About "thumbs up" and "thumbs down"

I have only two rates. Either I accept the depiction, image, representation of women in this movie, or I don't. Now, this causes some problems, because some movies get thumbs up about certain aspects, and thumbs down when it comes to other aspects. 40 Year Old Virgin was generally an OK movie with the acceptance of different gender roles, but in all it doesn't pass because the majority of women were depicted horribly. Deadpool wasn't very feminist movie, but the depiction of women was good.
I have solved this problem by saying what I thought was feminist and what was not.

This rating is fully subjective.

Now, I have this looooong list of different tests and questionnaires assisting me to form my opinion, and some of these are not subjective. It is one thing if the characters are complex, have a narrative arc and if discussing a man's disease is discussing about a man, but totally different if the director is male or female or if there are Native Americans in central speaking roles or not.

Also, this is a rating of how I feel about this movie from a feminist point of view. It's not about how I feel about the movie. I usually say if I like the movie or not.
For example, I like Shrek movies, even though they don't get my feminist thumbs up.
How I feel about the movie does influence my feminist rating. It is easier to give thumbs up to a movie I like. Like Deadpool.

This is not a blog of movie reviews, but movie evaluation.
I am not commenting about the cinematography, directing, acting or any other such thing.
I am not talking about the artistic values of the movie.
I try to avoid expressing my opinion on things that have no feminist value, though I often fail, because I tend to take things a bit too seriously and have an opinion on everything :-D

My idea of what is feminist and what is not might differ from other people's ideas. People have different values and priorities, and what are "equal rights", "equality", "equity" and so on differ accordingly.

Johnny Guitar 👍

“A man can lie, steal… and even kill. But as long as he hangs on to his pride, he’s still a man. All a woman has to do is slip – once. And she’s a “tramp!” Must be a great comfort to you to be a man.”

V Bechdel test

V Mako Mori Test

V Sexy Lamp Test

X The Crystal Gems Test
(not enough women)

X F-rating

V Sphinx Test

X The Feldman Score 4 points

X Furiosa Test
Though I read "“Feminism has gone too far,” The New York Herald-Tribune began its review." - Maybe it DID pass Furiosa Test?

V The Roxane Gay Test

The Maisy Test

X Gender Balance - Gender Representation

There practically is only two women in this movie. (There are some shown in the town when the funeral folks rode out to lynch people. For some reason these women weren't at the funeral all the adult men were...)

There are three women in the crew; hair, costume and ms Crawford's singing voice.

X The Uphold Test

X The Rees Davies Test

X The White Test

X The Hagen Test

X The Koeze-Dottle Test

V Gender Freedom

Now, here we have a good example of how to make a historically believable movie avoiding stereotypical gender roles.

V The Peirce Test

V The Villarreal Test

Yes, she is introduced as "hardened, expressionless or soulless", but she is in a position of authority and she makes her own decisions throughout the movie.

V The Landau Test

The Willis Test

I don't know if one could just invert the roles and words.

V Molly Haskell test

She doesn't sacrifice anything for anyone. She doesn't need to choose between her career and a man. She isn't competing about a man, even though her adversary thinks she is, and hates her because the man in question loves the heroine, and not the villain.

"Never seen a woman who's more man - she thinks like a man, acts like one"

Vienna works. I don't know what Emma does, she isn't ever shown in domestic setting, always leading the mob against her war on Vienna.
Neither is shown submissive, ineffective, helpless, quiet, meek or weak. On the contrary. It is the women who are the bosses here and men do their bidding.
Women don't assist men, men assist women.
Women have their own goals and everything they do is to achieve that goal.
Women are assertive and active.
Both are active parts in their own solution. It ends up with a shootout between the women, where one gets injured and the other dead.

Now, Johnny rescues Vienna. After this we have some stereotypical crap, like she just have to stumble on rocks and he rescues her again, and stuff like that. She also cooks eggs and bacon for him.
But we also have her changing her ladylike white dress into something more practical.

Men are shown having emotions and being interested in relationships. It is men here begging to be loved.
Men are shown wanting to solve problems without violence.
Men are shown supporting a female.

Now, neither of these women have any female friends. In practice "the only other female is her adversary", and their relationship IS all about a man. Now, that the heroine doesn't want this man, and think he should be with the other woman, is on one hand irrelevant, but on the other hand very important. She doesn't base her actions or decisions on getting this man.

The female lead is set up apart from other women. She is "more a man", she is alone in the Wild West, she doesn't have any equals, not even among the men.

Now, the male is also set up as exceptional - because he is one of the best shooters in the world, but he's a pacifist. He doesn't want to have anything to do with guns, he just wants to play his guitar.
Now, he is being bullied because of this, and he has to fight to prove he's a man, so that's not so good.
In the middle of the story he tries to tell Vienna that he has to use guns, but she tells him she doesn't want him to, that this situation must be solved without using violence and that he doesn't work for her any more.

V the MacGyver Test

V the Raleigh Becket Test

sort of... they ARE romantically involved.

I don't think the men in Vienna's place complain about having a female boss. It's more like they are proud of her and very fond of her.
I don't think she is punished for her dominant ways. I also don't think Emma has a problem with her freedom, power, control or sexuality. I think she has a very simple problem. She is in love with Dancing Kid, who doesn't want her, he wants Vienna. Emma is mad of jealousy. She wants her dead.

Emma also has problems with strangers. She wants to be alone here. She gets the men to follow her by telling them Vienna will bring in the railroad and then there will be a lot of Easterners coming, to push them away, to fence them in with fence posts and barbed wire.

It doesn't make things better that Vienna sits on a precious property, because she presumably seduced a railroad man to find out important information and to be able to buy a worthless piece of land. The "town owner" can't stand for someone else having that piece of land.

V The Man-child Test

All the men are adults here. Even Turkey who is called "a boy".

V Gender Safety

There is some kissing without consent, dancing with a woman without consent, things like that. No sexualization, objectification or other sexual violence.

These women dress the way they did at the time, though adjusted to the time period when it was made. Joan Crawford is wearing 1954 pants, not 1854. She is a bit stereotypically depicted, as having an hourglass figure, which is even more obvious when she's wearing pants. Joan Crawford is also shown wearing a nightgown, showing some cleavage. She is also shown in her underwear, but it's the 20th century underwear (as it was in the 1950s :-D), so nothing is really shown.
No male nudity.

Joan Crawford (Vienna) was 50
Sterling Hayden (Johnny) and Mercedes McCambridge (Emma) were 38
Scott Brady (Dancing Kid) was 30

X Social Justice and Equality:

Again, everybody is white, able-bodied and straight, so not much diversity here.

The whole movie is a comment against McCarthyism, so very strong social justice presence here. Even if one doesn't know about McCarthy (and if that's how it is, you really need to study the issue), there are themes of xenophobia, envy, class; we have this town with the rich landowner and the new-comer who invades their traditional world and questions their monarchy. She must be driven away, killed if that's the only way to get rid of her. She represents The Other.

V The Representation Test B

Notes:

Joan's screen presence is amazing.
Sterling Hayden is 196
Joan Crawford is 160
She stands in front of him staring up to him and they seem to be on equal level...
Later she does the same with Scott Brady, who's 188.
And those eyes... when she is about to be hanged and she looks at the men, with so much sadness... I couldn't have hanged her.

I find Emma's madness really distressing and this is really hard movie to watch. 

"Nicholas Ray directed what may well be the single coolest performance ever delivered in Hollywood—Sterling Hayden’s, in the title role of the 1954 Western “Johnny Guitar.” The scene in which he defuses armed conflict at a bar—with a cup of coffee and a cigarette—sets the tone for an entire generation."
Richard Brody

Johnny Guitar: A Feminist Western with a dark twist

Inside Out 👎

I know this movie gets more passes than fails, and Riley does play hockey, even when it happens in mint green against peach... there's so much this movie gets right and almost right. BUT THERE'S A LOT THIS MOVIE GETS WRONG. I tried to give it thumbs up and didn't want to. So I won't. This is my blog, my opinion, and not some sort of a definite feminist review.

V Bechdel test

V Mako Mori Test

V Sexy Lamp Test

V The Crystal Gems Test

1) Joy, Sadness, Riley... er... Mom?
2) Now, Joy has her own story arch, because this movie is all about her. Riley and Sadness get their own story arch.
But mom? She doesn't. Her life is all about supporting her husband.
 She even tells Riley to do that.
It's not about trying to support her 11 years old daughter about the inevitably stressful and traumatic event moving from Minnesota to San Francisco is, moving from countryside to a big city, leaving all her friends and everything she has ever known behind and start a whole new life from scratch. No, she needs to be the happy little manic pixie dream girl to help their dad to adjust to the new situation... dad who wanted to move in the first place.
They moved to SF because dad wanted to, and now the women of the family have to put aside their difficulties in adjusting to the new situation so that the man is happy! WTF?

