In 1985, cartoonist and writer Alison Bechdel created a comic strip for a feminist newspaper featuring two women talking about watching a film. During their discussion, one woman mentions that she will only see a film if it follows a specific set of requirements:
- The movie has to have at least two named women in it,
- Who talk to each other,
- About something other than a man.
“When it appeared in Alison Bechdel’s comic, it was two characters joking about how the reason they pay attention to women speaking to each other in a movie is because if they speak to each other about something other than a man, they can imagine that those characters could be romantically interested in each other,” says Caitlin Durante, co-host of The Bechdel Cast podcast.
They explained how the test, which is so often seen just as a measure of feminism in film, was also an examination of how there is so little representation of queer women in movies.
“The test has queer roots that a lot of people don’t realise because that gets erased from the general understanding of the Bechdel test.”
What was initially a satirical criticism of the film industry is now held up as a benchmark for feminist critique of media. The question is: how useful is The Bechdel Test in 2024?
“It’s a test that’s helpful for people who are brand new to feminist film analysis or people who haven’t given any thought to representation in movies, but it’s not a perfect metric.”
The best method for examining the test’s flaws is to explore each of its three simple steps.
1: The movie has to have at least two named women in it.
Sam Mendes’ 1917, Quentin Tarantino’s Reservoir Dogs, and Frank Darabont’s The Shawshank Redemption.
Those are just three of many films that don’t pass the first step.
1917, based on stories Mendes’ grandfather told him about his service during World War One, follows two soldiers attempting to cross into enemy territory.
Of course, it won’t pass, but that doesn’t make it misogynistic. In fact, the script is co-written with Krysty Wilson-Cairns.
“Not every movie has to have a strong feminist agenda. It would be nice if there were more of those, but with some movies, such as 1917, its agenda is to criticize war.”
This first step of the test isn’t concerned with the strength of the characters in the film or the themes throughout, just that there are women who do exist.
This might have been a good step towards equality in 1985, but in 2024, audiences expect more, and simply judging what is on screen isn’t a particularly feminist lens through which to view film. As with 1917, key crew members can be women who want to tell stories about masculinity.
2 & 3: Those women must talk to each other, and it must be about something other than a man.
Calling a film feminist because two women speak to each other about something other than men is problematic.
We’re suggesting that women are only relevant to the plot when they’re around another woman.
Is that not inherently anti-feminist, preventing women from talking about the things they want to talk about?
The rules of the test focus on quantity rather than the quality of the women portrayed in films, inevitably leading to many dubious passes and fails.
Anyone who has seen any American Pie films will not be surprised to hear the first film didn’t pass the Bechdel Test. However, they might be shocked to learn American Pie 2 does pass.
Because the test lacks grey areas, American Pie 2 passes when two girls talk about clothes. What the test fails to identify is the countless moments throughout the film where women are objectified.
In a video essay analysing the “cult of misogyny” in the American Pie franchise, YouTuber Pinely points out Stifler’s (Sean William Scott) problematic attitudes towards women, specifically women in lesbian relationships.
“These girls are lesbians for my own enjoyment, for my own pleasure” Pinely says, referring to the way Stifler sexualises women in one scene.
The lack of nuance with the test allows American Pie 2 to slip through the cracks but stops films like Fire Island from passing.
“It’s a movie that has representation of largely queer men of colour in a way that we’ve never really seen before, and so it’s still a representation win even if it doesn’t pass the Bechdel test. Not every movie has to have a militant feminist message. There can be movies that critique toxic masculinity or that represent otherwise underrepresented people,” Caitlin says.
In response to the uproar online about Fire Island not technically passing the test, Alison Bechdel announced that she would pass it herself.
“I’m not a stickler about the Test — if I were, I wouldn’t see many movies,” Alison herself said in an interview with Cosmopolitan in 2014.
This is 2024, not 1985.
So, it’s safe to say the test has limitations in 2024. To clarify, this is not the Bechdel Test’s fault. It wasn’t meant to become the universal stamp of feminist approval it now is.
But since it has, there have been multiple attempts at reforming and adapting the test, including Caitlin Durante’s revised version which they use on their podcast with co-host Jamie Loftus.
“Over the years, we’ve introduced our own variations on the test to be more inclusive, such as including people of a marginalised gender. So it doesn’t have to be women, but just any person of any marginalised gender, and they must be named within the context of the story. An additional caveat that we included is, is that conversation narratively meaningful? Is it something that actually impacts the narrative or helps push the story forward?”
Various other tests, including the Mako Mori test, have been created over the years to assess the representation of marginalised groups.
Named after the main character in Pacific Rim, a film passes the Mako Mori test if it has:
- At least one female character
- Who gets her own story arc
- That is not about supporting a man’s story.
Other tests, such as the Fries test for the representation of disabled characters, the Duvernay test for racially diverse characters, and the May test for transgender characters, have been created specifically to assess the inclusivity of films today.
So, where does the test stand today?
While the Bechdel Test serves as a valuable springboard for discussions about gender representation in the media, it’s essential to understand its limitations today.
The test’s focus on quantity over quality often leads to questionable outcomes, overlooking important nuances in representation and perpetuating stereotypes. It fails to account for the intersectionality of gender with race, sexuality, disability, and other marginalised identities.
“It’s really just a way to encourage people to think more critically about representation,” Caitlin says, “so it’s not the end all be all. It never claimed to be that.”
While the Bechdel Test may continue to serve as a useful tool for initiating conversations about gender representation, ultimately, we should encourage critical thinking about diversity and inclusivity in media and advocate for more nuanced portrayals of underrepresented groups.
