A Black Cat Crosses Your Path: The Indelible Durability of Black Cat Superstitions Through Their Use in Horror Films

 

            The association of cats with the occult, Halloween and generally anything spooky, has been woven into our culture through centuries’ long entanglements of superstitions, folklore, and anti-cat rhetoric; coupled with the embrace and overall cultural primacy of dogs in many western civilizations. This specious speciesist behavior can be, in part, attributed to the differences in domestication between cats and dogs. Whereas dogs were domesticated first, simultaneously independent in other geographic regions and bred for a variety of purposes that were both practical for the survival of the human species and for social companionship (the dog is “man’s best friend”[1], after all), the domestication of cats, while similarly early and paralleled geographic independence and diversity, their use was far more practical, in the elimination of vermin. Unlike K-9 integration, cats have undergone little genetic or behavioral changes as they have been independently integrated across countries and continents. This independence and lack of evolutionary refinement led to the negative associations many cultures developed around felines, especially black cats. This paper is a brief exploration of those negative associations/superstitions from a sociological perspective, steeping the enmity of cats in the ubiquitous proliferation of the Christian religion and mechanisms of gendered oppression, to the point where these associations eventually get reproduced in our modern mythology of movies.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT  

            The practiced acrimony toward (black) cats is a byproduct of religious colonialism. Masculinely coded and just as fragile, the manifest destiny minded, pre-pubecently lecherous institution of Christianity sought to eradicate any belief that did not align with their patriarchically hegemonic monotheism; and black cats were caught in its undertow. Prior to this invasive transformation, cats were revered as symbols of the divine in a variety of non-Western cultures, including Egypt and Greece. Even European folklore had a more amenable association with cats prior to this invasion; seeing cats as being both spiritual and familial companions. Yet, as the influence of the church spread, it wrestled power from the people to loom their manufactured divinity over the people they were enslaving.

            In 1233, Pope Gregory declared that black cats were an incarnation of Satan. This sparked an inquisition into duplicitous demonology and established literal “witch hunts” that were designed to eradicate a Luciferian cult that had developed in the region (Wilde, 2017)[2]. That these practices pre-date both the decree and the Christian religion itself was of no matter, as the goal was a complete elimination or emulsification of these traditions; stripping what they need from them and gaining loyalty and obedience while amassing power though establishing authority.  This process can be understood through the Sociology of Religion

 

            The Sociology of Religion

The power of the oligarchic patriarchal Christianity and its demonization of black cats can be understood by looking at the Sociology of religion and the work of Emile Durkheim and Max Weber. Durkheim (2001) discusses the foundational principle of the sacred, a concept that predates the formation of institutionalized religion. The sacred is socially constructed through individual and group interactions surrounding a belief or object, and the restrictions that we place on how that object, belief or behavior can be expressed. Something becomes sacred through our own experiences, when other people tell us something is sacred, or when there are social restrictions and consequences around the mishandling of an object or behavior. Ironically, “sacredness” does not only include the divine, but also the diabolical. Therefore, even though black cats and the superstitions around their behavior consider them to be deplorable, they are still sacred.

The valuation of black cats as still being sacred hits at the core of the power of religion for Durkheim; the content of belief is less important than the function and control of that belief. Social organization determines how people are going to understand and accept religious belief. But this practice has more to do with social order and social control rather than anything spiritual. This is what Durkheim called “collective effervescence” where through emotional contagion and appeal to a higher authority, feelings of emotional security, comfort and solace get attributed to a higher power or an exalted entity when those feelings of elation, fear, hope and sadness are, instead, the product of basic group dynamics. This, on the surface, seems to promote spiritual plurality as it is the group, and not the belief that is the most important.  However, the culturally relativistic practice of spiritual plurality does not develop into the acquisition of and exercise of social power. For that, belief needs to be greatly regulated, creating a tighter grip on what is considered acceptable, and an elaborate policing of belief and behaviors that a group does not find to be legitimate. It requires bureaucratic institutionalization.

Max Weber (2002) understands the relationship between religious belief and social structures, in the way it uses belief as a resource and currency to allow that structure to replicate itself. The cultivation of that “collective effervescence” is done through legitimation in the form of the social structure that establishes the social order. Belief Systems (folktales and other indigenous stories) are born out of traditional levels of authority, which justifies its ascension to power through tribal leaderships supported by bloodline or birth order. Unfortunately, this still allows for plurality, thereby minimizing the power of the system’s ability to create collective effervescence. To control how people experience belief, and maximize the output of disassociation between the power of a belief and the recognition of group dynamics, belief systems have to be bureaucratized by being transformed into a religion.

