Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

[Spock/Uhura Fan]

Speaking of quoting people because what they've said bears repeating, especially since some of the insults and ad hominem attacks on this thread provide proof positive in my eyes why this topic is still important, here's a 2008 quote (forgive the length please) from a former screenwriting student at UCLA:

Anyway, the test is much simpler than the name. To pass it your movie must have the following:

1) there are at least two named female characters, who
2) talk to each other about
3) something other than a man.

So simple, and yet as you go through all your favorite movies (and most of your favorite TV shows, though there’s a little more variety in TV), you find very few movies pass this test.

It’s not a coincidence. It’s not that there aren’t enough women behind the camera (there aren’t, but that’s not the reason). Here’s what we’re up against (and for those who have requested a single post that summarizes my experiences in film for linking reference, now you’ve got it).

When I started taking film classes at UCLA, I was quickly informed I had what it took to go all the way in film. I was a damn good writer, but more importantly (yeah, you didn’t think good writing was a main prerequisite in this industry, did you?) I understood the process of rewriting to cope with budget (and other) limitations. I didn’t hesitate to rip out my most beloved scenes when necessary. I also did a lot of research and taught myself how to write well-paced action/adventure films that would be remarkably cheap to film – that was pure gold.

There was just one little problem.

I had to understand that the audience only wanted white, straight, male leads. I was assured that as long as I made the white, straight men in my scripts prominent, I could still offer groundbreaking characters of other descriptions (fascinating, significant women, men of color, etc.) – as long as they didn’t distract the audience from the white men they really paid their money to see.

I was stunned. I’d just moved from a state that still held Ku Klux Klan rallies only to find an even more insidious form of bigotry in California – running an industry that shaped our entire culture. But they kept telling me lots of filmmakers wanted to see the same changes I did, and if I did what it took to get into the industry and accrue some power, then I could start pushing the envelope and maybe, just maybe, change would finally happen. So I gave their advice a shot.

Only to learn there was still something wrong with my writing, something unanticipated by my professors. My scripts had multiple women with names. Talking to each other. About something other than men. That, they explained nervously, was not okay. I asked why. Well, it would be more accurate to say I politely demanded a thorough, logical explanation that made sense for a change (I’d found the “audience won’t watch women!” argument pretty questionable, with its ever-shifting reasons and parameters).
At first I got several tentative murmurings about how it distracted from the flow or point of the story. I went through this with more than one professor, more than one industry professional.

Finally, I got one blessedly telling explanation from an industry pro: “The audience doesn’t want to listen to a bunch of women talking about whatever it is women talk about.”

“Not even if it advances the story?” I asked. That’s rule number one in screenwriting, though you’d never know it from watching most movies: every moment in a script should reveal another chunk of the story and keep it moving.

He just looked embarrassed and said, “I mean, that’s not how I see it, that’s how they see it.”

Right. A bunch of self-back-slapping professed liberals wouldn’t want you to think they routinely dismiss women in between writing checks to Greenpeace. Gosh, no – it was they. The audience. Those unsophisticated jackasses we effectively worked for when we made films. They were making us do this awful thing. […]

According to Hollywood, if two women came on screen and started talking, the target male audience’s brain would glaze over and assume the women were talking about nail polish or shoes or something that didn’t pertain to the story. Only if they heard the name of a man in the story would they tune back in. By having women talk to each other about something other than men, I was “losing the audience.”

Was I?

There certainly are still men in this world who tune out women when we talk, but – as I and other students pointed out – this was getting less common with every generation, and weren’t we supposed to be targeting the youngest generation?

These young men had grown up with women imparting news on national TV (even I can remember when that was rare), prescribing them medicine, representing people around them in court, doling out mortgages and loans. Those boys wouldn’t understand those early ’80s movies where women were denied promotions because “the clients want to deal with men” or “who would take a woman doctor/lawyer/cop seriously”? A lot of these kids would need it explained to them why Cagney & Lacey was revolutionary, because many of their moms had worked in fields once dominated by men.

We had a whole generation too young to remember why we needed second wave feminism, for cryin’ out loud, and here we were adhering to rules from the 1950s. I called bullshit, and left film for good, opting to fight the system from without. […]

I concluded Hollywood was was dominated by perpetual pre-adolescent boys making the movies they wanted to see, and using the “target audience” – a construct based on partial truths and twisted math – to perpetuate their own desires. Having never grown up, they still saw women the way Peter Pan saw Wendy: a fascinating Other to be captured, treasured and stuffed into a gilded cage. Where we didn’t talk. To each other. About anything other than men.

