Admissions of Mulan: The Bechdel Test

I watched Admission for the first time today.

I'll admit, I truly am a sucker for rom-coms. They exist in a world of ridiculous fantasy often times. They strive to be a sort-of feel good romp. They provide me with the occasional laugh or more if it's executed well enough. Often times, they also feature a female lead with a sense of humor.

So naturally I would make make time for Admission.

It stars Tina Fey.

That statement alone makes anyone who are fans of sitcoms during the past couple of years jump on board.

It also has Paul Rudd.

He has the looks to be one of those action star types, but always grounds himself, bringing about often under-appreciated performances of pure comedic bravado.

Admission has the hooks: a little bit of comedic star power, a relatable story about getting into the university of our choosing (common amongst folks, at least in a first world environment), and it's even a adaptation of an already established book.

Oh, and let's not forget: It passes the Bechdel Test.

But see. Here's the thing. The movie isn't that great.

Sure, it was good for a few laughs. Paul Rudd does a good job as the caring father-figure. Tina Fey is Tina Fey, which is awesome, but isn't enough considering her character occasionally becomes rough around the edges. It also has a final act that doesn't just dive, it flat out bombs, with so much speed it has no time for a steady, safe landing, drilling the moments it establish right into the earth.

This got me thinking about the whole thing. Should I even praise the film for passing the Bechdel Test? Do I want to lump this supposed test of feminism in with a film that I truly find to be mediocre?

I'm sure many others have asked that question recently. After all, Frozen was within the year. While I personally liked Frozen, many people found it to only be okay, or even terrible. This brought in many perspectives on the matter. Some disliked it, but praised it, simply because it passed the Bechdel Test. Some disliked it, and stated that there were better films out there that passed the Bechdel Test and would be a better representation of women. Some simply said it was a step in the right direction for Disney.

This to me is just a mess.

While it was fun upon it's first use, the Bechdel Test creates a tangible thing. It creates a formula that materializes the worth of a woman in fiction. It drives this position that if a woman doesn't do this, she is less of a woman.

First off, an author doesn't owe that. Actually,  fiction in general doesn't owe itself to pass the Bechdel Test. And not all stories that pass the Bechdel Test empower women. What if I made a film with a female lead in a man's world? And I'm not talking succeeding by their standards, because the film that comes to mind is one that always brings up the discussion: Mulan.

A FILM BY DISNEY NO DOUBT!

So, a few things.

"She had to become a man to do all these things that are supposedly women-empowering"

Okay. Yes. And by the end of the film, what does the world see her as?

That's right, not a man, BUT A WOMAN.

Hell, I'd go even farther than that. It's just about being a man or woman at that point. It's about being a hero.

"In order to even imagine female heroism, we're placing it in the realm of fantasy." - Kathleen Karlyn of the University of Oregon.

First off, this seems a little bit like a contradiction. In order to imagine… realm of fantasy.

Imagine… fantasy.

Okay.

And since when did we watch films for the pure-unadulterated truth? Even a film that has a camera sitting there, recording all things that pass by is still a fabrication.

All films are fabrications. Some are just more honest about it, and it doesn't make it's lesson and examples any less profound.

Mulan IS an example of female empowerment. She is a hero that is also a woman. What happens in the history books is a different study, but what the filmic embodiment of Mulan did is still something worth watching and worth learning from.

And on top of that, she still feels real to a modern audience.

I'm not talking like… live action and tangible, because obviously this isn't a pure adaptation of the legend. It's Disney-fied.

But rather she… cuts her toenails. She cares for her father. She has a dog. She feels disappointment. She undergoes an identity crisis. She wants to live up to something.

She does things that make her human. Which, by the way, consists of both men AND women.

So, I implore you, oh wonderful reader and film-attendee. Do away with the Bechdel Test. You can make your own decisions. A woman's worth can't be measured in time.

Review: How To Train Your Dragon 2

It seems like yesterday that I was writing for Nonsensefilm. They are still great memories, filled with it's share of ups and downs, same as any source of creative minds who debate the subject matter of art. Just before viewing How to Train Your Dragon 2 I was taken aback to those days.