  A religion is a belief system that has been routinized. There are fixed jurisdictions of authorities, the organizational chart is structured as a hierarchy, there is archival communication and correspondence, there is a level of impersonality and an obligatory drive for the reproduction of the religious structure itself (Weber 2019). This obligatory reproductive drive of religion is also comparable to the institutions of masculinity and capitalism of which they too share a bureaucratic organization and the fatal flaw of fragility requiring proliferation in lew of perishing. All three institutional mechanisms have rigid belief structures without acceptance of diversity difference or deference. Therefore, Capitalism must propagate itself through profit and monopolization, Masculinity through a toxic hegemonic expression of itself that every person has to accept, acquiesce, amplify or interrogate, and religion through monotheistic missionary work and conversion. Each has a drive and focus to cover the planet, because it is threatened by anything that isn’t itself or complementary to it. Thus, the vilification of black cats can find its origin in the eradication of nonwestern beliefs and cultures because they threaten the fragile supremacist organization of oligarchic Patriarchal Christianity. Since this proliferation of these uniform institutions continue today, many of these beliefs and practices are reproduced in our film and popular culture.

 

SOCIAL ANALYSIS

            Film and popular culture are forms of soft power within society. They influence public perception and reflect the values that we both live by and aspire to. They are a mirror and a wish fulfilment fantasy separately or often simultaneously. Since the historic valuation of dogs as the animal most coveted for human companionship, cats have been regulated to something other, less than. This is, at least in part because of the threat that cats pose to the religious social order throughout history, being associated with beliefs and practices that needed to be eradicated to strengthen the importance and claim of Oligarchic Patriarchal Christianity. Furthering this aim, is that one of the most consistent representations of cats, particularly black cats, is within the Horror genre. This is using the language of cinema as another tool to reinforce the erroneous claim that cats have a sacredly diabolical “nature”.  Granted it is unclear if these depictions have the same lofty purpose as the religious decrees of the past; or that the “spooky” nature of [black] cats has seeped into our culture for so long that it has poisoned our attitudes toward these feline familiars by being part of the horror zeitgeist. To interrogate this further, there is an interesting juxtaposition of two representations of black cats in horror films, one from within the hegemonically Christian United States of the 1940’s in Cat People  and the 1960’s Japanese Feminist Horror film Kuroneko.

            Black Cat Comparisons in Film: Cat People and Kuroneko

                The 1942 film Cat People is one of the first horror films by producer Val Lewen for RKO pictures. The film follows the budding romance between Serbian Immigrant Irena (Simone Simon) and her bespoken beau Oliver Reed (Kent Smith). As their courtship turns to marriage, Irena confides in Oliver that she is descendant of a group of witches, cursed to transform into violent cat-like beasts whenever they feel either love or passion; pursued to almost eradication by King John. The majority of the film’s economic runtime (of 77 minutes) is spent in denial or trying to cure Irena of this so-called delusion through Psychoanalysis, until the fears are realized, and the transformations begin.

             Cat People has a lot of socially relevant and seemingly progressive themes for the time (divorce, the struggles of immigration, the ease of white male privilege, the importance of mental health, the validity of working women and platonic cisgendered heterosexual friendships). Part of this progressiveness is due to it being a genre picture in Horror. Much like Noir of the 1930’s, more progressive ideas and attitudes were allowed because it was in a genre that was perceived as a fantasy, as outside the realm of reality.  Also, in typical Hollywood fashion of the time, the film ultimately forgoes these progressive themes, labeling them as dangerous (vilifying female sexuality) and/or in need of correcting. Then, doubles down on the reproduction of the “traditional family” through the construction of typical romantic traditions and the elimination of “the other”, in this case, the “immigrant other” of Irena. The image and representation of cats are used as an allegorical cautionary tale against these progressive ideas. The cat is the other, so “the other” is represented by a cat; thereby sealing their fate for their perceived transgressions. The wildness and violence that Irena displays as a shape shifted feline beast, speaks volumes about the fear of female sexuality as something that needs to be contained, controlled or destroyed. At the same time, this solidifies the feminization of cats and masculinization of dogs, that linguistically is still hard to shake. Colloquially, we often use the pronouns of she/her for cats and he/him for dogs regardless of the sex of the actual animal.[3]

This cautionary tale of female sexuality becomes even more crystalized when viewed through a queer lens. The struggle that Irena has with understanding a secret side of herself that she’s had since she was born, can be an easy stand in for the Queer communities coming out process. From this perspective, the stalking of Oliver’s co-worker, Alice, takes on a new dimension. Gone is the simplistically traditional reverberation of the scorned wife, in its place is a delectably juicy subversion of Irena trying to contain her animalistic lust for another woman. Unfortunately, the film still centers itself in the reproduction of the traditionally Christian ideas that results in an early example of the “bury your gays” trope.

