#Racial Bechdel Test PASSED

[cantsayidont]

Haterating and hollerating through the '90s:

POSTCARDS FROM THE EDGE (1990): Carrie Fisher scripted this witty adaptation of her novel about coked-up, pill-popping actress Suzanne Yale (Meryl Streep), who overdoses in the bed of a strange man (Dennis Quaid), ends up in rehab, and learns that the only way the production insurance company will let her keep working is if she stays with her mother, an aging singer-actress-diva (Shirley MacLaine) whose love for her daughter is equaled only by her tireless determination to upstage her. (No, it's not autobiographical at all, why do you ask?) Fisher's deftly paced, funny script weaves in various serious mother-daughter moments without ever becoming mawkish, and offers a fabulous part for MacLaine, who has a ball poking fun at herself as well as Debbie Reynolds, Fisher's real-life mother and the obvious basis for the film's lightly fictionalized "Doris Mann." Curiously, the weakest link is Streep, who never quite sheds her customary air of prim affectation and always seems ill at ease with Fisher's layers of self-deprecating, sarcastic humor. CONTAINS LESBIANS? Apparently not, although I had questions about Suzanne's rehab friend Aretha (Robin Barlett). VERDICT: MacLaine's finest hour, but Streep's primness keeps it "good" rather than "great."

TERESA'S TATTOO (1993): Painfully unfunny crime comedy, directed by Melissa Etheridge's then-GF Julie Cypher and costarring Cypher's ex, Lou Diamond Phillips, along with an array of incongruously high-profile actors like Joe Pantoliano, Tippi Hedren, Mare Winningham, Diedrich Bader, k.d. lang (!), Sean Astin, Emilio Estevez, and Kiefer Sutherland, most in bit parts (some of them unbilled). The headache-inducing plot concerns a couple of brain-dead thugs whose elaborate hostage scheme hits a snag when their hostage (Adrienne Shelly) accidentally dies. Their solution is to kidnap lookalike Teresa (also Adrienne Shelly), a brainy Ph.D. candidate, and disguise her to look like the dead girl — including giving her a matching tattoo on her chest — in the hopes that the dead girl's idiot brother (C. Thomas Howell) won't notice the switch until it's too late. This truly bad grade-Z effort, barely released theatrically, feels like either a vanity project or a practical joke that got out of hand, and is interesting mostly as a curiosity for Melissa Etheridge fans: The soundtrack is M.E.-heavy, and Etheridge herself has a brief nonspeaking role. CONTAINS LESBIANS? Technically? (Etheridge has no lines and lang plays a Jesus freak.) VERDICT: May erode your affection for M.E.

BLUE JUICE (1995): Tiresome comedy-drama about an aging surfer (a terribly miscast, painfully uncomfortable-looking Sean Pertwee) who's still determined to continue living like a 20-year-old surf bum with his obnoxious mates, even though his back is giving out and he's perilously close to driving away his girlfriend (a disconcertingly hot 25-year-old Catherine Zeta Jones), who is keen for him to finally cut the shit. Meanwhile, the scummiest of his mates (Ewan McGregor) doses their pal Terry (Peter Gunn) and gets him to chase after an actress from his childhood favorite TV show (Jenny Agutter) in hopes of dissuading from marrying his actual girlfriend (Michelle Chadwick), and their mate Josh (Steven Mackintosh), a successful techno producer, flirts with an attractive DJ (Colette Brown) who's actually furious at him for building a vapid techno hit around a sample of her soul singer dad's biggest hit. The latter storyline probably had the most potential (although a weird scene where Josh is castigated by a group of outraged soul fans seems like a lesser TWILIGHT ZONE plot), but none of the script's various threads ever amounts to much. CONTAINS LESBIANS? It doesn't even pass the Bechdel test. VERDICT: If you happen upon it, you may be tempted just for Zeta Jones (and/or Brown), but the rest wears out its welcome with alacrity.

HIGHER LEARNING (1995): Potent story of simmering racial tensions on the campus of a university that definitely isn't USC (writer-director John Singleton's alma mater, and where most of the film was obviously shot), let down by incredibly heavy-handed execution. (The film's final shot is of the word "UNLEARN" superimposed over a giant American flag!) A capable cast (including Omar Epps, Kristy Swanson, Michael Rapaport, Jennifer Connelly, Ice Cube, Tyra Banks, Cole Hauser, Laurence Fishburne, and Regina King) tries to maintain a sense of emotional reality through Singleton's frequent excursions into overpowering melodrama, but there are so many competing plot threads that few characters have any depth; curiously, the script's most complex characterization is in the scenes between budding white supremacist Remy (Rapaport) and Aryan Brotherhood organizer Scott (Hauser). Singleton made this film when he was 25, and there's no shame in its sense of breathless ambition (even if it inevitably bites off more than it can chew), but the overwrought stridency undercuts its intended impact. For a more effective treatment of similar themes in roughly the same period, try Gilbert Hernandez's graphic novel X, originally serialized in LOVE & ROCKETS #31–39 and first collected in 1993. CONTAINS LESBIANS? Jennifer Connelly gives Kristy Swanson a bisexual awakening. VERDICT: The '90s through a bullhorn.

