Exactement! As the French would say.
Never heard of it. Is it a documentary? Who is in it? Who wrote it? Who directed it? One counter example (with no info) does not invalidate the observation about how movies are pretty universally made to engage the male point of view.
The Bechtel test isn’t particularly useful for one movie. No one expects every movie to cater to all people. It’s better used against a larger set of movies to identify a systematic bias. Especially in contrast to the reverse Bechtel test (two male characters have a conversation about something other than a female character). And we easily see that very few movies cater to female audiences, while many cater to male audiences.
Yup. It’s only called a “test” because that’s what the fictional character in the original comic calls it. It doesn’t make a movie bad or good. The Big Lebowski, which might be my favorite movie, fails it completely. The point of the thing is, as you say, to show how few movies have women who are more than plot devices or love interests. It’s gotten a lot better since the time of the comic though, especially on TV.
One of my favorite movies is The Thing (1982), but it fails the Bechtel Test terribly because there are NO female characters. The prequel has some, but they do not make for a better movie, IMHO. The Kurt Russell flick was very guy-oriented, as many Sci-fi/horror movies are, but that does make for a bad movie in and of itself.
Barbie, on the other hand, I thoroughly enjoyed, but I noticed how many males get squirmy watching it, because they’re not usually watching movies centred around females. That reveals a lot about our society, I think, and for how long we’ve been pandering to the male point of view.
I’m not sure how this relates to Peter Dinklage and Snow White, but I imagine there’s a connection there somewhere.
It’s Bechdel (with a d), in case anyone wants to search, and we’ve had past threads about it (I just realized what passes the Bechdel test; Movies: The Bechdel Test; The Bechdel Test).
There’s not necessarily anything wrong with a movie failing the Bechdel test, but it’s arguably indicative of a problem if too many of them do.
Moderating:
Folks, this thread is about the snow white live action movie, and whether it has dwarfs, dwarf actors, etc. The Bechdel test is interesting and valuable, but it’s a hijack. So please drop the topic.
So what do we have left to say about Snow White? Rachel Zegler has a strong voice, but I don’t see why it’s called a live action remake if the dwarfs are all CGI.
Would you call any of the Lord of the Rings movies “live action”?
I would. And I’m guessing the dwarfs have body actors, like Gollum did in the lord of the rings.
I wonder about the animals, though.
Not really, no. They have human actors but a whole shit-ton of special effects. Snow White was going to have 7 human companions at one point of assorted shapes, sizes, and colours (including one actual dwarf), but they blew off that idea in favor of seven animated characters. Why do a live action remake at all in that case?
To have a copyrighted snow white property.
Really?
Probably. Look back at the thread starting here. There is some possibility that those were stand-ins for the CGI characters all along, but you would think if that was true they would be wearing motion capture suits, not individual costumes.
That would be my assumption. The idea that they’d pivot from THAT to exactly matching the originals seems preposterous to me.
There’s a production pic from a summer or two ago, where they’re all walking on a hill side, but I can’t link to it.
image|690x492
Or maybe I can.
Zelda Rubinstein, in Poltergeist?
I always thought her character was the only one in the movie that had any sense whatsoever. And of course her stature has basically nothing to do with her role (from what I recall, 40+ years later).
Anyway - back to the OP (and I admit I have not read the entire thread): seems like there’s a big difference between dwarfism as a disability (i.e. real life), and dwarves as a race that is separate from / similar to humans.
The whole concept of making Snow White as live action goes back to Disney having completely run out of new ideas, and taking the lazy fallback position of just remaking all their own portfolio with real (or CGI) people because it’s cheaper and easier than coming up with anything original.
By this logic, there have been no live action science fiction or fantasy movies since the invention of CGI if not before. Hell even non F&SF movies often have a ton of CGI.
I get it. But if you have SEVEN animated characters in a film, all main characters, how is it classed as live action? I’m not talking about the occasional Watto or Jabba at the spaceport, but one of the seven MAIN characters in the film? I’d like to hear your explanation.
That’s missing the point. Disney isn’t in the business of making new or original content. It’s in the business of making good and entertaining content. New for the sake of being new is an empty goal.
Criticize Disney for not creating good or entertaining content.