I've been reading a lot on this subject lately and, in particular, the contributions women have made in film since its beginning. It's interesting to me that at one time, the whole film watching experience was designed towards making the film watching experience a "respectable" activity for women and young ladies (and the remnants of that still exist today with modern theaters). As the middle class grew, and women had jobs from working during WW2, and thus more disposable income, women were more in control of how disposable income was used.

Women also seemed to have more control behind the camera when film was first getting off of its feet. Then, it seems as though once it became a profitable and sustainable "industry," that women were pushed out or relegated to lessor positions on average.

So, earlier on, women's opinions in film really counted, and women were even courted. The same thing was the case, it seems to me with the ST09 movie. JJ said that he knew that in order for it "to work," that women were going to need to like it too. That focus seems to have changed with this last STID film.

I've read some older women stating that some films they loved in the 1940's, even 30's, like His Girl Friday, do better with women (not women minorities, though), than many films today. I can't say if that's true or not, only that I've read some older women saying that.

Anyway, for anyone who’s interested, here’s the link to what I quoted: http://thehathorlegacy.com/why-film-schools-teach-screenwriters-not-to-pass-the-bechdel-test/

 

[Pauln6]

Finally, I got one blessedly telling explanation from an industry pro: “The audience doesn’t want to listen to a bunch of women talking about whatever it is women talk about.”

Crap, so when I say I think the creators are simply not thinking about their gender bias I was being TOO generous. That's... appalling.

I stand by what I've been saying with renewed vigour!

Actually, as a script writer, you could do me a favour - I've been trying really hard to even up the numbers in my Star Trek motion comic on the youtube link below but it may be that I'm not practising what I preach. If you can spare ten minutes (and overlook the cheesy plot that rips off as many franchises as I can think of) I'd be interested to know if I'm near the mark I should be aiming for...

 

[Spock/Uhura Fan]

Finally, I got one blessedly telling explanation from an industry pro: “The audience doesn’t want to listen to a bunch of women talking about whatever it is women talk about.”

Crap, so when I say I think the creators are simply not thinking about their gender bias I was being TOO generous. That's... appalling.

I stand by what I've been saying with renewed vigour!

Actually, as a script writer, you could do me a favour - I've been trying really hard to even up the numbers in my Star Trek motion comic on the youtube link below but it may be that I'm not practising what I preach. If you can spare ten minutes (and overlook the cheesy plot that rips off as many franchises as I can think of) I'd be interested to know if I'm near the mark I should be aiming for...

I don't read comics, so I'm not sure if I'd be the best person to tell you how things should work within that format, but send me the link, and I'll give it a go.

Also, for the people that seem to think that anyone asking for equality in the writing (which should at least be a goal considering that they are writing about a future a few hundred years away where we've supposedly "advanced" as a people more), it's not just a few people "crying," and "whining" about how women were treated in this film.

I think if that were the case, then JJ would not have bothered to do an interview where he said that "more" needs to be done with women in the next film which, to me, acknowledges that "enough" wasn't done in this one (STID).

The Australian article and video link are entitled: JJ Abrams admits 'Star Trek: Into Darkness' a bit sexist.

 

[YARN]

It's too bad that films that pass the test tend to be unabashed "chick flick" ensembles like Fried Green Tomatoes and Steel Magnolias.

It's hard to reboot TOS without rebooting a male-dominated cast.

 

[Pauln6]

I don't read comics, so I'm not sure if I'd be the best person to tell you how things should work within that format, but send me the link, and I'll give it a go.

The Australian article and video link are entitled: JJ Abrams admits 'Star Trek: Into Darkness' a bit sexist.

Thanks! The format is limited by the available images and I just threw it together so but I think I just scrape by in the first episode because Uhura cracks a joke with Rand. The subsequent episodes feature a lot more women as the cast expands though so the first one is not the best example thinking about it.

http://www.youtube.com/user/pauln6/videos

Hmm looking back, some elements that I needed to set up for later plot elements, such as Rand's flirtation with the security guard are a bit girly but I tried not to portray Rand too much as a damsel in distress and more like an 'everyman'. I also needed to establish a friendship with the guard to try and give a bit more impact later on. I hope it didn't come across as too stereotypical.

