Skip to main content

You know, the one thing I can't figure out is whether these girls are real smart or just real, real lucky?

Thelma & Louise
(1991)

(SPOILERS) The stuff of a thousand spoofs, I’ve always had the lurking feeling Thelma & Louise lent itself to such treatment so immediately because Ridley Scott fashioned a film so expressly intent on mythmaking. And also that, in the absence of readily available alternatives in populist, female empowerment cinema, the picture was seized on as instant classic, when Callie Khouri’s screenplay is a little too schematic for that, and Scott too transparent in his influences. As such, the positives in Thelma & Louise’s enduring legacy rest most heavily on the Best Actress Oscar-nominated performances of its leads.


In terms of its director’s oeuvre, Thelma & Louise is almost entirely atypical.  It might be the most “written” picture he has made, one where the demands of the screenplay don’t grant him the leeway to fashion a prevailing world around its protagonists (which is not to say he doesn’t take full advantage of the road trip scenery – the landscape “is the third big character in the movie” – or invest the soundtrack, unhappily, with a cavalcade of country and western songs; when Hans Zimmer isn’t herding us towards anthemic uplift, that is). It’s refreshing that he’s required to fixate so fully on the characters, but it makes for a different feel to even his previous couple of crime genre pictures, where there were more gaps for him to fill with mood (or posturing).


Of course, as a director, Scott has made a career from half-arsed scripts (despite everyone telling us it’s all about story with him; yeah, just not very good story) with not especially notable characters. Thelma & Louise at very least has strong, memorable signature characters, from the central duo to the parade of male peripheries, ranging from broad-as-can-be to subtly nuanced. The plotting itself is more contrived, since the premise is to mould a mythic crime feature; you can feel the grinding of gears at times, or at very least the over-wilfulness with which Scott and Khouri strive to make this the case (“Something’s crossed over in me. I can’t go back”).


That’s not necessarily a demerit – more than enough male-centric features have done similar – but you’re made very aware of the genre straddling that’s going on, from straight drama to broad comedy to generic crime movie. It’s as if, once Louise has crossed the line and killed the Harlan (Timothy Carhart), the picture is forced to retreat from its approximation of realism but isn’t quite sure how to support this tentative manoeuvre or how full-blown its plunge into fantasy should be (if Khouri was concerned that people “don’t understand metaphor anymore” the root maybe that the picture plays fast and loose with its footing).


You have Scott’s gloss to merge the disparate elements together, but I wonder if Khouri herself mightn’t have done a more cohesive job. Which isn’t to say Thelma & Louise doesn’t remain one of Scott’s superior pictures. Only that, in terms of servicing the story, it had the potential to be a less distractingly polished piece (I could also see the sadly recently deceased Jonathan Demme coming up trumps with the material). On the other hand, there’s sometimes a sense Khouri worked backwards to get her characters to the point of iconic status, and the joins sometimes show; Thelma and Louise’s “odyssey” as Scott puts it, doesn’t feel organic, and much as he makes it visually of-a-piece, tonally he’s at least partially responsible for its jumpiness.


Darryl: Jesus Christ!
Max: Good God.
Hal: My lord.

Certainly, he was the one demanding the injection of more comedy into the proceedings: “I said, ‘There’s really a lot of funny shit in the movie – you should not let that go.’ I’m not sure Callie got his initially; she was going a little more seriously”. Which is ironic, as the last thing you think of Scott is his being good at comedy (he cast Russell Crowe as Hugh Grant in A Good Year, for goodness sake).


And yet, he comes up with the very funny goods repeatedly here, from the succession of male caricatures: Christopher McDonald’s moronic husband Darryl  - slipping over workmen, having a rant while Hal observes, amused, that “Sir, you’re standing in your pizza”, and worried he’ll have to pay for his phone to be wiretapped – to lecherous trucker Albert (Sonny Carl Davis), whose truck is destroyed in punishment for his lewdness, to Jason Beghe’s state trooper, reduced to a snivelling wreck when threatened at gunpoint (Beghe improved this, and McDonald improv’d too, as did Brad Pitt and Harvey Keitel – a lot of improv going on here), to Hal (Keitel) and his cohorts impelling Darryl to turn the TV back to Serenade, to Max (Stephen Tobolowsky) watching Thelma’s holdup video while eating a burger like he’s going to the movies. And then there’s the Rastafarian cyclist (Noel L Walcott III), a spur-of-the-moment idea on Scott’s part (he saw Walcott on the way to set) that gets perhaps the biggest laugh in the picture.


Louise: In the future, when a woman’s crying like that, she isn’t having fun.

The question might be whether all that comedy is germane, however. Scott’s argument was that “Comedies are more powerful cos they don’t shut off half the audience… You want the males to listen. You want them to eat crow. Because every male in that movie is damaged goods”. It’s debatable whether his canniness actually paid off (the movie was a modest sleeper hit, and instantly got feted/labelled feminist, so probably didn’t attract a great deal of men on the basis of its chucklesomeness). His thinking was in terms of audience and demographics, and marketing (anyone reading the IMDB's Trivia section should take the entry on this movie with a pinch of salt; it didn’t get written until 1988 but has Scott commissioning Khouri in 1980).


