Does My Movie "The Barrier" Pass the Bechdel Test?

This week I came across a YouTube video: The Bechdel Test for Women in Movies.  The goal is to test for women presence in a movie. I applied the test to my movie "The Barrier".

What is the Bechdel test?

The Bechdel test has been around for some time, but I wasn't aware of it until I saw this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLF6sAAMb4s. When I did some additional research I came across a few sites that discuss the test.

• http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/UsefulNotes/TheBechdelTest
• http://bechdeltest.com/
• http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-dollar-and-cents-case-against-hollywoods-exclusion-of-women/
• http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/the-bechdel-test-checking-our-work/

The test is limited to the question of if women are in the movie, and does not address how well women are portrayed. There are three questions to answer.

1. Does the movie have at least two named women in it?

"The Barrier" has a total of 18 characters in. Of these 8 are women. Five of the women characters are named and speak during the movie. "The Barrier" therefore does have a positive answer to the first question.

There are six named male characters, so the gender balance is not too far off reality. There is one women character in the movie who is mentioned by name, but she does not appear.

2. Do Women in the movie talk to each other?

There are three times when a women character in "The Barrier" talks to another women character. The longest conversation is between Ling Pang and Meera Sharma. There are no other characters in that scene.

A short exchange occurs between Mayor Taylor and Councillor Stewart. This happens in a larger scene where other characters, all male, participate in the discussion.

The third conversation might be excluded because we don't hear what the characters say. In the open house scene, Ling Pang talks to Zelda Zimmerman, but that happens in the background while Arthur Macdonald talks to George.

3. Do Women in the movie talk about something besides a man?

The conversation between Ling Pang and Meera Sharma covers a range of topics. The main topic is the technical issues with the barrier. They also talk about Ling's career prospects and issues related to Arthur Macdonald and Brandon Baker. The discussion of the barrier does not involve men at all. Men are mentioned in the discussion of Ling's career prospects, but they are not the main focus. The talk about Arthur and Brandon is of course about men, albeit Ling and Meera focus on office work issues.

The exchange between Mayor Taylor and Councillor Stewart is about the Glencoe development and if they should listen to what Arthur has to say. Although they do talk about Arthur, the issue they talk about is the development and Arthur's analysis. They do not really talk about Arthur.

Since we can't hear what Ling Pang and Zelda Zimmerman talk about, we can't know for sure if they talk about men. However, given the context, it seems most likely that they would talk about Ling's project, a traffic interchange. They do look at Arthur and George when they argue, so they might talk about that.

So, does "The Barrier" pass the Bechdel test?

This is not an easy question to answer. The answer to the first two questions is clearly yes. There are more than two named women and women do talk to each other.

The third question is less clear. It depends on how strictly you interpret what is meant by not talking about a man. In all of the conversations the women do talk about men, but they also talk about other things. I'm inclined to be generous and say that "The Barrier" does pass the Bechdel test.

Since there is a element of subjectivity to this question, and I am a little biased in favour of my movies, I can understand why someone else might conclude that "The Barrier" does not pass the test. I would like to hear if anyone disagrees with my assessment.

Does this make "The Barrier" a feminist friendly movie? I doubt that the results of this test would allow me to say so. The women characters do play a significant role in the story and some of them do come across as strong and independent. Again, I don't think that allows me to claim it is a feminist friendly movie.

This post is a mirror from my main blog http://www.dynamiclethargyfilms.ca/blog

"2001: A Space Odyssey" and H. P. Lovecraft

A couple weeks ago I posted "What is "2001: A Space Odyssey" About?" (http://dynamiclethargyfilms.ca/what-is-2001-a-space-odyssey-about/). In it, I mentioned in passing that I saw some similarities between it and the works of H. P. Lovecraft. Since then I've delved a little deeper into that idea.

Arthur C. Clarke and H. P. Lovecraft

I was reluctant to make too much of the possibility that Lovecraft's work dad an influence on "2001", because I didn't know if Clarke was familiar with Lovecraft. A quick search showed that he did.