CRASH (1996): Divisive David Cronenberg adaptation of the J.G. Ballard novel, about a movie producer called James Ballard (James Spader) and his desperately horny wife (Deborah Kara Unger), drawn into a loose-knit group of car-crash fetishists organized around a man called Vaughan (Elias Koteas at his creepiest), who stages recreations of famous celebrity crashes like the 1955 accident that killed James Dean. Despite some pretentious dialogue about "the reshaping of the human body by modern technology," the controlling idea might be better summarized as "anything can be a paraphilia if you get weird enough about it." Part of what offends people about the film is that Cronenberg deliberately treats the entire story with the same frosty clinical detachment, rendering the "normal" sex scenes just as remote and perverse as the characters' fixation on the grisly aftermath of car wrecks; the point is that there is no line, just different facets of the same erotic longing, which each of the (admittedly unsympathetic) principal characters embodies in different ways. Spader, Kara Unger, and Koteas are very good, as is Holly Hunter, in perhaps the bravest role of her career, but Rosanna Arquette is underutilized. A worthwhile companion piece would be Steven Soderbergh's 1989 SEX, LIES, AND VIDEOTAPE, also with Spader, which is much more highly regarded (though almost as contrived and scarcely less perverse), perhaps because it seeks to titillate where Cronenberg does not. CONTAINS LESBIANS? Briefly. (See previous note in re: underutilization of Rosanna Arquette.) VERDICT: Icy but interesting.

[bloodsakkar]

does black sails even pass the racial bechdel test i just made up (two characters of color discuss something that isnt a white person)

[methaim]

This was originally going to be a post about literary criticism but bc the OG post was about Nimona, this is now a Nimona post lol

So let me start off by saying that I love literary criticism, and the reason I love it is because when done right, there's obviously so much passion behind the criticism and analysis. When done right, the spirit of "there are no right or wrong answers" you hear in English class lives on. But it's all dependent on perspective and the lens you view a piece of media through. That's why you can disagree with someone's literary criticism without them being entirely wrong.

I bring this up bc I was looking through the Nimona tag and saw someone's analysis of the film. As I was reading it, I disagreed with their analysis, but they weren't entirely wrong considering the evidence they used. I won't be linking to the post bc I don't want to start any beef with OP, I'm merely observing a phenomenon when it comes to literary analysis and criticism and why perspective matters.

Spoilers for Nimona under the read more.

So OP claimed that Nimona was misogynistic, and based on their evidence their analysis wasn't entirely wrong. They stated that one of the main characters was a man (Ballister), a gay romance between two men was prominent (Ballister and Ambrosius), and that the main antagonists of the story were women (The Director, who was nameless throughout the film save for her title, and Gloreth). They also implicitly claimed that the movie didn't pass the Bechdel test (which save for the backstory scene with Nimona and Gloreth, isn't entirely untrue, but it doesn't mean it wasn't a good movie). Given this evidence and only this evidence, then their argument isn't necessarily incorrect: in Nimona, women are antagonistic and the story primarily revolves around the story of a man trying to reclaim himself after being wronged by a woman. At first glance, this doesn't scream "feminist media."

However, this analysis would be what I would consider from a feminist lens perspective. In terms of analysis, OP did a great job providing evidence and explaining how that evidence supported their claim.

But I still disagreed with their analysis. And that's because I viewed the movie and analyzed it from two different lenses: a queer lens and a racial lens. Now, again, when doing literary criticism and analysis, it is important to choose which lens you're looking at the film from. Choose too many and you contradict yourself if you aren't trained to write a review (OP wasn't writing a review, they were writing a critical analysis).

The thing about Nimona is that, in my opinion, it isn't a feminist movie; it's a movie that deeply criticizes institutional violence while also being an allegory for transness. A feminist message isn't at its core, but that doesn't mean the movie can't be viewed from a feminist lens, especially if viewed from an intersectional feminist lens.

A lot of people have already pointed out that The Director is supposed to be representative of White women, i.e. the violence inflicted due to White women's fear of those they deem "dangerous"(i.e. non-White non-cisheteronormative individuals, sometimes even extending to All Men including White men but especially men of color). Not only does her fear wrongly villify a man of color (Ballister), but it also directly causes the death of a Black woman (The Queen). This could be seen as a criticism of the current radical feminist movement in which anyone who isn't a White women is immediately a target of White women's fear.

While this movie does explore racism and the role of race when it comes to intersectionality, I've seen most people describe the primary internal conflict as representative of the divide between cis queer people and trans people. This is the queer lens perspective I mentioned when it comes to critical analysis; while the role of race is a theme that is explored in this movie (and I'll try to get into it as much as I can in a Tumblr post), there is a focus on the queer—specifically trans—allegory. Ballister is a gay man and this is explicitly showed rather than implied; his romance with his love interest (Ambrosius) is an important plot point in the movie. He is implied to be cis (narratively speaking) given his initial treatment of Nimona and his inability to understand her and his initial rejection of who and what she is. Although he grows to accept her for who she is by the end of the movie, it's a learning process that ebbs throughout, and his progress reverts at the climax of the movie (when he calls Nimona a monster and reflexively grabs his sword when she shows anger). This is reflective of how even cis queer people can be insensitive to trans peoples' experiences and have much to learn. There's another great Tumblr post out there about how Ballister, although vilified, still has a chance at redemption if he chooses to reject Nimona (the bar/restaurant scene), but Nimona has been demonized and has no chance at redemption bc she has only ever been viewed as a monster. This reflects the divide between cis queer people and trans people in terms of societal treatment; while non-heternormative monogamous couples are being more widely accepted (in the United States at least), trans people are being further demonized as evident from the current political climate.

