The Beguiled 1971 👍

I wanted to see Sofia Coppola's Beguiled because it was reviewed in Bechdel Cast.
I will watch these five movies first to "get the most out of The Beguiled".

The Beguiled (1971)

Directed by male, screenwriters male and female, producers male, cinematographer male, music by male.Cast mostly female. The other male cast members with speaking roles weren't even credited.
Crew mostly male. 11 females working in wardrobe and makeup, as mrs Siegel and Eastwood's secretaries and the caterer.
No women working with lighting, camera or electrics, but that was to be expected, from a 1971 movie.
One department head a woman; costumes.

V Bechdel test

X F-Rating

V Mako Mori Test

V Sphinx Test

IMDb 7.2 - Rotten Tomatoes 93%

X Furiosa Test

The Maisy Test
Passes for adult audience, doesn't pass for kids.

V Gender Balance - Gender Representation:

V The Tauriel Test

Amy is depicted as someone who knows her mushrooms. She knows which mushrooms are edible and which are poisonous, and she gets praise for this ability, even from the male.
I am pretty worthless as mushroomer. It IS an ability worth recognition.

V Gender Freedom:

There are females not romantically connected or related to the male character. The leading female just wants to have sex with him. She loves the #2 female, who loves the male lead. Carol, 17, wants to have sex as well, though I think most of the school girls have romantic fantasies about this handsome, wounded soldier whose life they are saving, but that doesn't count because it's not shown. Except the two patriots, who just want to see him gone and dead.

Stereotypical gender roles... This is a movie about 1860s USA, so one can bet the roles are pretty stereotypical. BUT - we are talking about a girls' school with a female headmaster. She decides everything. Even what happens to the male lead. So, no. Not very stereotypical.
The clothes are stereotypical male/female clothes of the time. But they should be. Because it is 1860s.
Women do all things on the farm. There are no males around.
Women defend and protect themselves. These women don't want to be rescued, and don't need to be rescued. They are trying to survive the war, just like everyone else, and are doing OK.
Women are strong, capable, active. Women make decisions and solve problems. Women control, dominate, talk and eat. Yes, women also comfort and nurture and feed and help. But they are not submissive or passive. And even when the man starts to dominate, the women kill him. AMY kills him. With no remorse. I mean... if her future husbands tries to dominate her, he's in trouble.
Hallie refuses to obey the "white boy", and he gives in.
Also, the Confederate soldiers obviously want to stay to "have their way" with the females, but the headmaster politely but firmly shows them out and they obey her.
And everybody wants sex. Not love, not lovey-dovey courting, sex. Well... Edwina might want to wait for the wedding night, and have a traditional courting, but she seems to be OK with not bringing in the pastor from closest by village to marry them, she just wants to be with him. And I'm kind of "sure he'll marry her. Might be that he really loves her, but I think he's just using her to save his life, and when they get to the Union army, he'll abandon her and she ends up as the army whore. Anyway. Amy has your traditional puppy love to him. She doesn't want him to love her, she believes he loves her, until she finds out he was having sex with Carol. And when he kills her turtle, she hates him. It's more Carol who is ready to do anything so that he doesn't hate her. I believe Edwina seriously loves him, and she loves him so much she gives her headmaster nosebleed and leaves everything she knows for him. She isn't taking "no" as an answer. I really don't see her as just a duped female here, I think she makes her own decisions.

X the MacGyver Test

No. The leading male is portrayed as a rather stereotypical man, BUT he is NEVER the hero, and the ladies are interested of him before he is the hero. Amy falls in love with him because he is the first adult man who shows interest in her, asks her to save him, kisses her and is kind to her. Carol just wants sex. So does Martha. Edwina has a more traditional love story. He seduces her, and she believes he loves her and they are going to get married. Also because he is the only man available. That he's Clint Eastwood and he is handsome doesn't hurt :-D
Also, he is crippled, sick, not strong or fast or agile enough to use his physical power to solve problems, and he doesn't have a gun with what to solve problems. He has to use his head to save his life, so he chooses to charm and seduce these ladies. That they aren't ugly either, and no-one has had any sex for a VEEEEEEERY long time, doesn't hurt either. Nevertheless, he is putting on charm offensive and does a very good job with it. And he lies a lot. Now, he takes on violence the first moment he can, and terrorises the ladies in the house (which I find a bit ridiculous. This is like 1860. The pistol must be loaded with gunpowder and rag and bullet and it takes like several minutes, and the pistol only shoots one bullet at a time, and the precision with 1860's guns wasn't the best possible... I would have jumped him. I would have told my girls to spread and jump him when he comes in. If he's lucky and manages to kill me, the girls will overpower him and tie him up and gag him and give him to the Federate soldiers, and that will be the end of that. I would be totally ready to sacrifice myself to save my girls, considering that the risk can't be that big in reality. I mean, sure, he can be the best shooter in the world, but how would I know that?

Gender Safety:

Rating: R

* I think the body shapes are healthy and realistic, though this was 1971 Hollywood. On the other hand, they were depicting wartime 1860s South, so people were hungry. I don't think body image was relevant.
* There was half-naked male (naked upper body) and whole-naked woman (the 17 years old). Both female and male nipples. Naked female bottom. Not gratuitiously, it fit the story. Now, the female nudity was a bit unnecessary, and perhaps would not have happened in 1860s... perhaps Carol would have kept her nightie on. But - they were having sex, so it's OK, I think.
* Sexual abuse - mostly of the man. Except for kissing a 12 years old. "I'm 12" "Old enough for kissing". Sex with a 17yo, though she initiated it, to the extend of sexually harassing the male, and actually threatening his life if he wouldn't.
* I don't think there was objectification or sexualisation. Some sexualisation of the male, perhaps. Carol was really horny. All clothing and make-up was time and age appropriate and "modest".