X F-Rating

V Sphinx Test

Rating
IMDb 8.2 Rotten Tomatoes 98% CinemaScore A

X The Feldman Score 4p

X Furiosa Test

V The Roxane Gay Test

The Maisy Test for sexism in kids' shows

X Gender Balance - Gender Representation:

There are more male roles than female roles
Primary roles: 5 females, 4 males
All: 38 males, 27 females

Are they equal? No

- protagonist: Joy, a female
- Her sidekick: Sadness, a female
- her other co-workers; Fear and Anger, males and Disgust, female - these emotions are represented as of lesser value and interest
- they are Riley's emotions, Riley is a female
- Riley has mother and father

Now, Disney tried to say "pre-pubertal kids have emotions of both genders". The prepubertal boy had 1/4 ratio. Disgust was the only female in his head.
Also, when Joy and Sadness are swept away to have an adventure, they leave Riley with 2 males and 1 female...
Now, of course, it's great Joy and Sadness get to go out, have adventures and save the day, and all the three emotions who stay at home are depicted as fully equal, but she is still for most of the movie with male emotions... Maybe someone didn't quite think this through properly?

narrator female

role models, teachers, mentors, parents: both genders (mostly female)

Director male, written mostly by males, produced by males, edited by males

crew: male 635 female 280
And I'm happily surprised by seeing so many female names, until I noticed that they STILL are just 1/3 of the crew. X-[

V The Rees Davies Test

X The White Test
This was close, one of the closest I've seen. Half of the department heads were women, even more than half.

X The Hagen Test

X The Koeze-Dottle Test


V Gender Freedom:

She plays hockey.
She has mostly girly clothes, but she does get to wear pants, too. Every human gets to wear pants.
Her female emotions all wear skirt, male emotions wear pants.
Dad is shown carrying a broom around. He doesn't use it to clean, though, but to play hockey with.
Mom plays hockey as a goalie. Dad just picks her up to let Riley score, and then he lifts Riley up. That's supposed to be a fun family moment. I would be very upset for him using his physical strength to stop me from playing hockey with my daughter.
Mom and Riley don't play hockey without dad. When dad has to leave for work, Mom and Riley go to buy pizza.

How about boys, what do they get to do?
Dad takes care of Riley when she's little. Dad feeds her when she is little. Dad is depicted as capable dad.
Fear is depicted as male, so boys are allowed to feel scared.
Bing-Bong is male and he cries and sacrifices himself for Riley and Joy.
Anger is also depicted as male. The bus driver has only anger inside him, there's no joy, fear, disgust or sadness, just anger.
The depiction of dad during the dinner scene is deplorable.
But, all in all, it's acceptable. Not good, but OK.

V the MacGyver Test

V the Raleigh Becket Test

V Man-child test

V The Peirce Test

V The Villarreal Test

V The Landau Test

V The Tauriel Test

V The Willis Test

That looks good, doesn't it? So, why doesn't I let it pass "gender freedom" part of Maisy test?
Because the characters are STILL very gender stereotypical and the subliminal messages are pretty awful.

X Molly Haskell test

Frankly, the mom of the family sacrifices her life and career for her husband, and even expects her daughter to do the same. As far as I can see, there is nothing in the movie that says the family didn't move half across the world for any other reason but for the dad.

V Gender Safety:

Well, there isn't objectification, sexualisation, scenes of sexual nature or sexual violence in this movie. The only nudity is of a toddler Riley whose bare bum is shown.
I would say the body image is OK, too. Everybody eats.

Oh, except for the Brazilian helicopter pilot... he is objectified.

X Social Justice and Equality:

It's pretty good, just not good enough.

There are colored people and people of all shapes and sizes. The main characters are all white.
Both Joy and Riley are slender and traditionally pretty.
Riley's mom and Sadness have glasses.
The new class teacher is a black woman. Most of the students are white.

Now, when it comes to social justice and equality... not really.

V THE REPRESENTATION TEST B

X Kent test

X Aila test

V The Waithe Test

V The Ko Test

X The Villalobos Test


WTF quotes

"Dad just left us. He doesn't love us anymore. That's sad."

"Your dad's under a lot of pressure, but if you and I can keep smiling, it would be a big help. We can do that for him. Right?"

"For this we gave up a Brazilian helicopter pilot?"

How to make it better?

* all the emotions should have been female, and they should have been dressed gender neutral way, like in scifi uniforms or something like that.

* the supporting cast and people in background need more women, more POC, more disabled people, more LGBT people

* The "Brazilian helicopter pilot" is too adult for a family movie and unnecessary sexualization and objectification.

* skip the mother and make the dad a whole person. Yes, it is totally OK to show the father as a sole parent, even when the lack of mothers is a Disney trope. Right now the mother was a bit of a cardboard character.
Or skip the dad and make the mother a whole person.
Or keep both parents and make both of them whole people. Like show how the decision was made by both, how the mom also has a work, perhaps they work together? Perhaps that made them ignore the kid?

* Having the dad "put his foot down", sure, it was comical, but now they punished her for being sad and upset and having difficulties adjusting to the new situation, which is totally normal, acceptable, to be expected. Punishing her for it, is not. Also the whole discussion between mom's and dad's emotions was not OK. It was confirming harmful stereotypes.

* They really do nothing about the "girls have to be happy" conditioning. "Oh, sweetheart" says the mom. Marge Simpson at least told Lisa "Be you. It's ok to be sad if you are sad". No, it was "I miss Minnesota, too." They need to tell the 11 years old that her parents didn't mean she needs to be happy even when she isn't. She doesn't need to be anything but what she is. All emotions are OK and should be expressed, but it would be helpful if she told them that she is unhappy because this house is scary and ugly and dirty and their stuff is gone and she's in a new school and doesn't have any friends, but her former best friend already has a new friend, and that makes her sad and angry and scared, and it's natural that makes people sad and angry and scared and it's OK: There are things in life that won't be all sunshine and unicorn farts, but it's OK. Everything will be OK. She will be OK. SF will be OK.
Apologize for not being her emotional support in this traumatic event in her life. Apologize for being thoughtless and stupid. That they will not punish her again for not being "positive", they will not ask her to be happy and they will not define her as their happy girl.

So...one little nitpick about Inside Out
Actually, Inside Out's Gender Norms Are A Major Problem
When "Choice Feminism" Really Means "Don't Question The Status Quo, Ever" 
No, Dudes, Sitcom Dads Are Not An Evil Feminist Plot. They're Postmodern Patriarchy. 
Look How Hilariously Political Traditionalists Are, (Especially) When They Think They’re Not
Inside Out's Feminism, and Other Imaginary Friends
Has Anyone Else Noticed That Riley's Parents Kind Of Suck? 
When Sexism is More Than Just Bad Table Manners

BTW, here's the house:

What Does Pixar’s "Inside Out" Say about Gender?
Getting Inside the Messages in “Inside Out”

40-Year-Old Virgin 👎

"Because obviously biologically the perception of men and women... It's hard to imagine any male go without sex for that long a period of time, obviously."
"When it comes to men and women of a certain age, guys have more fun. It's a theme that comes up in Must Love Dogs, and it's sort of what you see In The 40-Year-Old Virgin. Even the loser gets to get drunk and make out with Catherine Keener"
-  Cinecast #31: The Last American Virgin   About 18:10

I have been relistening to Cinecast/Filmspotting from the beginning, and it's surprisingly hard to get by the male- and USA-centrism. Adam Kempenaar and Sam Van Hallgren seem to be OK guys, they most definitely don't intend to be that way, and it is possible they are expressing their compassion to women and women's position in the society, but it doesn't sound like that... it sounds more like they are saying men have to have sex, and men will get to have sex, while women won't. Middle-aged men just have more fun than middle-aged women.

And it is another thing that's wrong with movies and the subliminal messages!

IT DOESN'T MATTER IF IT'S A PARODY,
if something is said and not rejected or confronted as false, it is to be understood as not false.
So, when they joke about gays and there is no positive depiction of gays in the movie, then the movie's message of gays is that being a gay is somehow bad, ridiculous, negative, unmanly... a stereotypically offensive representation of gay people

X Bechdel test

X Mako Mori Test

It might, though... because of Marla, Tris' teenaged daughter. She might have her own story arc that isn't supporting Andy or any other male character.

Sexy Lamp Test

Most of the female roles can be replaced with a sexy lamp.

X The Crystal Gems Test

It doesn't have at least four major female characters, and even if you took one of the minor characters and made her into a major, it still wouldn't pass, because it doesn't pass Bechdel test, Mako Mori test and most of the females in the movie don't pass Sexy Lamp test.

So, does this movie has at least four major female characters?

There's Andy, who is the main character
There's Tris, his girlfriend
There's his 3 best buddies, Jay, Cal, and David
There's his boss, Paula
There's Marla, Tris' teenaged daughter

Is Beth a major female role? I don't think so.
Is Nicky a major female role? I don't think so.
Is Julia a major female role? No.
Is Jill? No
What about Bernadette? No
Amy? No.
Just because she is named and not a single-scene role, it doesn't mean she is a major role.
Beth is a woman he could have had sex with. She ends up being Cal's girlfriend.
Nicky is another woman he could have had sex with.
Both could be replaced with a sexy lamp.
Julia is Tris' youngest, and she has one scene.
Jill is Jay's girlfriend. She has one scene, which is totally irrelevant to the movie.
Bernadette is there just to be David's girlfriend.
Amy is David's ex. Another sexy lamp. Positive here is that she is colored, and seen as "ugly and fat".