OKAY so this started as a commentary on the nature of critical analysis but now this is just my Nimona analysis and honestly I'm excited to talk about the racial implications in this movie bc they were apparently. Obviously Ballister is a Brown man (voiced by Riz Ahmed, most likely modeled after him as well) but I have been wanting to speak about Ambrosius for so long bc I have seen very little about his racial implications given that he is explicitly Asian (revealed in behind-the-scenes/making-of) and also modeled after Eugene Lee Yang, an openly queer Asian man (love him <3). Obviously we know the racist implications of Ballister being vilified for 1. being poor/a commoner (explicit reason in the movie and 2. a Brown man (implied). He's up against a White woman in power who is driven by fear (which is why I didn't agree with the feminist analysis of the movie). BUT AMBROSIUS. He's an Asian man, and I personally have not seen many explorations of racism faced by Asian Americans in popular media (not that it's not out there, I just don't think it's very common). There was something about Ambrosius being placed on this pedestal that he didn't ask to be placed on and also leading the search for Ballister. Obviously he did this so that he could bring Ballister in safely since someone else might try to hurt or kill him. But the fact that 1. Ambrosius was seen as an ideal knight and 2. he was being manipulated by a White woman made me think of the stereotypes placed on Asian Americans (there's a reason we're known as the silent and invisible minority). Ambrosius' race played as much of a role in the story's implications as Ballister's race did and as an Asian American person I was so drawn to it. I don't know if it was intended by those who worked on the movie but it just. I'm losing the words for it but it really did mean a lot to me as someone who constantly feels like I'm not allowed to talk about my experiences in any circles when it comes to regards to my race/ethnicity. It all boils down to "Asian person being set up as a model for others (i.e. other races) to aspire to by White society who only wish to use their Asian-ness as a tool." NOT TO MENTION the scene in the car with Ambrosius' meltdown, things he wanted to say but couldn't because The Director had certain expectations from him... THAT hit me hard as well. Someone else please do a deeper analysis about this because all I can do is scream about it without being completely coherent.

Anyway, if you read this far, thank you! Again, this started as an observation on the nature of critical analysis as a whole but spiraled into my own analysis about Nimona. I'm sorry if it seemed messy and rushed, this wasn't well thought-out, it was more of a stream-of-consciousness ramble. I would love to hear your own thoughts, or see other analyses of Nimona. Also if you know the OG post I was talking about PLEASE don't harass OP, from what I could see I don't think think they were a TERF or radfem I think they were just analyzing from a strictly feminist perspective.

[bitterbitern]

I Love You, Letterkenny!

Dear Letterkenny,

I love you. I love Wayne and Katy, Dary and Squirrelly Dan. The skids, the music, all the in-jokes, the world-class word play. The foul foul foul language. I appreciates hockey more now than ever before. I have a Shamrockettes shirt (back-to-back-to-back ships!).

I loved the last special episode for International Women’s Day. No notes!

Well.... just one note and this is something I’ve thought before about this show many many times. I actually really love Letterkenny’s representation of women in a lot of ways: there is some racially diverse casting, there’s some interesting/fun stuff for different women to do and say; the show often passes the Bechdel test or what have you and I’m fine with the “Boonnniieee McMurrayyyy” aspects of the presentation. But like, can there be any diversity of sizes? Like, even one woman who just isn’t idk a BMI of 2 or whatever?

I mean, on a show like Letterkenny, where Squirrely Dan is just allowed to exist and be there and be funny etc, (his size is never a plot point at all or a subject of insult, which is awesome) like why never *any* women cast who aren’t either waifs, bosomy bombshells, or just idk, average sized like whatever the actual average size of women is in North America rn (14-16).  

I love you, Letterkenny but I don’t think you love me back.

[thetumblestoftumb]

i just read about the Bechdel test and all of its variants and i have a very important question to ask tumblr (not the best idea):

is not being very openly inclusive in a fantasy novel (that is complete and pure fantasy, elves speak french and dragons rule over normal people) a bad thing? if i don't include any racial minorities only because there are no races, is it a bad thing? if i don't end up passing the Bechdel test but end up making very important, meaningful woman characters, does the Bechdel test matter? if it's a dystopian medieval fantasy novel does it really need to mimic the real world?

i need answers

[hoursofmylife-lost]

Archie Comics: Big Ethel Energy by Keryl Brown Ahmed and Siobhan

Photo from Episode 4

Webtoon

She used to be the laughingstock of Riverdale. Now she’s a successful New York journalist with a DGAF attitude. After graduating from Riverdale High, Ethel couldn’t get away from her hometown--and onto her chosen career path--fast enough. When the Mayor of Riverdale pays her handsomely to write a history of the city, she can’t wait to return to take down Archie, Jughead, Betty, Veronica, and all the other Riverdale natives who made her life hell all those years ago. The only thing she forgets to consider is... maybe they’ve all changed, too.

