why I'm thinking thinky thoughts about it and want you guys to watch it also. We saw the first two eps of Series 4 last night, and I very much love that one of the leads is a strong, independent woman, and I could only love it more if it had another strong, independent woman as a main, or at least recurring and vitally important, character. I do like that the younger members of the police force we see are a lot more diverse in gender and ethnicity, and I can accept that the older members are more heavily white and male, because that would be a natural reflection of the Old Guard aging and moving up through the ranks. There are a couple of places where the show has technically passed the Bechdel test, but I'm quite aware that overall, it doesn't, and that it would be a better show if it did. But it's not egregious to me, and I can enjoy it while at the same time criticizing it.

I'm sure I have more thinky thoughts, but I also have a cold and my brain is getting very tired and I need to reserve some of it for actual work, so I will stop for now.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I don't think of the Bechdel test as something you pass or fail, really, but an interesting way to look at the relationships on screen. A series can still pass and be horrible--Gundam Wing, I believe, passes, and its female characters seriously get the shaft. The reason it passes is more that it's a lot longer, and has more talking, than your average action movie.

Your series where two female detectives discuss a male suspect would pass for me as long as the male suspect didn't have a bigger role than villain of the week (i.e. they're being shown doing their job, not Talking About the Male). How harshly I would judge it, though, would depend on the rest of the series--what do they get in comparison to the male characters?

Yeah. While New Tricks doesn't really pass - except for the female lead, the recurring female characters are all there because of their relationships to the male leads (except, for one episode, the female lead's mother, in which their conversations usually ended up mentioning the female lead's father). But overall it's a good series, especially because it takes another demographic seriously that often doesn't get to shine: the older generation. They're pictured as people.

Forgot to comment on the other, but I tend to not count it as failing if they're talking about a man in the context of work/a mission/etc.