And, while Sir Ridders stuck to his guns in retaining the downbeat ending, he all but neuters it by cutting the mood too quickly (compare it to the masterfully sustained contemplation of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, on which this less potently riffs). Roger Ebert was quite right to call the edit out; the way the fade goes straight into a clips montage of happier times suggests the fear of leaving viewers on a downer, of digesting that Thelma and Louise really are dead. It’s a symptom of a director losing his nerve.


Sarandon considered that “going off the cliff was a romantic device” and she’s right. It marks the picture as an empowerment fantasy, one in which its characters can’t be fettered or held back by the various patriarchal structures and personifications they encounter, none of whom are worthy, except maybe Keitel’s cop (Pitt’s JD’s a thief, even Michael Madsen’s Jimmy, after saying he wouldn’t, tells the police what he knows). But Khouri commented of the movie, “If you’re looking for a feminist manifesto, you will be disappointed” and of criticism of irresponsibility said “… they’re not meant to be heroines. They’re anti-heroes”.


But when she says of the key scene “Bad guys get killed in every goddam movie that gets made… that guy was the bad guy and he got killed. It was only because a woman did it that there was any controversy” she’s being slightly disingenuous, and only partially correct, as it also goes back to the thorny territory of genre boundaries. Thelma & Louise isn’t simply an outlaw movie with women; it can’t quite fly away because it has its feet in the reality its protagonists start in. It’s only later that it detours into a less responsible string of wish fulfilments. Such as shagging the hunky man of your dreams (“You finally got laid properly. That’s so sweet” just after an attempted rape – “It’s her choice to do that, isn’t it?” was Khouri’s response, a curious response as the buck stops with the writer when it comes to motivation), to getting your own back on the “beaver” trucker, and committing armed robbery as if you were born to it.


Louise: There’s no such thing as justifiable robbery.

Indeed, while Louise’s character remains grounded throughout, it’s only really due to Davis that Thelma doesn’t seem faintly ridiculous, going fully Bonnie and Clyde with admissions of self-discovery (“It was like I’d been doing it all my life. I know it’s crazy, but I just feel I’ve got a knack for this”). Davis essays the journey from giddy scatterbrain to focussed and assured with complete conviction, while Sarandon invests a world-weariness that is utterly genuine, and carries the picture through its more fanciful interludes. The male characters, meanwhile, are all confirmations of the biases of the female ones (with the audience surrogate, Hal, carefully imposed to take the edge of their plunge).


JD: Well now, I’ve always believed that done properly, armed robbery doesn’t have to be a totally unpleasant experience.

This was also the movie that made Brad of course; Scott references the hairdryer scene as “the beginning of Brad Pitt! Bingo!” but what’s most noticeable in retrospect is how dedicated and pre-starry the performance is, whilst also being a star turn. He and Davis have as easy chemistry as Sarandon and Madsen.


If it’s Sarandon and Davis who elevate Thelma & Louise, there’s never a chance of them stopping Ridley Scott imprinting himself on it. Just look at those lines of police cars, the conspicuous rain in sunshine (cos it looks cool) and the many stunning driving shots through the vast open expanses. And the great pursuit at the end, much imitated (with Hal running in slow motion). And, with Hans Zimmer on the soundtrack, it set a marker for the director and his brother going forward (Tony’s next movie would be the also Badlands-influenced True Romance, which judges its tone much better than Thelma & Louise, probably because it’s very clear on its genre).


Black Rain saw his first tentative steps, but Thelma & Louise is the first outright “slick” Ridley Scott movie, and would fit happily in with any of his post-Gladiator product. Except that it’s better written than any of them, The Counselor maybe excepted; perhaps tonally and structurally, Khouri’s screenplay has its faults, but in dialogue terms Thelma & Louise is one of the sharpest things Scott has made (probably only Blade Runner bests it). It’s ironic then, that I’m not sold on whether Ridley should have stepped up to direct, or encouraged Khouri to make changes; his input meant it had over-invested its milieu before it was even released, in a slightly too affected way, sugaring its serio-pulp pill.



Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know, if you ripped the fronts off houses, you'd find swine? The world's a hell. What does it matter what happens in it?

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) (SPOILERS) I’m not sure you could really classify Shadow of a Doubt as underrated, as some have. Not when it’s widely reported as Hitchcock’s favourite of his films. Underseen might be a more apt sobriquet, since it rarely trips off the lips in the manner of his best-known pictures. Regardless of the best way to categorise it, it’s very easy to see why the director should have been so quick to recognise Shadow of a Doubt 's qualities, even if some of those qualities are somewhat atypical.

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019) (SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

I think you’re some kind of deviated prevert.

Dr. Strangelove  or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964) (SPOILERS) Kubrick’s masterpiece satire of mutually-assured destruction. Or is it? Not the masterpiece bit, because that’s a given. Rather, is all it’s really about the threat of nuclear holocaust? While that’s obviously quite sufficient, all the director’s films are suggested to have, in popular alt-readings, something else going on under the hood, be it exposing the ways of Elite paedophilia ( Lolita , Eyes Wide Shut ), MKUltra programming ( A Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket ), transhumanism and the threat of imminent AI overlords ( 2001: A Space Odyssey ), and most of the aforementioned and more besides (the all-purpose smorgasbord that is The Shining ). Even Barry Lyndon has been posited to exist in a post-reset-history world. Could Kubrick be talking about something else as well in Dr. Strangelove ?