X F-Rating

X Sphinx Test

If we accept Tris as a primary role, she isn't driving the action. The closest thing to that is that she suggests Andy could sell his collections through her business.
She isn't very active.
She isn't all that stereotypical, but on the other hand... she kind of is.
She is the love interest.
She is a mother.
She owns her own business, and there is a scene that happens in there. He asks her out and she says "yes". Then she is shown as ineffective, weak, uncertain, kind of bullied by this young male customer. Who, I assume, is kind of a loser, being fat, bespectacled and wanting to buy high-heel silver boots.
She is sort of a manic pixie dream girl.
She lets him set the pace.
She comforts, nurtures, supports, reacts emotionally.
She runs away.
She has long, wavy hair that is loose in every scene.
When they have sex, she is on the bottom.

She doesn't seem to have any friends, relatives other than her daughters, no own aspirations or wishes, no life. We don't know what happened to the father or fathers of the girls. We don't know anything about her, except that she was very young when she got her children, and that her eldest is already a mother. So - not a compelling, complex and multidimensional character with her own story arc.

CinemaScore A-
Rotten tomatoes 85%
IMDb 7.1

X The Feldman Score 0

X Furiosa Test

X The Roxane Gay Test


XThe Maisy Test for sexism in kids' shows

X Gender Balance - Gender Representation:

There are more females than males in this movie, but they are not equal.

X Gender Freedom:

Do girls and boys get to do the same things? Theoretically, yes, but in practice, no.

Do they all get to have adventures? In a way, yes. But not the "good women".

Do male and female characters subvert traditional gender roles and have the freedom to enjoy a whole range of experiences, unlimited by their gender?
In a way, it shows sexually active women taking initiative, but the boss is not seen as attractive and her suggestions are sexual harassment. The women in bars and dating scene are "hoodrats", easy "use and throw" sex toys. Beth is dangerous, kinky, good men should stay away from her. The dogs are free to have sex with her, because she, too, is a sex toy.
Jay cheats on his girlfriend, and she leaves him. He cries. She takes him back. We are supposed to believe he has changed, but I don't really believe it.
David is shown as sensitive, but that's "gay" and mocked, and he needs to be slapped, physically abused, to "snap out of it".
Andy is mocked through the whole movie for being a virgin.
When Jay becomes a father, it's all about how masculine his son is.
Andy seems to enjoy cooking and is good at it. He even cooks for his girlfriend and her family.
Paula wears pants and is the boss.

X Gender Safety:

I would say body shapes are OK. Of course, all attractive females are skinny, hourglass-shaped with big boobs, wearing revealing clothing, and white, except Jay's girlfriend, who is traditionally beautiful but black, and David's ex Amy, who is colored, and short, "fat and ugly" as she has been described by MSM. No-one says that being fat is ugly, but all the women who Andy hits or is told to hit, are skinny.
People are generally not treated respectfully.

Everyone is not safe. There's a lot of sexualization and objectification in this movie, also sexual violence. Most of it verbal, but there's also unwanted advances, caresses, fondling, kissing

There are snippets of porn movies, usually the part where a naked woman is riding a man. There's a lot of naked breasts, both male and female.
We have a scene where a woman bares her nipple in public, unknowing, but no-one stops her.
We have a scene of a woman masturbating in the bathtub, her nakedness covered in soap bubbles, but she is making sounds.
Not only that, in the movie she goes home with one guy and then goes to the bathtub and masturbates while he watches her. Then he leaves, and another guy goes into the bathroom and starts taking his clothes off, and... it's OK? And HE IS IN THE HOUSE BECAUSE ONE OF HIS BUDDIES KEPT HER KEY!!! It's not that she leaves her door open for random strangers to walk in and have sex with her, no... they stole the key and used it without her knowledge or consent.
What?
THAT'S A FUCKING RAPE!

The advice of finding drunk women and stag parties to get easy sex is disgusting.

The female lead is shown in her underwear. So is the male lead.

X Social Justice and Equality:
I feel like I have to give it pass because there is more than the usual amount of POC.
But, it really doesn't pass.
Most people are able-bodied white people,
LGBT people are not represented well,
social issues aren't discussed,
there is an appalling scene where they guys smash fluorescent tube lights.
*sigh*
Social justice isn't addressed at all.
The boss promotes the hero to the floor manager, because "he's the best salesman", even though we have no proof of it, AND the boss makes a move on him at the same time, indicating that she is attracted to him and tries to get him into bed. So IS he promoted legally, or is it just a move she makes?
Also
"I hired a 90-lb girl to work in the stock room at Smart Tech for you, okay? I should've hired a 300-lb guy to lift the 60-inch flat screen, but instead, I hired a hot girl who can't lift an iPod to bring you out of your funk."
So she'll be fired when the friend doesn't like her anymore? What about all the people who should have got the job being better qualified for the job, and didn't get it? Also, the movie just showed the 90-lb girl pushing a cart with a flat screen tv on... how did she get it on it? No, girls are weak, don't hire them. Unless they are hot. Brrr...

X The Uphold Test

X The Rees Davies Test
Location department and SFX fails
Camera and Electrical Department has exactly two women in it. 2 of 52.

X The White Test

V The Hagen Test

V The Koeze-Dottle Test

64% of the supporting cast is women
- don't cheer, though... most of them were in the show as someone Andy could have sex with.
I would say about the speaking roles that it was about 50/50, even perhaps more women than men.
I don't care to count the words spoken by both genders, nor take the screentime. It really doesn't matter how much of the words or screentime women get, when the presentation, what they say and do when on screen, is deplorable.

Questions to ponder about Gender Freedom:

X The Peirce Test

V The Villarreal Test

X The Landau Test
The female lead causes a plot problem to the male lead. First she isn't happy about he not having sex with her and not telling her why, so that he runs out of the house and gets drunk and into trouble, then she suspects him of being some sort of sex killer and runs out of the house, so that he runs after her and almost ends up dead.

X The Tauriel Test

I don't think Tris is being shown as a good shopkeeper, or recognized for it, neither is she a good mother.
Paula keeps showing the same stupid music video over and over again, ignoring the comfort of her employers, sexually harassing one of them.
We know nothing about Marla's "job". She is in High School, presumably.
We know nothing about Julia, either.
We don't know what Nicky does, but she has a history of DUI. One could assume that she's pretty good at what she's doing because she's still alive, but, no.
We don't know what Jill does. Her boyfriend never tells how proud he is of her.
Bernadette is shown pushing a wide-screen tv on a cart, but she apparently "can't lift an I-phone", and she was hired just to be a girlfriend to David.
We don't know what Amy does, except has sex like a man. Except that we don't know if she does. It could all be David's talk.
So, no, this movie doesn't pass Tauriel test.

X The Willis Test

This movie couldn't be genderswapped in a believable manner, according to the good men of Filmspotting podcast.

V Molly Haskell test

Now, this is a bit interesting.
The woman isn't sacrificing anything because she doesn't seem to have a life, career, personality, friends, dreams, aspirations of her own. Just unlimited amount of time to help Andy to realize his dreams.
She doesn't get a terrible disease, that one's easy.
Does she have a career? She has a business, taking people's things and selling them on eBay. I don't know if she does that because it's a job or because she is passionate about it. We don't know if she gives it up after the marriage. No-one is interested.
Does she compete with another woman? His boss flirts with him, and he let another woman take him to her home and undress him, and watched her fondle herself... that counts as cheating in my book. But, she isn't competing. She lets him make all the decisions.
So - I think I have to let this pass.

"Does the plot go something like this:
- woman gives the man the strength, reason, know-how, resources, support whatever necessary for him to succeed
- woman gives the man room for adventures, achievements, whatever it is
- woman waits, patiently, silently, fighting other females off for the man to come to her
- the reward for patience is the man's love, attention, company, marriage
- the evil woman, the competition gets silenced, ashamed, hurt, ostracized, perhaps even killed"

Yeah, it does!
The success is losing his virginity. He falls in love with her. She is being patient and not having sex with him. She advises him to sell his collections, and he becomes rich. She lets him have his adventures, going to bars, trying to sleep with women, never says a word about that. She gets a bit impatient and they have an argument, and he punishes her by leaving her, so she crawls back to apologize, like a good girl, and gives him all the time in the world to do what he has to do. And she is rewarded with marriage. Let the sunshine in!

"anyone who's never partaken of sex must be naïve about all things involving human interaction"

"the same culture that frowns upon women/girls enjoying sex ridicules men/boys who eschew it"

"guys are only interested in sex."

Most of the females are young, sexy, pretty. Most of them could be just as well sexy lamps.
The male characters aren't as attractive. Nevertheless, we have this problem - this man has never had sex. It's not because he hasn't had a chance. We are shown him in intimate situations, where a less awkward man would have had sex. It's not that he can't get women, he just doesn't want to have sex in situations most men wouldn't hesitate.
His friends decide to fix this problem. They are leading him to have sex with "hoodrats" who have to be "hot". Preferably drunk. Easy.

