[Galadriel55]

Firstly, for all you Betchal testers - what think ye of Morwen and Nienor and the "generation war for independence"?

Originally Posted by THE Ka

It's always a good thing to remember that in homages and recreations of works where a female figure has been inserted for appeasement purposes or else, it can still be pandering and sexist (maybe even more so) than if no character had been added to the original material. Mostly because, in the often wrong hands, such a character comes off as just 'eye candy', 'comedic', 'one dimensional' and/or 'useless'. It just ends up being heaped upon the burn pile of 'ugh, not another fan-service to feminism' for those who tend to think us females rattle our sabers over nothing.

That's quite true. I think also that putting a woman in the plot just for the sake of having a woman in the plot is making things worse, because it has the overtone of "the only reason she's there is to make you happy. See? Happy?" No, not happy. It's too obvious. I am not against feminism, but I dislike over-the-top demonstrations of the phenomenon (Agan will now for sure beat me with a banana when we meet in the indefinite future ). I easily agree with the phrase "why are women worse then men?", but have you ever thought of the opposite - "why are men worse than women?"? Male elves aren't good enough for PJ&co, it seems. Even disregarding the first point, it's one thing to plop a new female character in. It's another thing to have that character take over the job/scenes that were originally meant for male characters - characters that are no worse than hers, may I add.

There could be strong female characters even if the Bechdal test is not satisfied (and by strong I mean both a strong character and a strong impression on the reader/viewer). The classic Love Story movie is an example. Jennifer is, to my memory, the only female character who even appears on screen for any considerable length, and she doesn't even do anything spectacular, yet she's a strong person in all the meanings of the word. Lately, though, in many cases women who are presented as "female Harry Potters", for lack of a better term - noble, brave, overcoming unfairness, fighting, etc - end up becoming rather weak-charactered Mary Sues. You don't need a bow in your hand to be a strong character. Giving a bow to a person who has a weak character and/or impression makes it look like one of the over-the-top demonstrations of feminism which quickly turn into something akin to REB.

My concluding thought: Either have a character who will leave the reader/viewer with a strong impression - a deep character, of any gender - or don't disgrace yourself with a shallow desperate fighter character of any gender.

And, by the way - even with Tauriel TH movie still doesn't pass the Bechdal test, so what's the argument about?...

Originally Posted by Aganzir

Yes - and it doesn't work to determine a film's feminism value, but rather it brings attention to how underrepresented women are. Try to think of a popular book/film that does NOT have two male characters, who talk to each other, about something besides a woman.

One of my favourite books (in Russian) nearly meets your inverted Bechdal test. In the first chapter a military commander in charge of a rural area asks a higher-ranked commander for a troop of men who wouldn't get drunk every single night. And so the second man sends him a troop of women. The main idea of the story, though, is the opposite of what you would call feminist; actually, if you think about it, it has nothing to do with feminism or otherwise at all. The only male character reflects constantly on what a war could do - that these girls were not meant to carry rifles. It's bad enough that men kill each other; it is ten times worse that girls risk their lives.

Originally Posted by Nerwen

However, I do think there has been an overreaction to the mere fact of this character's being a girlie– which doesn’t, in itself, break the universe as far as I’m concerned. Neither does her bearing arms, in my opinion– of course it’s not the only way for a woman to be “strong”, but it’s a way, isn’t it? What I think matters anyway isn’t how closely a female character fits any given viewer’s or reader's ideal (feminist or otherwise) but how well-written and portrayed she is– and *that’s* where I fear it’s all going to come unstuck.

Hmmn. Seems I’ve got myself out on a limb here. Ah well.

Actually, I think you have a very valid point. I mean, as I said before, one of my most favourite books has fighter females. But if she's going to be portrayed as just a kick-butt fighter... You're entirely right. It's all about the writing and portrayal.

Originally Posted by Formendacil

And this makes me think about the chief contrast between Idril and Lúthien--or is it their point of convergence?--namely that she does the complete opposite of her mother: where Melian guards against Morgoth, she goes on the attack. Not, obviously, in a military manner, but certainly in a proactive one.

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

Melian at least protects her people her selfish daughter sits in a tree until it is in her own interest to get of her backside. Her proactivity is merely to satisfy her own desires and gets Felagund killed. I despise her and we hates her forever! Precioussesss

I have to say that Luthien is not one of my favourites, but I have to disagree slightly with this. Yes, she does not fight Morgoth because it is right to fight him, she does it to get Beren. But I wouldn't really blame her for sitting safe and snug and happy in Doriath while others are fighting. With the same effect one could quote Boromir on indirectly accusing the hobbits and other western folk of sitting idle while Gondor's forces are being exhausted. Aragorn's rebuttal to that is that the whole reason for the fighting is to ensure that somewhere folk can live in peace and be happy. So the whole point of a "safe Doriath" is so that within the Girdle people could live in peace and sing and dance all they want.