Tags:

f mc, f/m, multi

drama, romance, realistic

mental health, fanfic

location: Americas, usa

Completed, 60 episodes (dnf), now on Daily Pass

my rating: 6/10

I stopped reading this comic, like, five episodes before it ended. It was okay, there were just certain details that kept getting on my nerves. I felt like the main couple, Ethel and Moose, were rehashing the same issues over and over, and it got kind of boring. There were a lot of times jealousy and miscommunication made up most of the plot, and it felt like the gender roles were very conventional, which started bugging me. It’s alright overall— the art is nice— it’s just not for me.

I rated it a 6/10; it missed on points 17, 18, 19, 20, which were personal taste issues with pacing and just my overall enjoyment; but it also missed on 1) show-not-telling, 5) building themes, 11) cookie cutter syndrome, and 12) racial diversity. 1 and 5 were mainly my own issues, but the cookie cutter syndrome was really frustrating: every character other than Ethel had a perfect size 2 model body, and even Ethel was extremely conventionally attractive. And while there were a few characters of color added in including various bland love interests, since this is based on the original Archie comics, none of the main characters were. I’m saying that the comic passed the Bechdel test because with so many female leads and 60 chapters, it must have, but I can’t be entirely sure because so much of the main plot revolved around petty drama.

[hkcoultas]

Week 7

Scorsese's 'Killers of the Flower Moon' Unveils Dark Saga of Greed and Injustice in Riveting Cinematic Epic Martin Scorsese's "Killers of the Flower Moon" transports audiences to the 1920s, where the Osage Nation in Oklahoma finds its oil-rich land attracting unimaginable greed. Based on David Grann's best-selling non-fiction book, the film chronicles a series of brutal murders targeting Osage tribe members, prompting the newly formed FBI to intervene. As investigator Tom White (played by Leonardo DiCaprio) digs deeper, he uncovers a conspiracy rooted in racism, greed, and betrayal. With breathtaking cinematography and powerhouse performances from DiCaprio, Robert De Niro, and Lily Gladstone, "Killers of the Flower Moon" exposes the chilling reality of a forgotten chapter in American history.

While "Killers of the Flower Moon" didn't set any groundbreaking records, it received numerous nominations for prestigious awards, including the Academy Awards and Golden Globe Awards. The film's gripping narrative and impeccable craftsmanship earned it widespread acclaim from critics and audiences alike. Its attention to historical detail and compelling storytelling make it a worthy contender for recognition, showcasing Martin Scorsese's directorial prowess and the talents of its cast and crew.

This biopic offers a nuanced exploration of the Osage murders, shedding light on a dark chapter of American history. Leonardo DiCaprio delivers a compelling performance as Tom White, the determined FBI agent tasked with uncovering the truth behind the killings. His portrayal captures the complexities of White's character, from his unwavering commitment to justice to his internal struggle with the systemic corruption plaguing the investigation. Robert De Niro brings so much to his role as William Hale, the powerful figure at the center of the conspiracy, while Lily Gladstone delivers a standout performance as Mollie Burkhart, a Osage woman determined to seek justice for her family. Together, the cast delivers powerhouse performances that elevate the film's emotional impact and thematic depth. The screenplay for "Killers of the Flower Moon" is based on David Grann's meticulously researched non-fiction book, which delves into the true story of the Osage murders. Adapted for the screen by Eric Roth, the screenplay stays true to the essence of Grann's narrative while adding cinematic flair. Roth's script captures the tension and drama of the investigation, immersing viewers in the world of 1920s Oklahoma. The film's blend of historical accuracy and artistic interpretation succeeds in elevating the narrative, creating a compelling cinematic experience that sheds light on a forgotten chapter of American history.

However...... we must speak about the Bechdel test. While "Killers of the Flower Moon" doesn't fully meet all three criteria of the Bechdel test, it does partially pass. The movie features several brief conversations between named female characters about topics other than men. For example, Mollie and her mother Lizzie Q discuss Anna, and there are other brief exchanges between Mollie and her sisters, as well as with Anna herself. Though these instances are limited, they offer glimpses into the lives and relationships of the female characters beyond their interactions with male counterparts, contributing to a more nuanced portrayal of women in the film.

"Killers of the Flower Moon" speaks directly to the current moment by shining a spotlight on themes of systemic corruption, racial injustice, and the abuse of power, making it a cautionary tale that resonates deeply with contemporary audiences. One striking example is the film's portrayal of the exploitation of Indigenous lands and resources by powerful outside interests. This narrative mirrors ongoing struggles for environmental justice, such as the Dakota Access Pipeline protests, where Indigenous communities fight against the desecration of their sacred lands and the exploitation of natural resources for corporate gain.

Additionally, the film's depiction of law enforcement corruption and collusion with powerful elites reflects broader concerns about police accountability and institutional racism in today's society. The FBI's investigation into the Osage murders exposes systemic failures and conflicts of interest, echoing contemporary debates about police brutality and the need for reform. This aspect of the film serves as a stark reminder of the dangers of unchecked power and the importance of holding those in positions of authority accountable for their actions.

