One of the most unusual things about Dolores Claiborne (1995) is how it fares taking the Bechedel test (a measure used to evaluate the representation of women in fiction)
The test has three criteria (it’s a very low bar and MANY films do not pass):
- The work must have at least two named female characters.
- These characters must engage in a conversation with each other.
- The conversation must be about something other than a man.
Dolores Claiborne (1995) doesn’t just pass the test, it’s textbook example of a movie that goes all the way in the opposite direction. All of the male characters with speaking roles (not just the named ones) and all their conversations are exclusively about one of the two main characters (Selena or Dolores).
And I find this really refreshing.
I think of it like this: when a filmmaker innovates and everyone is like “that’s really great!” and the innovation becomes commonplace. Like Spielberg in Jaws (1975) not showing the full shark until the final battle. End-of-movie monster reveals are now just the way things are done.
The problem is that “making movies that centre around the lives of women” is not an innovation. It’s just a choice. In an ideal world we would get a healthy number of all kinds of movies. My all-time favourite movie is probably The Hunt for Red October (1990) and in this movie ALL of speaking roles for women are finished before the opening credits are done. A movie like this on its own is not a problem. The problem is that there are lots of Red Octobers and very few Claibornes.
Die Hard Three 
Leave a comment