In 1940, Clarke wrote "At the Mountains of Murkiness", a parody of Lovecraft's "At The Mountains of Madness". In "Icons of Horror and the Supernatural: An Encyclopedia of Our Worst Nightmares" S. T. Joshi mentions the story and notes that both "2001" and "Childhood's End" both share some ideas with Lovecraft's stories.

Lovecraft and "2001" Similarities and Differences

Lovecraft's basic idea is that extraterrestrials visited Earth far in the past and influenced the development of humans. The same idea underlies "2001".

Lovecraft suggests that these extraterrestrials were the inspiration for the gods that humanity worships. This is not suggested in the movie or book "2001", but Clarke does make the suggestion in his later novel "3001: The Final Odyssey".

A major difference between Lovecraft and Clarke is the attitude of the extraterrestrials. In Lovecraft they are at best indifferent to people and can be very antagonistic. Clarke sees the attitude of the  extraterrestrials as positive to people. In Clarke's earlier short story "The Sentinel", which was the basis for "2001", the attitude of the extraterrestrial is not so clearly positive. In "3001" the attitude of the extraterrestrials is also not necessarily kindly toward people.

Is it possible that maybe "2001" could be viewed as a Lovecraftian horror story? In the book Clarke does seem clear that the extraterrestrials are benign, but that might not be true of the movie. Like many of Lovecraft's heroes, at the end, Bowman appears to become overwhelmed by what is revealed to him. The scene in the "hotel room" could be just a figment of his imagination after he has lost his sanity.

Robert E. Howard and the Monolith

An interesting parallel to "2001" can be found in another Cthulhu Mythos story, "The Black Stone" by Robert E. Howard. In it the hero finds an ancient black monolith that was set up by ancient extraterrestrials. Although a different shape than the monolith in "2001" (octagonal) it is about the same height and depth.

"2001" and the Ancient Astronauts

In his book "Cult of Alien Gods" (http://www.jasoncolavito.com/cult-of-alien-gods.html), Jason Colavito makes the case that the ancient astronaut theory popularized by Erich von Däniken in his book Chariots of the Gods? was inspired by Lovecraft's stories. A review I read suggested that the case is weak, but it convinced me.

The ancient astronaut theory predates "2001", but I suspect that it could have played a role in the popularity of the ancient astronaut theory. In 1968, "2001" was a very high profile cultural event, and even people who did not go see it were aware of some of the ideas in the movie. Chariots of the Gods? was published the same year and was more broadly promoted by a TV program in 1970.

Because of "2001", the possibility of extraterrestrials visiting Earth in the past was an idea that was "in the air". This could have made people more open to the idea when von Däniken book was released. I know that this was a factor in my own interest in the theory. I was completely sold on the idea then, although eventually my interest led me to the skeptic movement.

What Can We Conclude?

I don't want to exaggerate the importance of the connections I found, but I think the comparisons do help me to understand "2001". Arthur C. Clarke said that the book he wrote was just his thoughts about what the movie was about.

I suspect that "2001" is more of a question than a statement. The explanations of the story suggested by comparisons with Lovecraft show that the "answer" to what "2001" is about is not straight forward. I think it is the stimulation we gain from the exploration that is important.

This post is a mirror from my main blog http://www.dynamiclethargyfilms.ca/blog

Another Story

I started on a new story this week. That means I didn't work on the rewrites of my other story. My life responsibilities also took me off my projects this week.

I have a bad habit. When I am stuck on a project, rather than getting down to work on it, I take a side trip into a new project. This has worked out for me a few times, but usually it just lets me procrastinate.

My top priority now is to complete the rewrite of "Felix", but since I started on it, I've been side tracked a couple of times by other ideas. This week I started to mull a new idea I had for a detective story.

I worked on an outline and started to create the characters. The out line has a few gaps in it that I need to fill in. I also wrote about 600 words of the first part of the story. It was that first bit of the story that got me started.

Over the last couple weeks I have been busy with some personal responsibilities. That seems to have turned out well now, which is a great relief.