"Killers of the Flower Moon" highlights the resilience and resistance of marginalized communities in the face of oppression, offering hope and inspiration for contemporary movements for social justice. The Osage people's fight for justice against overwhelming odds serves as a powerful example of perseverance and solidarity in the face of adversity. Their story resonates with modern-day struggles for equality and human rights, reminding us of the importance of standing up against injustice and working towards a more just and equitable society for all.

[picsinhead-blog]

Tim’s Favorite Movie Project: Predator

Predator (1987)

Directed by John McTiernan

Starring Arnold Schwarzenegger, Carl Weathers, Jesse Ventura, Sonny Landham, Elpidia Carrillo, Bill Duke, Shane Black, Richard Chaves, Kevin Peter Hall

Released June 12, 1987

Plot: When a foreign cabinet minister and his aide are captured by insurgents in the jungles of an unnamed South American country (but…we all know it’s Val Verde, right?), the CIA calls in a team of mercenaries who specialize in rescues. The hunters soon become the hunted as someone or something begins to pick off the soldiers one by one.   

One of my favorites because: Predator is the ultimate 1980s action movie. Arnold Schwarzenegger has rarely been as good and has never been better than he was as Dutch, at the peak of his physicality and in a role tailored to his strengths as an actor – and yes, Arnold is an actor, and a very smart one. The plot is straightforward and action heavy without being dumb or lacking twists and complications. The characters are well defined individuals, easy to invest in. But what makes Predator a capital-A Action classic is that John McTiernan constructs the action setpieces in the film in the same way that he would later build Die Hard: each one is distinct and could stand alone as a short film; each one progresses the plot and develops the characters; and each one builds in length and intensity as the characters’ numbers are whittled down. Predator also avoids many of the elements typical of 1980s action that could be considered problematic or could date the film – sure, it doesn’t come close to passing the Bechdel test, and it features a famous f-bomb (the other f-bomb), but it also features a racially diverse cast and a female character who is allowed to hold her own with the men in terms of intelligence and toughness without being sexualized or masculinized. Predator is gritty, grimy, sweaty, muddy, and very bloody. It’s by turns bright and beautiful, and very dark. Predator is adrenaline pumping entertainment that has stood the test of time.

My relationship to this movie: I used to see the VHS boxes of Predator and Predator 2 in Video to Go (the slightly more indie of two independent video rental stores in Penn Yan), but neither cover’s art really said what the film was about �� Predator had Schwarzenegger with a gun against a tie-die background and crosshairs over his armpit, Predator 2 just had a cloudy sky over a city skyline against a sunset. When I was in maybe 6th grade, someone loaned me the TPB of Batman Versus Predator II: Bloodmatch and I was blown away – I had to see what this movie was. I had heard that some of my friends had watched it at a birthday party some years prior, so I campaigned hard to get my parents to let me rent it. FINALLY they did, and my dad and I watched it on the small TV in my parents’ room so my younger siblings wouldn’t be upset. It was intense for me because I kept expecting dad to turn it off and say it was too violent, but I loved it – I was shocked by the gore and thrilled by the action. Dad actually liked the movie – “Quite a plot twist!” was his reaction (I think he had missed the space ship at the very beginning). In the more than 25 years since, I have owned the film on multiple formats (I currently own three Blu-ray copies - the original release, the 3-D conversion, and a box-set with the remastered "Ultimate Hunter Edition" disc), and I have no idea how many times I’ve seen it. I watch it every summer, when the weather is hot.

My favorite _________: Predator is my favorite macho action movie from the 1980s.  

List Position at Debut:Predator is the thirteenth entry in this project and starts at number three. (I was a bit surprised it was that high!)

[iloveheartlandx]

Bloomsbury Girls Review (Audiobook)

Book: Bloomsbury Girls Author: Natalie Jenner BECHDEL TEST: PASS-Vivian and Grace talk about their work in the shop. Content Warnings: Misogyny, domestic abuse, racism, sexism, xenophobia, emotional abuse, homophobia, panic attacks/disorders, physical abuse, racial slurs, medical content We got here! Finally in April, having caught up on all my outstanding 2022 books, I can actually write…

[neil-gaiman]

Was thrilled to hear that Good Omens S2 will pass the Bechdel Test.

-Will it also pass GLAAD’s “Vito Russo Test” for LGBTQIA+ representation?

-And the “Duvernay Test” for racial diversity?

Thanks!

Wait and see.

[worstloki]

I still find it weird that TR had this big anti imperialist, anti colonialist theme but then Loki being a non interventionist king who stopped controlling Asgard's colonies is framed as a bad thing and in the end Thor comes into his power thru a vision of Odin as a guide. like ??