Age of primary and secondary actors?
Martha 45
John 41
Hallie 39
Edwina 28
Carol 22
Amy 12

V Sexy Lamp Test

? Social Justice and Equality:

I find this bit really difficult. I mean, this is a US civil war story. War stinks. But it doesn't question power structures, consumerism, environmental exploitation... it really doesn't even question slavery. It expands the idea of slavery and inprisonment, which I found interesting.
The male lead gets his leg amputated, and he is shown capable of dealing with it and getting on with his life in spite of it, so I think that's kind of empowering message to all disabled people. His disability is never shown as a limitation. Even though they are jokingly teasing him about him not being able to get everywhere, he is then shown clearly able to get everywhere.
Martha loves Edwina. There is even a section where she dreams of having sex with her. Now, McB is in the bed with them, but there is a consensual and passionate kiss between the two women. So I say it's not gay-shaming. Now, it might be there to show how sexually deprived she is, and how morally corrupt. After all, she had an incestious relationship with her brother, but that actually is something shameful. I didn't think her love of Edwina was shown as morally corrupt or wrong or ugly. Just that she loved her.

Now, Hallie obviously knew about the brother, and John found out, but his "big reveal"...
"Was this man on this locket your sweetheart?"
"He is my brother!"
"That's not what I asked".
"Give my locket back to me, it was my mother's!"
"I also found these letters..."
"Did you read them?"
"Enough. I want your students to know what kind of woman you are."
Er... She saved letters from her brother? Who doesn't? What did he really reveal? Nothing.

V The Representation Test: B

V (x) Kent test

ALMOST. It doesn't, because there is only one POC in the movie. But 6 out of 7 is very good. Especially for a movie made in 1971 about civil war USA... This slave girl is not a walking stereotype or trope. She has her own narrative arc and a role as her own person with some very strong lines and a strong message. She might be a slave, but she can run. She stays as a slave of her own free will. And she is just as much a slave as the soldier fighting because he was told to do so...
Frankly, I think she is such a strong character of her own right that I will give this a pass.

X Aila test

X The Uphold Test

X The Rees Davies Test

X The White Test

V The Waithe Test

Perhaps... now, Mae Mercer's Hallie is a slave, so that's not a "position of power", and she is reminded of her place, but she is nevertheless telling the white girls what to do and they do what she tells them to do. She is the only one not buying McB's BS, and I get the feeling she killed her master when he tried to rape her, and didn't get any consequences. I actually think she was one of the people with most power in the movie. So - in my opinion this movie actually passes Waithe test, but it's just my opinion. Also, "in a healthy relationship"? She is a slave with no relationship as far as I know. She had a man who ran away, and they seemed to have a very nice relationship. I think this is a very difficult and arbitrary requirement...

V The Ko Test

Again, Hallie speaks English, but people were saying she doesn't speak "good" English and that that's a minus, but... I'm not good with accents and dialects and such. I wouldn't know. I understood everything she said, and English isn't my first language. And the test doesn't define it must be "good" English. Maybe she spoke some sort of slave lingo... Ebonics? I saw Cabin In The Sky, and they were talking like that (BTW, first time I realized that "zoot" is "suit"... duh! Because Domino was singing about wearing a zoot, and it was obvious that is what he said. Stupid me.), and I don't think Hallie spoke like that.

X The Villalobos Test

V The Peirce Test

Frankly, I don't think Clint Eastwood was the protagonist of this movie. I say it was Martha. It was Martha's school, Martha's plantation, Martha decided whether they take in this Union soldier, and what happens to him, Martha's love story with her brother was rather a big part of this movie, it was Martha's emotions, desires and decisions that made the movie going. To me it's obvious this is Martha's story, not John's.

V The Villarreal Test

I don't think Martha was introduced as sexualized, hardened or matriarch as "tired, older or overworked". She was introduced as matriarch as the leader of the community. She is in a position of authority/power. She makes bad decisions. She is sexual.

V The Landau Test

I wouldn't say a female character causes a plot problem to the male main character, because the plot is that this male character causes a lot of problems to most of the female characters.

X The Hagen Test

No. All one-scene roles went to men, I don't think there were any crowd scenes, but I suppose those patrol bits count, and those were all male. Now, I think this is about the extras and tertiary roles, and I would say all those went to men.

V The Koeze-Dottle Test

V The Feldman Score

Notes:
"Siegel previously said the story is about the basic desire of women to castrate men”
No :-D No-one wants to castrate him. They want him fully virile and able. Cutting his leg off has nothing to do with castrating him.
I think it's interesting that it's a bit ambivalent why they cut off his leg.
His explanation was that they wanted to punish him, her explanation is that it was too badly damaged by the fall to be saved.
Both are possible.
Though I think Hallie was knowledgeable and strong enough to object if it wasn't necessary. And Edwina loved him, even though she was angry at him at the moment, so I believe it really was necessary.

How it could have been better?

More women in crew. A lot more women in crew. That's basically it.
More colored people, more colors. Having Native Americans among the cast isn't very credible. Now, they could have had another black woman there, but right now having only one slave is a sign of how impoverished and destitute the girl school was. so I can't fault it for this either.
Now, having more women in crowd scenes... it's about US civil war, women in crowd scenes aren't really credible either.
It doesn't need to pass Furiosa test, that's mostly a joke.
I think McB has been stripped from stereotype enough. He doesn't need to pass McGyver test.
So, frankly, I don't think it could have been better. It gets my feminist thumb up, and I see no misogyny in this movie.

The emasculation of Clint Eastwood in The Beguiled