The year that the first How to Train Your Dragon came out was stupendous (For those of you who don't recall it was the year of The Social Network). How to Train Your Dragon was an out-of-left-field surprise. From it's humorous opening introduction to it's rip-roaring emotional conclusion, How to Train Your Dragon managed to fuel a raging debate at Nonsensefilm: Did Pixar really win with Toy Story 3? Fellow former Nonsensefilm critic Andrew Jones and I didn't think so. I even went so far as to name it's soundtrack the best of that year, an opinion I still hold on to (sorry Trent Reznor).

So what really was there to expect this time around?

I wasn't really sure to be honest. I know there was excitement, if only just to get that same feeling that I got from the first film.

There was also fear.

How could the film live up? People actually have expectations now. You were underestimated before, but now is no longer the case.

After clearing my head, I walked into the theater. My head was held high, sitting steady to be a perch for my 3D glasses, with my body treading the line of bracing disappointment or bracing approval.

And after about 2 hours. You will have found me walking out the theater with my breath taken away.

How to Train Your Dragon 2 is a basic story approached by a multitude of angles. It's no different from the first one. You have a parallel lined character arc that the main character, Hiccup and his dragon, Toothless, follow.

You have a couple of side characters. None of them really develop. The exception is Stoick, Hiccup's dad, whose world is rocked by the appearance of Hiccup's once-thought-dead mother.

Even the villain, Drago Bludvist, voiced excellently by the oft-overlooked Djimon Hounsou, lacked in any way, shape or form, the kind of depth one should strive for in a villain.

However, the film does get a resounding "okay" in that regard.

In other words I was easily able to let it off the hook for that. Why?

Well, simply put, the villain is the embodiment of a theme. Have you ever heard of the statement "It takes a village to raise a child?" The film loves this point.

Once again, we have the parallels motif. First, it was with Hiccup and Toothless, and now we have Drago and the unnamed alpha-dragon. Hiccup grew up in a village with the likes of family and a strong tradition. Sure, the first film altered some of that tradition, and as such has played a pivotal role in his steps towards young adulthood. Drago was not so lucky. His upbringing to would lead him down a road where control is something he will forever sought after.

Drago had no control early on in his life; crucial moments which lead to the traumatic "what could I have done?" experience.

So there you have it, basic, simple, two sides of the coin. One, literally village-raised, the other, a traumatic upbringing. It's a basic and great lesson within the context of the film's family theme.

And that's why it's safe and passable. Too many more layers and complexities could leave the audience, in particular the children, alienated and possibly with the feeling that they were struck down by a heavy hand. If you've ever watch a G.I. Joe cartoon, you'd know exactly what I'm talking about.

So with my inhibitions quelled by that thought, I was able to enjoy what I had sought after: flight scenes! John Powell's score! Dragon's that would put Khaleesi from Game of Thrones to shame!

It was all there, more or less.

The flight scenes are even more exhilarating this time around, which was something that I would figure to be hard-pressed. The scenes are deftly-handled. I never thought I'd see a scene that could match the beauty of the first film's "Romantic Flight," but I did. It was a truly tender moment shared by a mother and a son that emphasized the film's portrayals of family.

And speaking of "Romantic Flight," the score sustains the films exhilaration. Unfortunately, I cannot think of a musical moment that matched either "Romantic Flight" or "Forbidden Friendship." A lot the songs are re-hashed, slightly altered, no doubt to create an effect of nostalgia. It's nice, and I will be listening to it's soundtrack, I just don't see myself calling it the best of the year this time around due to the occasional feeling of been-there, done-that.

Finally, we up the ante on the dragons. Of course, our classic terrors and gronkles are back to tickle our fancy, but we also have newer ones ranging from the underwater seashocker to the gigantic bewilderbeast. They, of course, are the center of the action, and create great excuses for such sweeping flight sequences for the animators lush forestry and silky skyline.

So here I am. Still taken aback by what fun I had viewing this film. I laughed. I cried (much like I did in the first one). I crept forward in my seat. This is a more-than-worthy sequel to How to Train Your Dragon, and a film that genuinely embodies the term: Family film.

★★★★ 1/2