It certainly is a specific brand of irony when the film is a victim of usual contemporary white media imperialism but has a mixed director who is a racial activist and also focuses on defeating Hela who is advocating for the imperialism but also Loki being non-interventional is bad and the Valkyrie and Odin are good slave traders but the movie points out the ridiculous cover-ups of slave narratives and also does glorify superhero kill streaks but Hela is taken down by an imperialist giving a motivational speech and Thor isn’t mostly sexist at least and the women on one hand aren’t too sexualised but also it doesn’t pass the bechdel test and wasn’t able to get any LGBT+ rep in the end but it did make a nameless Valkyrie a POC and had the hero ret-con-blaming an established abuse victim and Thor also tortured Loki but it was fine because that’s what heroes do but they had the colonized destroy Asgard in the end but also Thor’s gone ahead and reestablished the monarchy and Loki’s totally over the last few traumas because he’s joking about it so it’s implied his mental health is a-okay and Valkyrie being an alcoholic yet choosing to face her demons is such a bold move except she goes on to criticize when another tries to ‘switch’ sides too and Sakaar vs Asgard was a great example of reframing soft/hard arts and a few instances of anti-colonialism are shown as bad unless it’s being done the way Thor dictates so basically you’ve got to pick a side on what way you want to interpret the mix or just enjoy the fun colours and jokes and ignore the many synchronous messages in the rest of the wacky space adventure 

[scavengedluxury]

I’ve wanted to see Wolcott for a while and here it is!

Starring George Harris (probably best known for playing Kingsley Shacklebolt in the Harry Potter franchise), this 1981 miniseries was the first UK TV drama with a black lead. Intended as a pilot for a 13-part series, Wolcott was never renewed as Central TV thought the premise of the show (black cop confronts racism deeply entrenched in the force) too much of a political hot potato after the Brixton, Dalston and Toxteth riots that took place within a few months of the show airing. A skeleton in ITV’s closet, Wolcott was never repeated and was only released on DVD a few years ago.

George Harris gives an intense performance as Wolcott, a very nuanced delivery of a flawed, complex lead. Who else is in it? There are some interesting cameos. A very young Rik Mayall plays a racist policeman, Alexei Sayle plays a hawker of a Socialist Worker type paper and Keith Allen plays a National Front thug. In the supporting roles, Hugh Quarshie is memorable as Wolcott’s childhood friend, now a youth worker who pricks his conscience about how the police treat the local kids. Warren Clarke and Chris Ellison both chew the scenery as an old school East End gang boss and a bent copper. In many ways it’s a very brash, sensationalist, pulpy show. The dialogue has dated very badly in places and it’s never going to pass the Bechdel test. The violence and frequent racial slurs would never be allowed on TV today, but at the same time Wolcott is very ahead of its time, with morally ambiguous characters on both sides of the law and in black and white communities. The language is hard to take at times but the show takes a hard and unflinching look at institutional racism that modern TV usually shies away from.

The whole production was shot on 35mm film and the transfer looks great. The production values are very high with lots of atmospheric location shooting in Hackney and Dalston (amazing shots of Wolcott patrolling brutalist walkways!), very 80s interiors and Wolcott’s dapper Burberry fits. Cinematography is by the great Roger Deakins who went on to give the Coen bothers’ films their unique look and you can definitely see his visual style developing with lots of great use of colour and shadow. It’s a very pacey and slick show for the era and the casting of Christine Lahti as an American reporter in London suggests the producers had an eye on selling it to the US. I wonder if it ever aired there? The ending was clearly meant to be a cliffhanger, leaving the viewer wondering where the show would have gone. Wolcott is worth watching for Harris’s magnetic performance and the stunning visuals.

[website-com]

to be honest i don’t think most of the shows people obsess about on here do

i hate to rain on a parade but just out of curiosity does the pirate show pass the bechdel test

[midwestcannibal]

who needs a journal when i can post every waking thought on tumblr dot edu. anyway highlights of the day was to try and calm down from an anxiety attack i tried to figure out based on memory if hannibal passes the bechdel test and landed on it doesn’t but to be fair never finished s2 let alone poked at s3, made two things of challah, realized i hate drinking and being high and while it’s fun for a second i always get scared during and regret it immediately as it begins, i remembered i have a chemical imbalance in my brain, i desperately want a hug, i desperately want a girlfriend and am extremely ashamed by the fact that people only seem willing to fuck me and not date me, i have a fear of being fucked, strawberry preserves are holy, i have a new song to keep on repeat, might have heard my roommates having s*x for the first time, sometimes authors of fics are bad at writing consistently, im in my epic highs and lows of life bc i’ll probably start my period soon, my thumb hurts, the bechdel thing was one of the most gender studies major things i’ve ever done, second only being having been so drunk last night that while kneeling on the floor of our kitchen i gave a lecture on the mitski performance we went to and the gendered and racial impacts on her work, and finally? the friends we made along the way

[somejack]

Twister (1996) is a time capsule from the early days of diversity in STEM

That’s right, it’s another Twister post, I’m sure my mutuals must love me. I mentioned in my first Twister post that the movie, for as excellent a film as it is, has a serious lack of representation. This is objectively true. 

For one, this movie only barely passes the Bechdel test: a rudimentary test for whether or not a movie has meaningful women characters with a shockingly high failure rate. There are multiple women in this movie, and some of them even have names - the four are Jo, Melissa, Aunt Meg, and Patty Haynes (she sings Oklahoma in the beginning chase scene). There are only three brief scenes where any of these characters talk about something other than Bill, with Melissa and Jo having a short exchange about the Dorothy system, Melissa thanking Aunt Meg in a charmingly awkward scene that arguably has a lot of subtext about how Meg feels about Jo and Bill, and Jo telling Meg to go to the hospital. Aside from that, every time a woman talks to a woman it is about Bill.