 

[Spock/Uhura Fan]

That's why films like The Hunger Games are nice. There were a number of scenes in that movie that had 2 named women talking about something other than men, and it came off as natural as you please. You wanna know who recommended that I read the books? A man at my office that is not into girly stuff at all. I don't even know how he got into reading those books, but I thought it was interesting that he was the one that made the recommendation. I decided to see the film first, and after that, those books were mine.

The books were written by a woman with a background in writing for television. I don't think we need "unabashed "chick flick" ensembles" as much as we just need good writing that deals with all of the characters well, which should include some women, minorites, and minority women. In today's day and age, it just makes sense.

@pauln6, thanks for the link. I'll be back after viewing it.

 

[Therin of Andor]

wasn't there an alien female security guard at one of the consoles in the brig in STID?

Yep! Heather Langenkamp as Moto.

 

[YellowSubmarine]

And if they flip the coin and it comes out with 55 men and 15 women you'll be crying foul as well.

Bored, I just flipped a coin 7000 times.

Spoiler: results

38 men, 32 women - 11%
32 men, 38 women - 10%
35 men, 35 women - 9%
33 men, 37 women - 8%
36 men, 34 women - 8%
39 men, 31 women - 8%
31 men, 39 women - 7%
37 men, 33 women - 6%
34 men, 36 women - 5%
40 men, 30 women - 5%
28 men, 42 women - 5%
30 men, 40 women - 5%
42 men, 28 women - 2%
43 men, 27 women - 2%
44 men, 26 women - 2%
26 men, 44 women - 2%
41 men, 29 women - 1%
48 men, 22 women - 1%
25 men, 45 women - 1%
27 men, 43 women - 1%
29 men, 41 women - 1%

 

[Pauln6]

wasn't there an alien female security guard at one of the consoles in the brig in STID?

Yep! Heather Langenkamp as Moto.

Go Heather! Unsurprisingly, I didn't recognise her.

 

[Pauln6]

And if they flip the coin and it comes out with 55 men and 15 women you'll be crying foul as well.

Bored, I just flipped a coin 7000 times.

Spoiler: results

38 men, 32 women - 11%
32 men, 38 women - 10%
35 men, 35 women - 9%
33 men, 37 women - 8%
36 men, 34 women - 8%
39 men, 31 women - 8%
31 men, 39 women - 7%
37 men, 33 women - 6%
34 men, 36 women - 5%
40 men, 30 women - 5%
28 men, 42 women - 5%
30 men, 40 women - 5%
42 men, 28 women - 2%
43 men, 27 women - 2%
44 men, 26 women - 2%
26 men, 44 women - 2%
41 men, 29 women - 1%
48 men, 22 women - 1%
25 men, 45 women - 1%
27 men, 43 women - 1%
29 men, 41 women - 1%

Lol, I'm pretty sure they have an app for that. I can live with an inconsistent gender bias. It's the consistent gender bias that is frustrating.

 

[beamMe]

And if they flip the coin and it comes out with 55 men and 15 women you'll be crying foul as well.

Bored, I just flipped a coin 7000 times.

Spoiler: results

38 men, 32 women - 11%
32 men, 38 women - 10%
35 men, 35 women - 9%
33 men, 37 women - 8%
36 men, 34 women - 8%
39 men, 31 women - 8%
31 men, 39 women - 7%
37 men, 33 women - 6%
34 men, 36 women - 5%
40 men, 30 women - 5%
28 men, 42 women - 5%
30 men, 40 women - 5%
42 men, 28 women - 2%
43 men, 27 women - 2%
44 men, 26 women - 2%
26 men, 44 women - 2%
41 men, 29 women - 1%
48 men, 22 women - 1%
25 men, 45 women - 1%
27 men, 43 women - 1%
29 men, 41 women - 1%

Lol, I'm pretty sure they have an app for that. I can live with an inconsistent gender bias. It's the consistent gender bias that is frustrating.

Frustrating because most women don't see it your way?

Your heart is in the right place, but you certainly are overdoing the protesting on behalf of women.

 

[Pauln6]

Bored, I just flipped a coin 7000 times.