Maybe next week I will get back to work in earnest on my main project. I hope. 

This post is a mirror from my main blog http://www.dynamiclethargyfilms.ca/blog

What is "2001: A Space Odyssey" About?

The other day I watched a documentary about "2001" on YouTube. It has been my favourite movie for a long time and the documentary prompted me to re-explore what the film means.

The documentary I watched, "2001: A Space Odyssey - The Making Of A Myth", was made in 2001 by the BBC's Channel 4. In a series of interviews the documentary explores how they made the film, and what it meant. You can watch the documentary here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpoPhQNrpjE

However, they didn't talk about what I thought as an important aspect of the film: the parallel between the Monolith story and the HAL story.

Arthur C. Clarke often said that if you could understand "2001", then they had failed. The film is meant to provoke us to contemplate the nature of the Universe and our place in it. Nevertheless, I still feel we can find value when we try to find meaning in the film. At least in part, my interpretation is based on the book.

The Monolith Story and the HAL Story

As far as I can recall, when people talk about the HAL subplot, they don't relate it to main plot about the Monolith. I think that the two are related. Maybe people feel it is too obvious to mention. I'm not sure when I came to that view. It may have been a short time after I saw the film.

Initially, it seems that the subplot of HAL's rebellion and downfall are not related to the Monolith story. But, let's reconsider.

In the HAL story, HAL is a machine that people have created for their own purposes. As the story progresses, HAL develops behaviour beyond what the people who created it intended. When its behaviour threatens the existence of the people in its care, Bowman, the last survivor, has to shut HAL down. As he does so, HAL bit by bit regresses toward its infancy.

In the Monolith story, the Monolith is a representation of an advanced intelligence. The film does not say exactly what that intelligence is. In the first part of the film, the Monolith sparks the flame of intelligence in the pre-humans it finds on Earth. The pre-humans later develop into modern people, with great abilities, but also with a legacy of violence. In the last part of the film, Bowman, the people's representative, is transformed into the Starchild.

I think that the HAL story helps understand what happens to Bowman at the end. In the Monolith story, Bowman takes the role earlier played by HAL. The Monolith, like Bowman earlier, is disappointed with how people have turned out. While they may not be as big a threat to the Monolith as HAL was to Bowman, the Monolith acts in the same way as Bowman with HAL. The Monolith regresses Bowman back to his infancy. The difference is that the Monolith is far more advanced that people and so the Monolith is able to restart (reboot) Bowman. The film ends as a new beginning, with hope for the future.

"2001" and H. P. Lovecraft

While I worked on this post, I started to notice a parallel between "2001" and some of the stories of H. P. Lovecraft.

In many of his stories, for example "The Nameless City" and "The Mountains of Madness", Lovecraft's protagonists are driven to madness when they come to understand the vastness of the Universe.

Bowman can be seen as similar to the Lovecraftian protagonists in that his search to understand the Cosmos seems to drive him to insanity. I don't know if Clarke or Kubrick were that familiar with Lovecraft, or maybe it is just that I see something that isn't there.

Maybe other people can explore this idea further.

This post is a mirror from my main blog http://www.dynamiclethargyfilms.ca/blog

How Can I Get More People to Watch My Movies? - Part 1

For some time now I've struggled with the best way to promote my movies. With millions of people all screaming for attention on the Internet, it is difficult to compete.

I find it very hard to articulate my thoughts on this subject. I don't think I can cover the full range of the issue in one post, but I'll take a first stab at it. Maybe people's comments will give me more insight and I can write a part 2.

Last week a TV report and an article prompted me to write this blog post.

Generation Like

The TV report was a PBS Frontline report on the development of Internet celebrity called "Generation Like".  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/generation-like/

The report covers the growth in internet celebrity; mainly focussed on young people. Internet celebrity can be very lucrative. What bothers me is the ways in which they have become successful.

