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

If you never do anything, you never become anyone.

An Education (2009)
Carey Mulligan deserves all the attention she received for her central performance, and the depiction of the ‘60s is commendably subdued. I worried there was going to be a full-blown music montage sequence at the climax that undid all the good work, but thankfully it was fairly low key. 

Alfred Molina and Olivia Williams are especially strong in the supporting roles, and it's fortunate for credibility’s sake that that Orlando Bloom had to drop out and Dominic Cooper replaced him.
***1/2

Can you close off your feelings so you don’t get crippled by the moral ambiguity of your violent actions?

Spider-Man Worst to Best

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

Do you read Sutter Cane?

In the Mouth of Madness (1994)
(SPOILERS) The concluding chapter of John Carpenter’s unofficial Apocalypse Trilogy (preceded by The Thing and Prince of Darkness) is also, sadly, his last great movie. Indeed, it stands apart in the qualitative wilderness that beset him during the ‘90s (not for want of output). Michael De Luca’s screenplay had been doing the rounds since the ‘80s, even turned down by Carpenter at one point, and it proves ideal fodder for the director, bringing out the best in him. Even cinematographer Gary K Kibbe seems inspired enough to rise to the occasion. It could do without the chugging rawk soundtrack, perhaps, but then, that was increasingly where Carpenter’s interests resided (as opposed to making decent movies).

You're always sorry, Charles, and there's always a speech, but nobody cares anymore.

X-Men: Dark Phoenix (2019)
(SPOILERS) To credit its Rotten Tomatoes score (22%), you’d think X-Men: Dark Phoenix was a travesty that besmirched the name of all good and decent (read: MCU proper) superhero movies, or even last week’s underwhelming creature feature (Godzilla: King of Monsters has somehow reached 40%, despite being a lesser beast in every respect). Is the movie’s fate a self-fulfilling prophecy, what with delayed release dates and extensively reported reshoots? Were critics castigating a fait accompli turkey without giving it a chance? That would be presupposing they’re all sheep, though, and in fairness, other supposed write-offs havecome back from such a brink in the past (World War Z). Whatever the feelings of the majority, Dark Phoenix is actually a mostly okay (twelfth) instalment in the X-franchise – it’s exactly what you’d expect from an X-Men movie at this point, one without any real mojo left and a variable cast struggling to pull its weight. The third act is a bi…

I should have mailed it to the Marx Brothers.

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989)
When your hero(es) ride off into the sunset at the end of a film, it’s usually a pretty clear indication that a line is being drawn under their adventures. Sure, rumours surfaced during the ‘90s of various prospective screenplays for a fourth outing for the whip-cracking archeologist. But I’m dubious anyone really expected it to happen. There seemed to be a natural finality to Last Crusade that made the announcement of his 2007 return nostalgically welcome but otherwise unwarranted. That it turned out so tepid merely seemed like confirmation of what we already knew; Indy’s time was past.

Why would I turn into a filing cabinet?

Captain Marvel (2019)
(SPOILERS) All superhero movies are formulaic to a greater or lesser degree. Mostly greater. The key to an actually great one – or just a pretty good one – is making that a virtue, rather than something you’re conscious of limiting the whole exercise. The irony of the last two stand-alone MCU pictures is that, while attempting to bring somewhat down-the-line progressive cachet to the series, they’ve delivered rather pedestrian results. Of course, that didn’t dim Black Panther’s cultural cachet (and what do I know, swathes of people also profess to loving it), and Captain Marvel has hit half a billion in its first few days – it seems that, unless you’re poor unloved Ant-Man, an easy $1bn is the new $700m for the MCU – but neither’s protagonist really made that all-important iconic impact.

Everyone who had a talent for it lived happily ever after.

Empire 30:  Favourite Films of the Last 30 Years
Empire’s readers’ poll to celebrate its thirtieth birthday – a request for the ultimate thirty films of the last thirty years, one per year from 1989 – required a bit of thought, particularly since they weren’t just limiting it to your annual favourite (“These can be the films that impressed you the most, the ones that stuck with you, that brought you joy, or came to you at just the right time”). Also – since the question was asked on Twitter, although I don’t know how rigorous they’re being; does it apply to general release, or does it include first film festival showings? – they’re talking UK release dates, rather than US, calling for that extra modicum of mulling. To provide more variety, I opted to limit myself to just one film per director; otherwise, my thirty would have been top heavy with, at very least, Coen Brothers movies. So here’s they are, with runners-up and reasoning:

What, you're going to walk in there like it's the commie Disneyland or something?

Stranger Things 3 (2019)
(SPOILERS) It’s very clear by this point that Stranger Things isn’t going to serve up any surprises. It’s operating according to a strict formula, one requiring the opening of the portal to the Upside Down every season and an attendant demagorgon derivative threat to leak through, only to be stymied at the last moment by our valorous team. It’s an ‘80s sequel cycle through and through, and if you’re happy with it functioning exclusively on that level, complete with a sometimes overpowering (over)dose of nostalgia references, this latest season will likely strike you as just the ticket.

Never compare me to the mayor in Jaws! Never!

Ghostbusters (2016)
(SPOILERS) Paul Feig is a better director than Ivan Reitman, or at very least he’s savvy enough to gather technicians around him who make his films look good, but that hasn’t helped make his Ghostbusters remake (or reboot) a better movie than the original, and that’s even with the original not even being that great a movie in the first place.

Along which lines, I’d lay no claims to the 1984 movie being some kind of auteurist gem, but it does make some capital from the polarising forces of Aykroyd’s ultra-geekiness on the subject of spooks and Murray’s “I’m just here for the asides” irreverence. In contrast, Feig’s picture is all about treating the subject as he does any other genre, be it cop, or spy, or romcom. There’s no great affection, merely a reliably professional approach, one minded to ensure that a generous quota of gags (on-topic not required) can be pumped out via abundant improv sessions.

So there’s nothing terribly wrong with Ghostbusters, but aside from …