Spoiler: results

38 men, 32 women - 11%
32 men, 38 women - 10%
35 men, 35 women - 9%
33 men, 37 women - 8%
36 men, 34 women - 8%
39 men, 31 women - 8%
31 men, 39 women - 7%
37 men, 33 women - 6%
34 men, 36 women - 5%
40 men, 30 women - 5%
28 men, 42 women - 5%
30 men, 40 women - 5%
42 men, 28 women - 2%
43 men, 27 women - 2%
44 men, 26 women - 2%
26 men, 44 women - 2%
41 men, 29 women - 1%
48 men, 22 women - 1%
25 men, 45 women - 1%
27 men, 43 women - 1%
29 men, 41 women - 1%

Lol, I'm pretty sure they have an app for that. I can live with an inconsistent gender bias. It's the consistent gender bias that is frustrating.

Frustrating because most women don't see it your way?

Your heart is in the right place, but you certainly are overdoing the protesting on behalf of women.

I'm doing it on behalf of equality. I'd argue the other way if there was a consistent bias in favour of women.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

Me: "Do you care that there are less women in movies than men?"

My Wife: "Not really."

Why are you telling us this?

 

[Pauln6]

Me: "Do you care that there are less women in movies than men?"

My Wife: "Not really."

Why are you telling us this?

Because I asked for her input, although as I said before, the way the question is phrased can affect the nature of the answer.

As a businesswoman, I admit that I was expecting her to say that actresses should obtain work on their own merits, not be handed roles.

However, what I've found is that when you pose the question in a way that explains that actresses are unable to audition for jobs on merit because those jobs don't exist, I've yet to meet a woman who thought that situation was fair or equal.

There is always a first time though!

 

[beamMe]

Me: "Do you care that there are less women in movies than men?"

My Wife: "Not really."

Why are you telling us this?

Because I asked for her input, although as I said before, the way the question is phrased can affect the nature of the answer.

As a businesswoman, I admit that I was expecting her to say that actresses should obtain work on their own merits, not be handed roles.

However, what I've found is that when you pose the question in a way that explains that actresses are unable to audition for jobs on merit because those jobs don't exist, I've yet to meet a woman who thought that situation was fair or equal.

There is always a first time though!

Are you suggesting that writer should create their characters with some quota in mind?

 

[Pauln6]

Are you suggesting that writer should create their characters with some quota in mind?

I don't really understand why people view balancing the gender of characters on screen as enforcing a quota and why whenever anybody says this they say it because they view quotas as bad - every time - lol! It's half and half. Why is there so much gnashing of teeth and beating of breast about such a simple concept. Equality means equal - roughly equal numbers in equally varied positions. It'a a laudable goal, it isn't happening, so let's think of simple ways to make it happen.

As I said before, you can flip a coin or just alternate the gender of the supporting characters as they crop up in the script. In some ways coin flipping or dice rolling is better as it creates more variation on screen at any one time. If Ensign Doohicky isn't going to spend the next scene in bed with Scotty, determine their gender randomly. Why not? I don't think STiD would have been so different if Admiral Marcus had been Carol's mum based on a die roll.

And as I say, this isn't a general thing, this is about Star Trek.

 

[beamMe]

I don't think STiD would have been so different if Admiral Marcus had been Carol's mum based on a die roll.

Perhaps not. But that's not how the writer created the character.

And I can imagine there would have been such an outrage if it had been Alexandra Marcus', and not Alexander Marcus' head that was crushed by Khan.

 

[BillJ]

And I can imagine there would have been such an outrage if it had been Alexandra Marcus', and not Alexander Marcus' head that was crushed by Khan.

I don't know the answer to this. But I can't imagine it wouldn't have raised a few eye-brows here in the States.

 

[Pauln6]

And I can imagine there would have been such an outrage if it had been Alexandra Marcus', and not Alexander Marcus' head that was crushed by Khan.

I don't know the answer to this. But I can't imagine it wouldn't have raised a few eye-brows here in the States.

I think the level of violence against men in US films is too high. I think you should ask why you would find crushing a man's head acceptable rather than why crushing a woman's head would be unacceptable.

 

[BillJ]

It's not about it being acceptable. But Khan is the bad guy and does bad things, including crushing people's heads until they pop like a grape that's been stepped on. It's how we know he's the bad guy.

But I think audiences would've been a bit more squeamish if if was a woman in that position. Especially when domestic violence is still a real issue and tough to crack.