Two of the women with speaking roles are "hoodrats". One is drunk at a bachelor party. The other is dressed "slutty", so you know she's easy. So easy she'd have sex with this middle-aged loser.

Steve Carell: 43 (male lead)
Catherine Keener: 46 (female lead)
Paul Rudd: 36 (friend)
Romany Malco: 37 (friend)
Seth Rogen: 23 (friend)
Elizabeth Banks: 31 (hoodrat)
Leslie Mann: 33 (hoodrat)
Jane Lynch: 45 (men's boss - a shrew)

V The Representation Test B

There's plenty of POC in speaking roles. There are some racial stereotypes.
There are women who are not sexy lamps
Catherine Keener is over 45
The men aren't violent, there are colored men in this movie and there are some non-stereotypical qualities in men. Which is how it gets a B.
How it presents GLBT people is deplorable, and disabled people aren't even present.

X Kent test

There was a bigger role given to a POC, but this person was there because she was a male character’s ex and she never interacted with any other female – or POC. The narrative arc was that she once dated a guy, who couldn’t get over her. End of narrative arc.

X Aila test

X The Waithe Test

V The Ko Test

I am going to let this pass, even though Amy only is in 3 scenes, and speaks in only two of them because she isn't a stereotypical character.
And because this movie got so little passes, and it has quite a good representation of POC.

X The Villalobos Test

Notes 

Why is the personnel at the restaurant singing the stupid birthday song all women?

Tris "finds all this kinky stuff" - porn videos and an anatomical model of a vagina? Huh?
She believes he's some sort of sexual deviant who's trying to kill her?
He says he's a virgin and "oh! That's OK then! I thought you were trying to kill me, but no maniac sex killer would say they were virgins! You wouldn't lie about such a thing!"

They have sex and he knows exactly what to do and where to put it. I remember the first time I had sex. Neither of us had ever had sex before and it was a bit of "it looks so easy in porn movies!" :-D Even in porn movies, they have a guide the penis a little to find its way. But, no, this virgin was natural, and sex is really like that. A man lies on top of a woman, and that's it.

No foreplay... and no cuddling.

Pacific Rim 👍

Now, I only give this movie thumbs up because Mako's role IS very good. THERE ARE SOME SERIOUS ISSUES, THOUGH.

X Bechdel test

V Mako Mori Test

Now, some people question whether this movie passes Mako Mori test because a man plays a big role in Mako's character arc, but the thing is that her story isn't supporting a man's role. She has her own role.

V Sexy Lamp Test

X “The Crystal Gems” Test

X F-Rating

V Sphinx Test

V The Feldman Score 5

X Furiosa Test

V The Roxane Gay Test

Hmm... is her world inhabited by women? Doesn't seem to be many there. Humankind might have bigger problems than some Kaiju. Not enough women to birth babies.
I'm going to give it a pass.

V The Maisy Test for sexism in kids' shows

X Gender Balance - Gender Representation:

There is seriously not enough women in this movie. The women are depicted as equals, but there just isn't enough of them.

Narrator male

the ratio of male actors vs female actors

named characters: 46/10
unnamed: 19/6
Now, I think there were 2 major female roles and 2 minor, like computer voice, newscaster etc.
I think there were 7 major roles for males. Half of them could easily have been for women.

X The Uphold Test

on-set crew: 130/16

The crew is ENORMOUS and about 4/1 ratio

X The Rees Davies Test

No - Location Management and transportation deparment... ouch. Almost.

X The White Test

Not even close

X The Hagen Test

Most if not all one-scene roles and extras went to men. There were a couple of female soldiers, some citizens... most people in this movie were men.

X The Koeze-Dottle Test

Mako Mori has about 35 minutes screentime. I don't know about how much screentime the rest of the cast got. It felt like mostly fighting scenes between monsters and machines.

V Gender Freedom:

V The Peirce Test

V The Villarreal Test

V The Landau Test

V The Tauriel Test

V The Willis Test

Sort of. Sort of not, though. Even though it's quite possible to imagine this film with mostly female cast and have the few males in the female roles from this movie, there are still a couple of problems. These jaegers seemed to take quite a lot of physical power to maneuver. Also, I don't know how much strength one needs on a wall building site.
Also, I thought the "father"'s protectiveness seemed typically male towards a female. But I have no problems imagining a mother trying to protect her son the same way.

I don't remember seeing a woman eating in this movie. The men ate. Or some of them. (Or plaid with their food.)

The female gender roles weren't especially traditional. The male roles, on the other hand, were a bit conservative.

Now, the hero was very supportive of the female lead.

We had some good fathers, but no mothers.

The female lead was kind of one of the primary male's daughter.

The woman didn't need to sacrifice anything, though she lost her family when she was very little, and then she lost her surrogate dad.
She didn't need to choose between a career and a man, and she wasn't competing for a man.
According to the classic ideas, she was a "bad" woman. Independent and equal to men, in the military, not a SAHM.
Now... was she punished? I don't know... Because she did lose her family. Twice. On the other hand, she gets promoted.

She doesn't seem to have any friends or family.
She is set apart from other women and other people. She is "the best" and she is "boss"'s daughter, and she isn't allowed to get into trouble, even though she is obviously very good. He is protecting her.

The "role models, mentors, parent figures" are all men.

Mako is an obedient and respectful daughter. She is ready to set aside her wishes and aspirations because her "dad" says no...

Also, there was this "let's make her unconscious and let's catapult her out of harm's way" thingy. Women in Tupperware boxes... >:->

Now, in the boys' memory there is the mother, who is very stereotypical... she seems to be from the 70s, wearing a skirt in every scene, carrying a platter to the table, tucking someone to bed, and the father is wearing a cardigan or pullover vest and glasses, or something like that. It's really funny, it looks like my childhood, and it's 2018, and I'm 49 :-D The brothers were not middle-aged :-D So they would be more like my nephews and I am pretty sure there are not many 20-something guys out there with a childhood like that. I'm pretty sure, though, that that is Guillermo del Toro's childhood. He's just 5 years older than I.

X the MacGyver Test

V the Raleigh Becket Test

It would be interesting if Raleigh Becket didn't pass Raleigh Becket test :-D

V Gender Safety

I have some problems with the suits. Diving suits don't have breasts. They have a slight curve. But - whatever.

There was no objectification, sexual assaults, sexualization of anyone. There was some bare male upper body, though.

Age of primary and secondary actors?

Charlie Hunnam: 33
Rinko Kikuchi: 32
Idris Elba: 41

V Social Justice and Equality:

I let it pass simply because there ARE POC in central roles. Not enough, of course, and there could have been more diversity. Too many able-bodied white men.
Also, I don't think anyone was commenting things like the environment or social structures or any such things.

V The Representation Test B
One could think it deserves a bonus point for the director being a Latino...

X Kent test
6 out of 7 ain't bad... but not pass.
"Must have at least one interaction with another woman/femme of color"

X Aila test

X The Waithe Test

V The Ko Test

X The Villalobos Test

What would make it better?

Obviously, MORE FEMALES!!!
There needs to be more speaking roles, women speaking to each other, more women in the crew, especially in the on-set crew, more colored women, disabled people, fat people... Could we have some Indigenous people, please?  I don't care if they are tokens, some of the best achievements were tokens and one-liners. Rita Hayworth got her chance with a one-liner. (She BTW was Mexican...)

Let Mako have more action, especially in the climactic scene. He didn't need to catapult her to safety. She didn't need to be protected and saved so much. She didn't need to be sheltered.

Also, more women in science. When most of the weapons systems are digital, electronic and engineering, men's physical strength plays no role. Let us see more women in engineering and science!

About gender roles

Women's pictures and the perfect moment 

It's sort of funny to read some of the defenders of traditional gender roles...

"feminists and Hollywood leftists will use to (vainly) insist on the trope women are equal to men in all things, including physique, strength, and logic."

And someone was explaining that women have less impact in the society, like in science, and thus shouldn't be seen as equals in movies...

Also, someone was saying there were no women in wars, so that's why there are no women in war movies.

And I'm thinking, "you believe that BECAUSE YOU HAVE BEEN WATCHING THESE MOVIES WHERE WOMEN ARE DEPICTED AS STEREOTYPICAL BACKDROP".

My personal experience of the world is that women ARE equal to men in all things, including physique, strength, and logic. But I am a woman so I would know this. These guys have never needed to question their conditioning, but it's futile to tell me that the boys I beat in everything would be stronger or more logical than I am :-D

So, this is why I have this blog. To find out the indoctrination and to destroy it.

The essay I linked gives me some more tools. Here are some of my notes.

Molly Haskell:
- Sacrifice - a woman learns to give up her own life and/or personal happiness for someone else
- Affliction - a woman contracts a terrible disease, leaving her a short time to find happiness = man
- Choice - a woman must choose between her career or a man
- Competition - a woman competes with another woman, usually for the affections of a man

There is the "born sexy yesterday" trope
There is "manic pixie dream girl" trope
There is "damsel in distress" trope
There is the "how would you react if it was YOUR mother/sister/daughter/wife?" - for a man to "get it" you have to make him think the person in distress, if a woman, is a woman that "belongs to him".