Now we get to the constant killer of movies made before 2000: race. From my recollection, there is a single black person in this movie. We see him briefly on Aunt Meg’s TV when the protagonists are rolling out to chase their third tornado of the day. I could go on, but its easier to say he’s an extra.

What does this mean for Twister?

Well, nothing bad if that’s what you were worrying about. It’s always worrying to see a purely white ensemble cast in any American movie, but that’s a modern perspective. Nowadays it is unrealistic for there to be one person of color between two teams of scientists and storm chasers (totaling around 20 people). But if you look back to the 1990s, that’s almost exactly what you would expect. The thing is, that statistic hasn’t even changed all that much, with about the same share of degrees accounting for a group that makes up 13% of the American population.

The story with women is far different though, and puts in perspective that maybe Twister was a little man heavy. In environmental life sciences (a generalization that includes meteorology), women made up about a third of the workforce at the time the movie was released, and they now occupy almost a whole half of the jobs in the field. So maybe we should have seen more than just Jo and Patty as the only women in Oklahoma willing to chase a tornado for science :/

So what do we do now that we have all of this information and context? There’s nothing to do really, save for think conscientiously when you enjoy your favorite tornado-action-flick about how the world looked back then and how it looks now. Think about how while it looks like it’s terribly whitewashed, it’s actually terrifyingly accurate and points to a larger systemic problem. 

How would I make Twister more diverse if I were making it today? The funny thing about a movie as ensemble-heavy as this is that the endlessly wonderful cast of storm chasers can be anyone. They don’t have a complicated narrative driven by experiences as black, Asian, or Hispanic Americans, so you could change anyone and hold the story constant. But is that the right thing to do? Usually, no. Diversity for the sake of diversity oftentimes isn’t meaningful. So it wouldn’t be wise to just make Beltzer a woman of color and call it a day, but it would be wise to give her interactions and scenes that show, even in the background like many of the ensemble’s scenes are, the experiences of a scientist of color.

“Twister isn’t political” well neither is race or gender. Not every meaningful scene has to be a woman defending her intelligence as at the bear minimum equal to a man’s, not does it have to be a person of color facing off with law enforcement or belligerent racists. It can be cultural, it can be nuanced. As a white man it’s absolutely not my place to make a movie more diverse or to say what should be included, so at the end of the day it’s best to take example and inspiration from the modern films that are doing just that: being casually inclusive like we should have been all along. 

This went a little off the rails so I guess,,,

tl;dr - Twister (1996) disproportionately represents men in STEM over women, and accurately shows the racial disparity in science that has been persistent in America between the 1990s and now (not to mention, ya know, every point before that). If it were to be more accurate it would need more meaningful representation of women and people of color, and I am not the person who decides how that gets done.

[pass-the-bechdel]

The Good Place season one full review

How many episodes pass the Bechdel test?

100% (thirteen of thirteen).

What is the average percentage per episode of female characters with names and lines?

49.58%

How many episodes have a cast that is at least 40% female?

Twelve of the thirteen; seven of those are 50%+, and two of those are over 60%

How many episodes have a cast that is less than 20% female?

Zero.

How many female characters (with names and lines) are there?

Twenty-four. Eight who appeared in more than one episode, four who appeared in at least half the episodes, and three who appeared in every episode.

How many male characters (with names and lines) are there?

Twenty-two. Eleven who appeared in more than one episode, three who appeared in at least half the episodes, and two who appeared in every episode.

Positive Content Status:

Solid; the nature of the show is such that they really need to be making a concerted effort to reflect positive, progressive morality, and as such faults in the content would also almost certainly be considered faults in the show itself (average rating of 3).

General Season Quality:

Magnificent! It’s a wonderful ride, whether it’s your first time through or not. Just delightful.

MORE INFO (and potential spoilers) under the cut:

So, let’s talk about plot twists. In the current entertainment landscape, it seems like everyone is intent upon ‘subverting expectations’, and the good old-fashioned plot twist is very much swept up in that, since a subversion is almost always going to play as a ‘twist’ by definition. The unfortunate thing about this current landscape is that it’s rife with ‘subversive twists’ which are really just bad storytelling; they’re only there because of some pathological fear of predictability, or worse, because the creative minds just want to feel cleverer than their audiences by delivering content that no-one saw coming, serving their own egos at the expense of coherent narratives. If your ‘twist’ is about your own (supposed) intelligence, if you’re baiting the audience by playing into a common trope and then laughing at them for thinking you meant it, if you’re changing the story out of nowhere just for shock value without bothering to build toward the twist because you’re too afraid that someone might figure it out before the reveal...that’s not a real twist. It’s not even a real subversion, it’s just a bad-faith gimmick. It’s not there for the story at all, it’s there to make the writer feel special, because apparently feeling special for delivering quality storytelling isn’t good enough anymore. A proper, genuine plot twist should:

1. make sense in the context of the narrative (it should not be tonally dissonant or jump the tracks into a different genre)

2. make sense with the content of the narrative (it may recontextualise previous events or character choices, but it does not contradict or ignore them in order to function)

3. be foreshadowed (if it comes out of nowhere, that’s not a twist, it’s a random event. It’s a deus ex machina. There’s no story in it if it isn’t built into the fabric of the narrative)

4. ultimately further the storytelling (if it has no consequences for plot or character, it’s a shock-value gimmick, not a real twist).

