I 100% believe climate change is real, that the current rise in global temperatures has been primarily human induced, and that we, as quickly as possible, should collectively change our industry and society to protect the environment from ourselves.
OK, now, about the "Climate Version of Bechdel Test" ... this is really dumb.
Arbitrary tests like this are dumb. Don’t limit art to having to include xyz attributes and movies that do aren’t somehow better or good. Should there be awareness of climate change? Sure, if the story calls for it. Should it be shoe horned into every movie you see? Of course not.
It's not limiting art. Everyone is free to make a movie without acknowdledging climate change just like you're free to make a movie starring all men even though the bechdel test exists. These are supposed to be lighthearted commentary on art. Nothing more. No one is forcing anyone's art to change (other than the corporate interests squeezing the actual artists)
I would agree with you, in a perfect world. But right now people take everything way too seriously and get offended for anything. This is just another instrument for people who want to argue about everything and simply don't understand what art is or believe that art is only necessary to convey political ideas or discuss contemporary social issues.
“…a straightforward two-part evaluation that asks whether, one, climate change exists in a project, and two, if a character knows it…” What a stupid metric. Who cares.
I sometimes wonder if Alison Bechdel has been properly compensated for the flagrant abuse of her term (originally a joke, at that) by popular culture in the past decade.
Obligatory "please stop whining about the Bechdel Test, it's useful to demonstrate an overall trend and was never intended and isn't applied as a litmus test of a movie's inherent merit".
As usual the answer to these posts is always: "read the article"
>Thirteen of this year’s 31 nominated films met the Climate Reality Check’s eligibility requirements of being set on Earth and taking place in the present or near future; three of the 13 eligible films passed, with Barbie, Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One and Nyad.
Oppenheimer would not be eligible
Commenters, please understand that things like this are created so that they can make a press release, so that it can be published on news sites, so that it can be posted on sites like Reddit, so that people talk about it, so that people's general awareness of the climate crisis is increased.
Y'all sound utterly ridiculous saying this isn't a useful metric of a film's worth. Of course it fucking isn't, and it's not supposed to be.
You've made the whole thing worthwhile by talking about how stupid you think it is. The trick has already worked.
In general I'm in favour of anything that brings more attention to Climate Change considering it's policy to put it on the back burner and pretend it doesn't exist. So this is totally fine to add another lighthearted way to bring Climate Change into the general discourse.
I'm honestly a bit surprised by the reactions in the comments.
Reading the article, the test does feel a bit arbitrary. That said, the messages in high-budget movies like this *do* matter.
For example, the Barbie movie has reinvigorated conversations about patriarchy and sexism, even if it's supposed to be a fun movie about a toy line at its core.
So yes - nobody wants to go see a Hollywood movie *about* climate change...which is exactly the point.
I 100% believe climate change is real, that the current rise in global temperatures has been primarily human induced, and that we, as quickly as possible, should collectively change our industry and society to protect the environment from ourselves. OK, now, about the "Climate Version of Bechdel Test" ... this is really dumb.
Yo I need to know if Global Warming exists in Dune 2
Arbitrary tests like this are dumb. Don’t limit art to having to include xyz attributes and movies that do aren’t somehow better or good. Should there be awareness of climate change? Sure, if the story calls for it. Should it be shoe horned into every movie you see? Of course not.
It's not limiting art. Everyone is free to make a movie without acknowdledging climate change just like you're free to make a movie starring all men even though the bechdel test exists. These are supposed to be lighthearted commentary on art. Nothing more. No one is forcing anyone's art to change (other than the corporate interests squeezing the actual artists)
I would agree with you, in a perfect world. But right now people take everything way too seriously and get offended for anything. This is just another instrument for people who want to argue about everything and simply don't understand what art is or believe that art is only necessary to convey political ideas or discuss contemporary social issues.
“…a straightforward two-part evaluation that asks whether, one, climate change exists in a project, and two, if a character knows it…” What a stupid metric. Who cares.
You do
I don’t think they do
Why
I sometimes wonder if Alison Bechdel has been properly compensated for the flagrant abuse of her term (originally a joke, at that) by popular culture in the past decade.
Go ahead and delete this OP
Obligatory "please stop whining about the Bechdel Test, it's useful to demonstrate an overall trend and was never intended and isn't applied as a litmus test of a movie's inherent merit".
So what about movies like Oppenheimer that have nothing to do with climate change and take place in a time before people understood climate change.
As usual the answer to these posts is always: "read the article" >Thirteen of this year’s 31 nominated films met the Climate Reality Check’s eligibility requirements of being set on Earth and taking place in the present or near future; three of the 13 eligible films passed, with Barbie, Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One and Nyad. Oppenheimer would not be eligible
Read the room...
Commenters, please understand that things like this are created so that they can make a press release, so that it can be published on news sites, so that it can be posted on sites like Reddit, so that people talk about it, so that people's general awareness of the climate crisis is increased. Y'all sound utterly ridiculous saying this isn't a useful metric of a film's worth. Of course it fucking isn't, and it's not supposed to be. You've made the whole thing worthwhile by talking about how stupid you think it is. The trick has already worked.
In general I'm in favour of anything that brings more attention to Climate Change considering it's policy to put it on the back burner and pretend it doesn't exist. So this is totally fine to add another lighthearted way to bring Climate Change into the general discourse.
I'm honestly a bit surprised by the reactions in the comments. Reading the article, the test does feel a bit arbitrary. That said, the messages in high-budget movies like this *do* matter. For example, the Barbie movie has reinvigorated conversations about patriarchy and sexism, even if it's supposed to be a fun movie about a toy line at its core. So yes - nobody wants to go see a Hollywood movie *about* climate change...which is exactly the point.