For a woman to "deserve" good things, she must fit into the "good woman" category. She must be innocent, dutiful, helpless, submissive, obedient, quiet and pretty. The "good" she deserves is the love of a man, the protection, and support of a man. She gets married! YAY!
If she is "bad", if she is experienced, sexually active, independent, resourceful, shows that she is an equal to most people and stronger and smarter than ANY man, she will be punished. She will get silenced, ashamed, hurt, ostracized, perhaps even killed. She will lose everything that is of any value to her.

So, if the plot goes something like this:
- the woman gives the man the strength, reason, know-how, resources, support whatever necessary for him to succeed
- the woman gives the man room for adventures, achievements, whatever it is
- the woman waits, patiently, silently, fighting other females off for the man to come to her
- the reward for patience is the man's love, attention, company, marriage
 then the movie enforces ideas that rob the humankind half of the resources.

Another thing to look at is if the woman has any friends.
Does she only communicate with employees or relatives? Are the only females at her level adversaries and competition? Competing about a man?
Is the female lead set apart from other women, visually, narratively, or as exceptional and special?
One can look at the men in a movie the same way. Is he set up as the lone, exceptional hero? How is he exceptional? A killing machine?

How about the role models, teachers, mentors, parent figures? Are these mothers or fathers?

And what do they do? 

The stereotypical idea is that
* Women discuss. Women's stories are about relations and romance and emotions. Women feel. Women talk about the "perfect moment".
* Men have adventures, men go inventing things and detecting things and researching things and discovering things. Men do. Men talk about their adventures. Men have stories.

What is the subject, theme, genre of the movie?

The stereotypical idea is that
* Women's movies are about romance and relationships, or emotions. How they feel about this. How they grow emotionally.
* Men's movies are about politics, history, business, war, and sports. Men like science-fiction. Men want to know what happened, how and why.

Of course, it's totally OK to make movies where these things happen, but it shouldn't happen all the time in all the movies because it's not the whole truth. It's like showing someone a picture of red and claiming that's the rainbow.

Gender Bias Without Borders

The Beguiled (2017) 👎

Now, this test passes Bechdel test and is the most inclusive movie I have reviewed when it comes to crew. It is directed and written by a woman, half of the department heads were women, there were women in almost all departments. That's something that should be celebrated, embraced, encouraged... and I can't. I hate it that I can't. The female presentation, the female characters in this movie aren't worth it. I refuse to give them thumbs up.
(Now, I have to point out that the original manuscript was better than what ended up to be the movie. What made Sofia Coppola change her mind and choose an interpretation of her manuscript that wasn't supporting her original idea with this movie... I don't know. Perhaps she didn't think it made any difference.)

Two females dominated, with just one gun and one leg.

V Bechdel test

V Mako Mori Test
We don't know much about these characters. All we know is that Edwina moved around a lot with her dad, who now lives in Richmond. Or something. That isn't a narrative arc. But - I suppose the John adventure counts as a narrative arc. And is it supporting the male protagonist? Er... maybe not. Let's be kind and let her pass.
BARELY: And only because John dies, so she doesn't end up eloping with him.

V Sexy Lamp Test
Ok... so if we replace Martha with a sexy lamp... No. She is necessary
Edwina? A sexy lamp wouldn't have pushed the hero down the stairs, neither would she have had sex with him to appeal him after he made himself irresistible by first fucking a teenager and then having a raging rampant.
Alicia? Sure, a sexy lamp is fine.
Amy? Perhaps not. But she's pretty bland here.
All the rest? Sure. Doesn't matter.
But BARELY. THIS MOVIE BARELY PASSES SEXY LAMP TEST!

V“The Crystal Gems” Test

So... four females...
Martha, Edwina, Alicia, and Amy
Does Martha pass Bechdel test? Yes.
Edwina? Yes
Alicia? Does she say much anything about anything but John? She gives some answers in the French lesson, but that doesn't count. It's not a discussion. Oh, that garden scene. Yes, she passes.
Amy? Yes.

OK, I'm being kind here. Not that this movie deserves it.

V F-rating
YES. It passes. And I hate it that it passes, because IT'S NOT A FEMINIST MOVIE.

X Sphinx Test

- Does a woman has a primary role?
Er... Uh... I suppose so.
- Is there a woman driving the action?
Eh... well... yeah, I suppose so.
- Is the woman active rather than reactive?
Er... Ok, then
- How stereotypical is the character?
Not really, they are just bland and boring.
- Is the character compelling, complex and multidimensional?
No. I don't think so.
- Is the movie/story essential and does it have an impact on a wide audience?
IMDb 6.4 Rotten Tomatoes 78%... er... not really, no...

Now, if these ladies were any good, I'd be happy to let it pass. But I hate this movie.

V The Feldman Score

X Furiosa Test
I think it's too bland for that.

X The Roxane Gay Test

Now, I'm not Roxane Gay, but I don't find these women interesting, compelling, complex...

X The Maisy Test for sexism in kids' shows

X Gender Balance - Gender Representation:

THere are more women than men. Now, from a feminist point of view, that's OK, because there are hundreds of movies with a LOT more men than women.

The amount of speech:

McB - other males - Miss Martha - Edwina - Amy - other females

X The Uphold Test

It's pretty close, though...

V  The Rees Davies Test

X The White Test
But it's closest I've seen so far. Very impressive seeing all the women being involved in making this movie!

I have to say one thing: half of the department heads are women!: YAY!

X The Hagen Test

But it's a war movie, so it's excused.

V  The Koeze-Dottle Test

X Gender Freedom:

Boys and girls don't get to do the same things.
Girls don't get to have adventures.
I would say these people are limited by their gender.

V The Peirce Test

V  The Villarreal Test

V  The Landau Test

Hmm... though I would say the female characters do cause problems for the male character. Now, he's there for the women and he does cause problems for them.

X The Tauriel Test

Though I don't know how good a teacher Edwina is supposed to be... I don't think anyone compliments her on her work. The 1971 version actually passes...

X The Willis Test

traditional gender roles

I wouldn't say the ladies in this version are stereotypes. Though I hate miss Martha's indecisiveness in this. She is a weathervane. She changes opinion if you say something to her.

"Put a rag on the gate"
"wouldn't it be Christian not to?"
"OK, sure, you're right"

"Shall we give him to the soldiers?"
"No"
"Ok"

"Your dress is pretty"
"her dress shows too much skin"
"but I don't think it's appropriate, cover up."

"What shall we do?"
"We could give him some poisonous mushrooms, he likes mushrooms."
"OK, we'll do that."

She SAYS she's the boss, she decides, everyone should do what she says, but she doesn't SHOW it. So I don't buy it. She isn't convincing in her role as the headmistress.

But - there are "women" who solve problems. the 12yos.

And eating... I don't remember seeing Nicole Kidman actually eating anything. The kids eat.

I don't think these ladies are physically confident go-get-em types or adventurous. Amy is the only one who goes outside the gate. (Except in the end they all go out - for a couple of meters, and then rush back in again.)

The women are teachers, the man is a soldier
The dialogue cannot be inverted.
Women don't have male roles, man doesn't have female roles.
All the females, even the kids, are presented as having a crush on the male.

In most scenes, the woman is shown as crouching, sitting next to the man, or turned away from him. Not in one scene does she tower over him or position herself in any other way dominant to him.
These ladies don't have a shred of the authority and self-confidence the 1971 ladies did. I mean, even Amy, 12 years old Amy, was a strong female! Now, she was a bit of a psychopath, but that's better than being milquetoast. (And so phenomenally so! All three adult women were very, very white...)

Even "emasculated" this man is terrorizing the whole household. I kind of don't think one gets over amputation in a couple of hours. Or over the pain with a bottle of bourbon. So, men control and dominate, women are submissive and obey. Men are strong, women are weak. Men are physical and active - I mean, this guy trashed a whole room throwing furniture away within an hour from when he woke up having been thrown the stairs, gotten his leg broken really badly and amputated. Wow. The women were sitting on the couch crying and shivering. Women nurture. Women help. Women comfort. Men do maintenance, gardening, chop wood. Women do crafts, cook, dress up and make themselves pretty to please the man, and are pretty playing with flowers in the garden.
So - a lot of gender stereotypes.

Also, remember that sex to soothe the guy thingy I mentioned earlier. Yeah. That.

Then, Sofia Coppola calls this a feminist version of the 1971 movie.

He asks her "If you could have anything... what's your biggest wish? If you could have anything in the world, what would it be?"

And I sit by the edge of my chair, holding my breath... "Sofia... let's see how feminist this movie is... what will she answer?"

"To be taken far away from here".

TO BE TAKEN...

Oh, Sofia... Wrong answer.

Remember, Jane Eyre exists in this world.