The above points do not guarantee that a twist will be good storytelling and not just a subversive contrivance for the fuck of it, but they should at least ensure some logical cohesion and protect the integrity of the plot instead of sacrificing it in the name of empty surprise. That covered, it’s easy to see how – even (or perhaps, especially) in this twist-saturated tv landscape we currently inhabit – the big twist for season one of The Good Place still manages to be – in technical parlance – dope. The writing protects the twist not by being ‘too clever’; it simply offers a decoy issue to drive the plot. Eleanor is a Good Place fraud; that’s the first twist in the plot, and it compels the entire season forward. Other twists - Jason’s reveal, Eleanor’s confession, the introduction of the ‘real’ Eleanor - set the stage for this being A Show That Has Twists, but in a way that makes so much contextual sense that it doesn’t set us up to be looking for the next one (a common problem for those shows that rely on ‘cleverer than the audience’ twists - they’ve set themselves up as mysteries for the audience to unravel, and then they kill their own storytelling as they twist in knots trying to keep ahead of millions of intelligent viewers). The Good Place actually tells us outright that something is wrong with this supposed ‘happy afterlife’, it just fools us into thinking that we already know what’s wrong, so that we don’t see the signs of the truth for what they are. Crucially, however, it doesn’t matter if you figure it out before Eleanor does. You can have your suspicions (or have had the show spoiled for you in advance), and you can still appreciate and enjoy it as it unfolds, you can pick up the clues and have a good time with them, and that’s something that all of those gimmicky-subversion plots out there are missing. Their ‘twists’ are not proper functioning pieces of the narrative, and so the story doesn’t work if you already know the reveal; there’s no juicy build-up to enjoy, or worse, you expose your own illogical contrivances or outright plot holes that were created in the course of writing a crappy twist just to feel relevant. The Good Place works because - like any good story - it isn’t about the twist. It’s about the journey.

An important part of what makes the twist work also is that it interweaves the sins of Tahani and Chidi with the discissions of morality without drawing too much attention to them; if all four humans had simply been frauds, it would have been narratively empty, especially if the reveals were coming late in the piece. Jason’s works because it comes out early, and because the Jianyu cover is interesting and distinctly different both to Eleanor’s ploy and to the behaviour of the rest of the neighbourhood, but if the others had turned in the same way it would have been too contrived, too easy, and it would toss out the personalities we had gotten used to (which would violate Good Twist point #2). Since the show DOES pull that trick with Michael (which works because he’s the architect of the whole situation, not a pawn within it), it’s essential that they’re more subtle with Tahani and Chidi’s reasons for being where they are, and in playing it as they do they also reinforce the show’s central deliberations on morality. It’s an inspired framework for approaching what are traditionally considered ‘heady’ themes (and y’all know I’m into it), and every decision about how to approach and balance character behaviour is coming from a position of ethical consideration, weighing not only the acts themselves, but how they compare to the moral theory of various different and conflicting philosophies. It just goes to show that you don’t have to make something ponderous and inaccessible in order to have a cerebral conversation through television - you can do it just fine with afterlife comedy.

As I noted above the cut, the nature of the show automatically lends itself to careful consideration of any feminist and/or progressive content, and as such it should keep a pretty clean bill throughout, or risk cracking its own concept. I do wish they would come out stronger on the queer side of things (as I said in the episode posts, they really aren’t vague about the idea that Eleanor is attracted to women, but her saying words about hot women is still not delivering a lot on the representation front, especially when she is known to do more than say words when it comes to dudes, and the only other queer content we get is the fact that Gunnar and Antonio are soulmates, and that doesn’t technically mean they’re romantically or sexually involved (especially since they’re fakes anyway, but that’s a whole ‘nother thing)). In the mean time though, we have a female lead, 100% on the Bechdel and an essentially balanced number of male and female characters abounding, plus some really nice variety in racial backgrounds (and great names to go along with those - it’s a bit of a peeve of mine usually when show’s include multicultural characters but land everyone with Anglicised or ‘white-friendly’ names. Let the Bambadjans of the world keep their names). We’ve taken a clear stance on even ‘benign’ sexism (i.e. the stuff that’s just men saying inappropriate things - ‘just a suggestion! just a joke! just trying to get a reaction out of you, why are you so sensitive?’ - it’s all literal demon behaviour here), and I won’t pretend that I’m expecting them to get into the real nitty-gritty, but that’s ok. I’m happy to have something which is making a point of not being problematic, because such refuges have real value. So, maybe there won’t be a lot for me to tease apart as the show progresses, but that’s not a bad thing. At the moment, we have green lights across the board, and that’s a hard thing to find. I’m going with it, and we’ll see where we end up.