I am very uncomfortable with promoting myself and my movies. I have been tempted to use techniques like misleading and sensationalized titles, stunts and outrageous behaviour, and various Search Engine Optimization tricks, and have even tried some of them a few times.  Afterwards I always felt bad about what I had done, and so I now avoid anything that strikes me as pandering.

I am also unconvinced that these techniques will work for me. The kind of people who would find my work of interest are unlikely to be drawn in by tricks.

I have tried to build up followers on sites like Twitter. While it is fairly easy to gain followers, even if you don't pay for them, it is much more difficult to gain followers who really support you. I have 1,558 followers on Twitter, but I doubt that more than a few dozen ever bother to read my tweets.

No one cares about your novel

The article was a Salon articled called "No one cares about your novel: So writers, don’t be boring!" http://www.salon.com/2014/03/12/no_one_cares_about_your_novel_so_writers_dont_be_boring/

This article looks at the difficulty writers have in gaining readers. An important issue is the need for writers to make money from their writing in order to be able to continue their writing career.

Again, there are many many writers who struggle for attention, but I get a sense that the goals are not the same as with the Internet celebrities. Writers seek attention so people will read their books and seriously consider what they have to say. With the Internet celebrity culture it seems that they want attention for the sake of attention.

When I read this article I was reminded of something I read about Alfred Hitchcock. He wanted his films to be successful as art, but he also felt that in order for them to be successful art, they needed to be successful commercially.

I believe that in order to be a successful creator you need to enjoy the activity of creation. But, unless other people appreciate your creation, the job isn't done yet.

I've always thought that if what you create is good, then people will watch it. But, even if you do create something good, it is still hard to get people to pay attention to you. You can't be successful without supporters. A few dozen supporters who really believe in your work are far more valuable than a few thousand who don't bother to read your tweets.

I think it is important to promote your work, but you must also continue to work to improve the quality of your work. With the technology available now it is much easier to make and distribute a film, but it is still just as hard to make a good film.

This post is a mirror from my main blog http://www.dynamiclethargyfilms.ca/blog

STATE as a Writing Tool for "Felix"

I continued to use the STATE animation program to help me rewrite "Felix" this week. I finished a couple of scenes.

I made a few changes to the scene I started on last week. In it the two astronauts explore "the target area". Then I extracted the dialogue from the STATE file. STATE stores the dialogue and other information in an XML file. All I needed to do was open it up and do a little reformatting.

I transferred the dialogue to Word, and then I used that as a basis to write the version for the story. I did make some minor changes to the dialogue, but most of the work was to add in descriptions of the location and the action.

I felt that it went quite smoothly. I feel that the text flows quite well.

I went on to do another scene. In it the astronauts explore a cave next to "the target area". For some reason this didn't seem to work as well. I'm not sure why. Maybe I tried to go too fast. I went through the same process to convert the dialogue into text for the story. Nevertheless, I felt that the process did help and the result was better than if I had just worked with the text and not the animation.

Next week looks like I'll be busy with other things, so I won't likely get much done on "Felix".

This post is a mirror from my main blog http://www.dynamiclethargyfilms.ca/blog

My Computer, My Script and Rob Ford

I noticed a  similarity between a recent news story and a script I wrote years ago and had abandoned.

I upgraded my computer from Windows 8 to Windows 8.1 this week, and spent the rest of the week fixing the problems that created. I didn't get anything done on "Felix". That left me with nothing to talk about in my blog, so I thought back to an old script.

Back in 2010, I wrote a script that I called "My Detective Story". Not a great title I admit. I meant to go back to it, but after a while I decided to abandon it.

Nevertheless, from time to time I do think about it. Although, overall, I am not happy with it, it does have some good ideas. I often wonder if I should have another go at it. I think I have learnt more about writing since then and could do a better job of it.

The central idea of the story is that a very important person commits a crime. A lowlife happens to make a video of the crime. The detective learns about the video and for the rest of the story he tries to get it.

I was struck by the similarities to the case a certain Canadian mayor. Do you think I can sue for plagiarism?

This post is a mirror from my main blog http://www.dynamiclethargyfilms.ca/blog