X the MacGyver Test

X the Raleigh Becket Test

X Gender Safety:

Body image is, I suppose, OK, even though all adult females are slender. There are no fat people here. On the other hand, it's civil war, there probably wouldn't be.
And it's the 1860s, people wore corsets.
Are people treated respectfully? Not really.
Sexualisation? Some male sexualization. Objectification? Slight. Misogyny? I have some problems with this movie.

This movie shows Colin Farrell almost naked. He's wearing just drawers. (With lace. What? When I first saw that lace I thought it was some sort of a kerchief or napkin or something, and that didn't make any sense, but he kept wearing these shorts with lace around waist and legs. Yeah. Civil war underwear wasn't like that. I don't know what the costume designer was thinking.)

There are some scenes where the women's bosom is a bit of a distraction.

Also, slut shaming! Oh, no, you didn't!

Martha: That dress is very becoming, Miss Edwina.
Edwina: Thank you.
Alicia: There might be other attractive shoulders here if we were all permitted to wear such dresses.
Martha: I wouldn't say it's entirely suitable for a young ladies schoo , but we know miss Edwina is accustomed to town society with different views. I would suggest that we change the subject and that miss Edwina draws her shawl.
Edwina: Yes
Martha: That will avoid any more speculation on the subject.

In the next scene she is without the shawl, so this whole discussion was just slut-shaming, for no reason.

Age of actors:

Colin Farrell 41
Nicole Kidman 50
Kirsten Dunst 35
Elle Fanning 19
Oona Laurence 15

Elle was shown in her nightgown. Her leg was showing, but nothing else.
Kirsten, well... Colin ripped her blouse and drawers, and then she was shown lying next to him in her 19th-century underwear. Or corset cover. Or whatever piece of clothing that was supposed to be.
Most of the time everyone was modestly dressed.

Now, the sex scene... she initiated it so it wasn't a rape, just very passionate, violent sex scene. There's principally nothing wrong with it, but on the other hand, there is.
Why is the scene in there? Why was her clothes ripped? Why didn't she undress herself? Why was she shown under him, taken by him? Why not show him in a submissive position, lying on the bed, and she undressing and lowering herself on top of him? The agression doesn't make any sense, and having this scene straight after "paraplegic war veterans are half men!" speech makes both the speech and the scene stupid.

Talking about castration or sex to teen-aged girls isn't OK.
Insinuating that their teachers wanted to have sex with him, not OK. It isn't even true. Neither Edwina nor Martha indicated in any way that they wanted to have sex with him in Coppola's version.
Also, Edwina was portrayed as a virtuous, inexperienced woman in the 1971 version, and having hots for McB didn't mean she would have wanted him to come to her room. We don't even know that he knew where her room was. (Frankly, it's a mystery how he knew where Alicia's room was.)
That miss Martha was expecting him, was obvious in the 71 version, here it wasn't.
By removing what I assume Sofia Coppola thought showed women in bad light, she removed the motivation for all the characters to react the way they did. Yet another whitewashing that makes the movie worse.

"Do you know why Edwina pushed me down those stairs?  And why your Miss Martha chopped off my leg? Because I didn’t go to her room, or Edwina’s.  No, they didn’t like that"
They did know.
Edwina pushed you down those stairs because she found you in bed with Alicia. They saw it happen. They saw Alicia half naked. They knew it isn't appropriate for a man to be in a girl's room, not even during the day, and absolutely not during the night. From their point of view their beloved teacher was protecting and defending them.
Miss Martha chopped off your leg because it was horribly shattered. They all saw your shattered leg. They heard her explain why she had to do it.
The next day, they saw the ladies being cool, calm and collected, perfect ladies, as they had always seen them, but you were screaming, using horrendous language, break things, and behave in a very ungentlemanly manner. Not one of the girls was on your side. Except perhaps Amy, who was desperately trying to find reasons to why she would listen to you, a person she had known only for a couple of days, and not the people whom she had spend her time with for a couple of years, who took care of her, who protected her, who comforted her... and she tried to calm you down by saying she was afraid. (She said his shouting made her pet turtle frightened, which is basically the same thing), and as response you killed her darling pet. They all saw you do that.

We are talking about girls in the 19th century. Everyone who has read Laura Ingalls Wilder, Louisa May Alcott, Frances Hodgson Burnett and Lucy Maud Montgomery knows the moral grounds of these girls. They had never seen a drunken person, raving maniacs were scary things from gothic novels, crying men was unheard of. All adults behaved. Losing one's self-control was scary and unnatural, and unmanly. It wasn't allowed to them, and it most certainly wasn't allowed to adults. All these girls saw themselves as "little women", almost adults. Might be that the 12-13 years olds weren't allowed to wear long skirts or updos, but the ones over 15 could actually legally get married, and were thus seen as adults, having the same responsibilites and expectations. All of them knew exactly how a man SHOULD behave, and if he didn't behave that way... there were no excuses, no pardon, no mercy. Now, Edwina loved him, so she would excuse him and see beyond the bad behavior and pity him. But why would she go to his room to fuck him? It really was "I saw you behave like a REAL man (aka a brute) and I got so horny I can't stop myself!"

X Social Justice and Equality:

Nope. All white, able-bodied and straight. Some words about how war is terrible, but that too is blasé.

v The Representation Test  B
No POC, or any representation of anyone else but white people.

Now, the 1971 version got some points for presenting a one-legged man with some poise and acceptance and not being limited by his handicap, but this one gives "the speech".

"I'd rather be dead than be a man without a lge, hobblin' around. Why didn't you kill me when you had the change? I see how youse all look at me, your disgust and your pity. I'm not even a man anymore! I took your kindness and I trusted you, and ya, ya toyed with me, and ya butchered me!"

Yeah... you took their kindness and tried to cheat on your fiance with a teenager. I mean... you forgot that part?

Also, the day after he was amputated he runs down a healthy 12 years old who knows the surroundings, knows how to climb trees, and is scared witless. She would make herself scarce like a rabbit and he wouldn't be able to find her.
And immediately after that, he "bodice-rips" a woman and has aggressive sex with her.

X Kent test
X Aila test
X The Waithe Test
X The Ko Test
X The Villalobos Test 

Notes 

What did they shoot him with? A cannon loaded with musket balls and a shovel?

What I hate about this movie is that it should have been BETTER. The discussion in 1971 movie flows nicely. It tells us things about these people that explains why the things happen that happen. To understand this movie, one has to have seen the original. Sofia Coppola has removed essential information, changed the dialogue, added things, and made it stupid. Most of this movie doesn't make any sense.
Why did he end up in ANYONE's bed?
The sexual tension between Martha and John wasn't shown at all. Sure, she was heaving while she washed him, but he was unconscious.
Sure, Alicia was flirting, but he didn't seem to be much interested. Appreciative to be wakened by a kiss by a pretty girl, but not more than that. Why did he go to her bed?
In the 1971 version, McB was flirting with everyone to save his life. I fully believed that if he had left with Edwina, he would have given her to his fellow soldiers and never thought about her after that. He would have taken the soldiers to the school and joined them in raping everyone, from Amy to Martha. Now, I thought John was being honest and seriously in love with Edwina, and all he wanted to be left in peace and live. Now, one-legged man can't really farm, but what do farmers care about flowers? And then he cheats her with Alicia. Why? It doesn't make any sense. (Except, of course, all men are dogs and fuck anything they see.)

How do they know he likes mushroom? In 1971 movie they ate often together and he ate mushrooms often with gusto. Not here. We know it because Jane or Mary or whatever her name is, says it.

That's how it is with most of this movie.
He throws the turtle, because Clint Eastwood threw it 1971. Except that Clint got it shoved up his face and he was drunk and upset and angry and got irritated and just hit it away, and happened to kill the turtle.
And he was sincerely sorry about having killed it.
And killing his favorite's favorite made him realize what he was doing and he left.
And that makes Edwina running after him and hitting Martha make sense.
In this, it didn't make any sense. I mean the cripple scene is just ridiculous.

And then the death scene. All just sat around the table like "What? It's totally normal to watch a man die of poison mushroom we fed him. Nothing to react to." No horror, no regret, no shame, no shock, no realization that we have just ended a man's life. Yeah. Totally normal.

Miss Martha was supposed to be very Christian. She goes undressing and washing strange men and killing people and slut-shaming the only other adult with whom she had lived for a very long time, assumably because she got jealous. I mean, assumably, there is never any spark between these two. We just have her panting when she washed John.
And what's with that washing? I mean... you wash the washcloth in water and then wring it as dry as you can, BECAUSE HE ISN'T LYING IN A BATHTUB. He is lying on a sofa with STUFFING. Now that stuffing is wet. Well... isn't it great then that John trashes it in a couple of days, it won't have time to rot and mold. Though I have heard it can happen quickly in South.

No. This movie makes no sense.

How to make it better?

It has already been made better. 1971. Read what I said about that.
The discussions should have followed the 1971 script.
More diversity. Fewer stereotypes.
More complex characters with better stories. Tell us more about their history, their motivations, their fears, and wishes. Tell us more about their lives that is NOT connected to a man or this specific man. Tell the story from the women's point of view.

Sofia Coppola: My feminist retelling of 'The Beguiled' may 'flip' the male fantasy - but it's no castration wish

“I thought, ‘I’d love to see that story told from the point of view of the women, and what it must’ve been like for them and being cut off during war-time.’”

