I understand the Bechdel test, the Aila Test, and the Mako Mori test.
But I don’t understand how one is possibly able to actually apply the “sexy lamp test”, in which it’s asked whether a female character can be replaced with a literal inanimate object.
Almost no named character can fail this test in a literal sense, and determining who is and isn’t subject to this is a hopeless exercise in editorializing.
I’ve seen a few versions of this “test” discussed.
In the strong form, it’s about female characters who really have no identity or agency and exist only to be sexy scenery. So, like, the background strippers/dancers when the scene is taking place in a club for some contrived reason, the arm candy hanging on the big bad guy and simpering at him, etc. Obviously this isn’t an “applies to almost every movie” or “applies to almost every female character” sort of thing even in theory, more of a “this is [allegedly] objectionable when you see it and you see it too often” deal.
In the weak form, it’s about female characters who theoretically act more as plot objects (especially as McGuffins) than as agents. And, yes, you’re quite right, the line there is hopelessly fuzzy. But there are some reasonably-common-especially-in-older-stuff tropes to which this does apply in a pretty straightforward way, e.g. the love interest / daughter whose does little other than coo adoringly, get kidnapped / attacked / violated, and be rescued / inspire feelings by dying. Presumably John Wick’s dog is, er, a fuzzy lamp.