I would have loved that too, Sofia. Why didn't you tell it?

You could have shown John working in the garden seen from the house, from the porch, from the window... You could have shown John IN EVERY FRAME HE'S IN as he is seen by the women. From the door. Moving about in the house. Around a corner. Across a room. From behind the piano. Have the camera on the women's side, don't show the women from John's point of view, you said you weren't interested in that. But then you are... Most of the movie focuses on John and his point of view.
you could have shown Edwina and the girls at the garden, discussing and looking at John. Not John working in the garden looking at Edwina.
You could have shown Martha's religiousness and her struggle between lust for this beautiful man and her beliefs and moral ideas by having her beg God for resistance and resolution.
You could have shown Edwina's thoughts by having her write a diary or something. Discuss marriage with the women. Discuss babies.
You could have shown Alicia less as a slovenly hussy and a shrew and more as a young woman with a healthy sexual appetite. Give her some other desires, aspirations, and dreams than having sex with a man. You could, for example, have shown her hanging by the gates flirting with the Confederate soldiers. Or did she just lust after THIS specific man? They DID see men, you know. There were men walking by almost every day!
You could have shown the forests through Amy's eyes. Not show Amy walking in the forest.
You could have spoken more about the other girls and what they were thinking and dreaming about and wishing for. The war lasted only for four years. All these girls were alive and used to the prewar lifestyle, standards, and values. 8 years old girls dream about marriage or a career, or adventures. Just because there is a war, people don't stop being people.
We don't know anything about what these people wanted, dreamed of, desired. Except for John. He pops up and suddenly everyone becomes alive? So when he was dead, everyone fell back to nothingness. In the last scene, everyone could have been a sexy lamp. No, Sofia. These women had a life before John and they had a life after John.You didn't give us any reference to what it was before the war and isolation. Except for that feeble effort "we used to have these parties when my father was alive". Why didn't she marry? A daughter of a rich plantation owner with rich social life, and she is beautiful, why didn't she marry? There's this hinted "there was someone", but that's it. Was this someone her brother? No brother is mentioned, so I suppose not. Was this someone a woman? Who knows. Why did she hesitate before she said "yes"? What's the story there? Was she romantically involved with a slave? It's not important. So why did you even bring it up? The whole movie is full of things like this. Things are mentioned and then dropped. Nothing is worth elaborating or following or showing or talking about.
Also, you say religion was important to Martha, yet all her praying and so on looks staged and as she pictures herself being very religious, but isn't really. And then she wears that horrible white gown to dinner. *sigh* And has the guts of telling Edwina she's showing too much skin. *sigh* I mean, you could have given her something that was considered modest for women back in 1860, like something Melanie Wilkes wore in the famous scene with the red Parisian dress. I mean... GEESH!

"Nicole Kidman’s resourceful headmistress"
How is she resourceful?

"Farrell, says Coppola, was the ideal choice. “I wanted him to be able to charm all the different types of girls – the thinking woman’s hunk!” she says, with a sly smile."

Oh, so you think he's a hunk and you think you are a "thinking woman". *sigh*

You know the women who are in love with Mr. 50-shades-of-Grey think he's EVERY woman's ideal man. Casting a person you think is attractive is a good idea, but thinking there is a type that "is able to charm every woman" is fucked-up. There isn't. Especially if they are "thinking women".
One of the most elementary pieces of attraction is if the person reminds you of your parents. It doesn't need to be a physical parent, it's a person whom you associate with all the qualities you think a parent has. Everyone's father is different.
There are certain qualities that make certain people more attractive than others, and there is the undeniable natural attractiveness - men who look healthy and capable of defending the woman and her offspring are more attractive, women who look healthy and fertile are more attractive.
What made Clint Eastwood so amazing was that he was playing every woman differently. His tactic to seduce miss Martha was very different from his tactic to seduce miss Edwina. He didn't count on being able to charm everyone just by being attractive.

“I think women especially communicate through gestures and glances,” Coppola explains. “So I thought that to try to convey what’s under the surface, and what they’re not actually saying, is interesting. And especially that the story is so repressed and claustrophobic; hopefully [you] can feel what they’re not able to say.”

No. And not even having you tell me what they were trying to say make it any better. Because they did it so much better in the original. You keep using words to tell things that should have been shown, and not using words to try to tell things that should be said.

“It starts like a male fantasy, being cared for, and it flips and turns into something different. That’s what’s surprising about the story”

He was fucking terrified these enemy ladies would give him up! He was lying through his teeth to save his life. It wasn't some "male fantasy", being the only man in an isolated place with several, young, beautiful, horny women! Then he was terrified out of his wits when they cut off his leg while he was unconscious and unable to defend himself. Now, Clint's character had been lying and pretending and playing roles the whole time, which is why his swearing and straightness made sense, but Colin we didn't know was lying and conniving asshole. There was nothing there to say he wasn't completely sincere the whole time. No... I don't care to talk about that anymore.

“I took that character (Hallie) out because I think that’s such an important topic (slavery) and I didn’t want to treat it lightly,” Coppola argues. “I wanted to really focus the stories about these women of the South.”

Firstly, then why didn't you? and secondly, so Hallie wasn't a "woman of the South"? Nice... Why do you think the only thing to talk about when it comes to 1860s black women was slavery? A lot of slaves saw themselves as part of the family and considered the plantation their home just as much as the white people, and stayed, even after having been given their freedom, or chose to stay slaves, just because it was the existence they knew. They felt the connection to the home, the land, the place... oh... I just remembered the "new Scarlett" giving Tara away... Sofia doesn't understand the bond to a place. She doesn't understand "belonging".

The Beguiled review: Sexually-charged feminist retelling of a civil war psychodrama

"it’s a gripping, witty and sexually-charged feminist retelling of its more overtly steamy predecessor"
It's not gripping, it's not witty and it's not especially sexually charged. And it is not feminist. Retelling, yes. That's really how it felt. "I saw this movie and there was this character who said something like this and then he said and she said, and I didn't like that part so I changed it and blah blah blah".

"This rooster-in-a-henhouse scenario is rendered with wonderful restraint, wit and affection by Sofia Coppola, whose film is less about the danger of sexual repression than the utter ridiculousness of it."

Er... Don't see it. Where was the restraint? What did she restrain to tell? That there were black people in Southern states during the civil war? That women had sex life even without being married in the 19th century?
Wit? She removed all the wit from the original manuscript. Now, I haven't read the original story, so I can't tell what wit was in that, but there is very little wit in Coppola's Beguiled. And considering how happy she was about the slut-shaming at the dinner table... makes me think all the wit she didn't copy was mean-spirited and not really witty at all.
Affection? How is it affectionate to say that a woman who had a healthy sex life even though it was a very unhealthy relationship, lusting after a beautiful man is ridiculous?
And the danger of sexual repression? Who was repressing their sexuality? Miss Martha? So you are saying that if she had raped this soldier in her care, nothing bad would have happened? Or that the situation could have been avoided, had Edwina just ignored that the man she thought was going to marry her was sleeping with her teenaged student and joined them? Had she just had sex with him earlier, nothing would have happened? WTF?

"angelic-seeming (and looking) occupants of the house––long starved of male attention"
The war only lasted for four years. And there were soldiers walking by the house almost every day it felt.
Most of the "women" were kids, from Marie, 13, through Amy, 15,  Jane, 16 and Emily 17, and then Alicia, 19. Teenagers are not "long starved of male attention".
So that leaves misses Martha, 50, and Edwina, 35.
Now, a woman of 50 was considered an old person. Like elderly. White hair, grandmother, not sexually active. We don't know if she ever was sexually active. We are told she is very religious. So, no. She wouldn't get all hot just because there were no men around for four years.
Edwina... women over 26 were considered old maids and definitely too old to marry. If she was supposed to be a virgin, then she also would have given up all hope ever to get laid. If she had had a man in her life, who supposedly died in the war, that would have been only a couple of years earlier. Would she be "starved of male attention"? No. If she didn't, then she wouldn't have been used to "male attention" either.

I was 26 when I lost my virginity, and I wanted to lose that since I was about 10. I had lived my whole life among men but had I found myself in a house full of women and only one man, sure, I would have fantasized about him, but I would also have been convinced that he could possibly not have any interest in me, and all his efforts to woo me, pay me compliments and so on, would have been interpreted as his effort to be nice to the people who rescued his life. I went out with the man who would be my husband for weeks before I realized he was interested in me. I thought he just wanted company, and though I was ok as a friend, not as a woman.
So however repressed sexuality we are talking about, this movie doesn't make any sense.


"The Beguiled is not so much bubbling or fizzing as overflowing with sexual tension."

Yeah, the 1971 version. You could cut that tension with a knife. This one... blah. I am not even sure miss Martha wanted to have sex with John. Or Edwina. Or the smaller ones. The only one who possibly could have was Alicia, and not even that was as clear as in 1971 version. There really isn't much sexual tension in this movie.

"From the mushrooms in the fields outside to the columns of the dilapidated plantation home, we are reminded of what is occupying the thoughts of the women inside, and of the stupid, placid roles they’re expected to play."

Oh, the mushrooms are supposed to be phallic symbols! I thought they were supposed to be mushrooms. Stupid me. Let's kill the man with poisonous dicks. There's some symbolism for you to ponder.

"The best scenes of The Beguiled are the dinners and musical evenings the women contrive for their guest."

The first "musical evening" was horrible, meaningless... let's take everyone in, let's stage it, let's play some psalm or something, some people sing, some obviously don't know the lyrics, I'm missing the soft, warm Christianism of Little Women, and then they go away. Huh? There is no point in the scene, there is no sense, there is no reason. It does nothing. Like the rest of the scenes.

"In one brilliant scene at the dinner table, the women try to gain an advantage over one another by declaring the role they had in the making of an apple pie."

Ok, that was cute. "I made it" "Using my recipe" "I picked the apples" "I like apple pie"
But - was it really that "brilliant"? And is that the best scene in the whole movie? Every other was so "subtle" that most people missed it. I mean, it's all right to watch these "director explains the movie"; but shouldn't the movie be understood without explanation? I had no problems understanding the 1971 version.

A pulpy, misogynistic B-movie refashioned into an explosive feminist revenge drama: The Beguiled reviewed

"She has refashioned a pulpy, misogynistic B-movie into a wonderfully restrained but explosive feminist revenge drama, which has to be terrific. And it is."

I didn't see much misogyny in the 1971 movie. I did see it in this.
I see even more misogyny among the people calling themselves feminists when they view the women in the 1971 version.
The "explosions" in this movie were all created by men. How is that feminist?
And "revenge drama"? You are saying Edwina deliberately pushed John down the stairs, and Edwina and Martha amputated his leg as a revenge, for being scorned for a younger woman? Or that their killing John was a revenge and not an act of self-defense and survival, as it was in the original movie? How is any of that "feminist"?
And this movie isn't "terrific". It's not very good.

"also features lesbianism, incest, as well as a three-way sexual fantasy."

You say that as if it was something bad. Now, incest is, basically, but let's not condemn people according to our moral standards, now, shall we?
In this movie, there aren't any GLBT characters or any hint of it. There are neither fat people, disabled people, black people, or ugly people. Everything is so whitewashed, I refuse to call it feminism or celebrate it.
I would like to remind you that the movie didn't show the lesbianism or incest as something bad. Incest was there to show that here we have a woman who has had an active sex life, and she misses it. Lesbianism wasn't addressed in any way. Miss Martha wasn't a bad person because she was a bisexual in love with her own brother. In fact, McB was a bad person trying to use the fact against miss Martha. HE was the bad person here. And he was killed because of that. He revealed himself as the conniving bastard he was. The ladies knew they couldn't trust him, so they made him - the problem - disappear.
And here you are trying to say they did it as a REVENGE? FOR WHAT?

"it is the male character who is sexually objectified here"

It was the male character who was sexually objectified in the 1971 version as well.
Now, sexually objectifying people, whatever their gender is, IS NOT FEMINISM.

"Eventually, McBurney is allowed access to the rest of the house (BIG MISTAKE!)"

Actually, that was not the big mistake here.

"This has the look of an especially beautiful period drama, but beneath all the surface politeness it is fraught with sexual tension, repressed longings, menace, even a sense of impending violence."

It's not an especially beautiful period drama. The Age of Innocence was an especially beautiful period drama. Every set was breathtakingly beautiful. The costumes were amazing. This - nah. The costumes are crappy, set design isn't much to talk about, there was not one scene that made me gasp at its beauty. The choice of filming every fucking scene in candlelight, so that one cannot really see all these "looks and gestures" that are doing most of the "communication", was incomprehensible. Sure, it gave it a gothic horror movie feel, looked like she was trying to copy The Others. Which was more beautiful than this. The only scenes "beautiful" were the ones depicting the solitude of the plantations, the Spanish Moss dressed trees, the sense of loneliness, isolation, depreciation... but those were not "look of an especially beautiful period drama".
The "surface politeness"... Nicole Kidman kept curtseying all the time. Why would the lady of the house curtsey to a man in her household? It feels like Sofia Coppola read some etiquette rules here and there and they kept what sounded piquant, never understanding the whole process. Maybe she watched some Jane Austen movies as research. There are people in the USA who know everything about the Victorian and Civil War etiquette rules and how a Southern Belle would have behaved in any given situation. When you make a historical movie, find these people who can advise you about this very important matter.
Sexual tension - nah
repressed longing - some of that, yes
A sense of impending violence. Huh? They were mostly worried about their chickens and cabbages. Not about their virtue. In 1971 version when the confederation soldiers came to the house to "protect" them, it was obvious that they were there to take advantage of the girls, and the headmistress politely and firmly showed them off. This one invites them in and gives them food and leaves them unsupervised in the kitchen. Even though she was so worried about people stealing stuff. And then she went to ask the girls' advice and opinion on what to do with them. 1971 miss Martha might have been a bisexual brother-fucker, but she had authority and gravitas. 2016 "feminist" Martha is a wishy-washy jealous smallminded meanspirited shrew.

"The script introduces humour where once there was none. There is a scene concerning apple pie that is very, very funny. There are double entendres. ‘Your whole flower garden needs tending,’ McBurney tells Martha."

The apple pie scene isn't very, very funny. Saying it's very, very funny, is saying it's a bright spot in a movie that in comparison is grey mush. And, sure, it is, but what was the purpose of that scene? To say, women, even little women, are jealous bitches fighting about male attention. How is that feminist?

Double entendres count as sexual abuse. I missed that "I'm the man to fuck the whole school" innuendo in "your whole flower garden" sentence. Yuk.

"You may ask: all these women swooning over a single male; how is that feminist? Because, I would suggest, the core of the story involves the power shifting from him to them. Decisively. And explosively."

No, it doesn't. The person being objectified doesn't have power. Patriarchy doesn't give women power by objectifying them and making them try to seduce and charm their way to having any control or say about how they are being treated. At the beginning of the movie, John didn't have any power at all. He was totally at the women's mercy.
The little power he got was when he started using violence and threat of violence against the women. Now, in the 1971 version, Hallie told him very decisively and clearly that he doesn't have any more power over her than he ever had. Sofia removed that. (I mean, the only person in the whole movie who knew she was a slave, told the world, that the most powerful person in the world, her white owner, couldn't do what he wanted with her, and neither would this drunk white Yankee. Another white male. Even with a gun. He could order the white women around, but not the black woman, because she knew she was a slave. She knew her own value. She knew her limits. She knew she could defend herself and her integrity. She had done it. The white women hadn't. Hallie was saying to everyone that a slave can have integrity. A slave in 1860s South. If a black female slave can stand against a white male with all the power, why can't a white female who doesn't see herself as a slave? We can all stand up against patriarchy, in spite of its effort to dominate and use us. She is a feminist icon, and Sofia Coppola removed her from the movie... and you think that movie was misogynist and this is feminist... Oy vey.
And how did the women deal with it? I would have told him, politely but firmly, just as I have been dealing with every other problem in the movie, to stop being a fool and calm down, because he'll shoot someone's eye out. Now, let's have a cup of tea. And then I would have gone and dug up his shattered leg and given it to him, to see with his own eyes that the leg was damaged beyond repair and there were fully logical and sensible reasons to amputate it. (Having a funeral for his leg was stupid as well.) But, not these women. Now, in 1971 version it was because miss Martha HAD been lusting over John, because she KNEW it was because of her shortcoming he was behaving like he was, because she was ashamed about the incest, and all that got her emotionally unable to keep her mind together, and because Edwina wasn't that kind of a person. In 2017 version it was... Uh, I don't even care to find out. They were all fucking wimps. Except for the under 15yos. And once again, the headmistress is being told by babes what to decide. She was worthless! I don't care how good she was sending meaningful glances right and left, 2016 Martha was a wet rag!

Then we have the scene where Edwina goes to have sex with the enemy, as if he becoming a stereotypical male monster made him irresistible to her. And she pacifies him with sex. OMG! Now THERE you have a message no good feminist would deliver to their dog, let alone to other women!

And THEN we have the women lie and deceive and poison the guy, because there is no other way to solve problems than violence. Yeah. very empowering. Very feminist. NOT!

"This is clever, tense, gripping, told at a lick — it’s less than 90 minutes — and while revenge is a dish best served cold, it’s pretty good served this way too. "

No, it isn't.

Southern Gothic, Slavery, and the White Femininity of Sofia Coppola’s The Beguiled

“I didn’t want to brush over such an important topic in a light way. Young girls watch my films and this was not the depiction of an African-American character I would want to show them.”

No, Sofia. That doesn't work either. You are telling all the girls watching your films that there were no slaves, that there were no black people at all involved in the Civil War.
Also, Hallie is a feminist icon. You don't want young girls and women watching your movies to see feminist icons? Women not covering in front of a Man?
Sure, fine, BUT DON'T DEFEND YOUR RACISM AND DON'T CALL YOURSELF A FEMINIST!.