Years later, Japanese filmmaker Kaneto Shindo reappropriated the perceived diabolical nature of [black] cats into a horror revenge fantasy with Kuroneko. The film is part of the kaibyo “Demon Cat/Ghost Cat subgenre of Japanese horror films that originated from Kabuki theater; but gained popularity prior to WWII and again in the 1960’s. Kuroneko is unique among its contemporaries as that the demon death dealt by the cat, has a vengefully noble purpose. In the film, a mother and her daughter-in-law are raped and murdered by a troop of Samurai before their house is burned down. After they are brought back by a demon cat as vengeful spirits, they seduce and murder Samurai that wander in the woods, tearing their throats out. This becomes such a problem that, in a twist of fateful irony, the mother/ daughter-in-law’s son/husband is sent to destroy them. With each unable to destroy the other, one of the ghosts becomes damned and the Samurai, realizing what he’s done, wastes away to nothing.    

The subversion of western tropes in Kuroneko is notable both in its storytelling and its depiction of cats. The Japanese onryo (feminine vengeful spirit) has become an easy allegory for feminist respite and revolution in modern and postmodern filmmaking[4]. The anger and desire for retribution is compellingly understood due to the ubiquity of misogynistic western Patriarchal rule that has become so conventional that it is actually a trope. Additionally, Japanese folklore does not see the cat as demonic, or the spawn of Satan as Pope Gregory did. Instead, cats in Japan can have an interesting duality. They can either be seen as benevolent creatures of good fortune (manekineko)[5] or they can be precocious shape shifting tricksters (bakeneko) which garner them a more malevolent moniker and reputation. In Kuroneko, the black cat spirit could be seen as balancing the scales towards justice; for the pain and rage felt by the two women deserves rectifying retribution.

Unfortunately, there is also a debilitating gender double standard that goes on within these narratives. As often happens within these stories, when men seek retributive violence for the death and loss of a loved one, their orgiastic orgasm of violence is a tempestuous tapestry of glorifyingly gory images to the point that it is considered artful. Think of the work of Eric Draven in The Crow (the good version) or the titular John Wick. Yet, when women seek retribution, arguably for something more devastating, and sadly commonplace, their vengeance usually comes at the cost of their own life.  This is a part of The Rape Culture that is rarely discussed: when women are allowed to be saviors or vengeance demons, they must also be punished for it. Too much feminine independence threatens the masculine structures of the oligarchic patriarchy. Women in these stories are always being “rained in”, they have “gone too far”, or are shown to have remorse for their actions. Meanwhile, men will carve whole bloody paths through entire civilizations with little introspection, consequence or comeuppance. They are singularly focused and when they have had their fill, they often die because there was nothing left inside them but rage. When that is gone, there is nothing left. Men are often depicted as an instrument through which that rage worked through.

The impact of myths and superstitions on the Real life of Cats

  The overall impact of the religious persecution of cats by Christianity and the overwhelming durability of cat themed superstitions that are reproduced in popular culture, specifically in film, have an indelibly direct impact into the lives of actual cats. Even though cats are the second largest animal to be adopted in the United States with 26% of household owning at least one cat, this pales in comparison to the number of households that own dogs (45%). The entire pet industry produced a revenue of 157 billion dollars in 2023. This includes nutrition, supplies/medicines, veterinarian care, live animal purchases, and other services.  Of that, it is a 60/40 split between dogs and cats. Fewer cats are housed as pets when compared to dogs, and people spend less on their cats than their dogs. Part of this statistic can be attributed to the simple fact that cats are (typically) smaller animals requiring less maintenance and care.[6] Yet, this does not account for the infrastructure of boarding companies, grooming salons, specialty shops and segregated parks that revolve around dogs. This creates a culture that is consistently more welcoming and understanding to the dog parent, than to the cat parent. There is a level of cultural capital to dog ownership that cat owners have yet to experience (Bourdieu 1984). Dogs have been commodified by our culture as secondary children in ways that cats still are ostracized. This can partially be explained by the subservience that dogs feel when living with a family. Most aim to please and have fierce loyalty. Whereas, while cats are very much social creatures, and enjoy being part of a family, they perceive themselves as being the most important creature in the house, or more generously, see everyone on equal footing with themselves. This is misinterpreted by many pet parents as independence or aloofness. It is neither. Cats aren’t immediately intimidated and subjugated by humans just by our size. In fact, they tend to see us as gangly stupid, big bipedal cats. Thus, unlike dogs in which their service and loyalty was bred into them through generations of domestication from wolves to dogs, cat’s affection, admiration and respect, must be earned by their humans. Any good cat parent will confirm, it is worth it[7]

Additionally, cats have been blamed for a variety of social ills throughout history either as a direct cause or an adjacent accessory. Cats were blamed for the spread of the black plague. Ironically however, it was their annihilation due to this false belief that contributed to the proliferation of the disease since the cats were killing and eating the true carriers…the rats. These negative myths and superstitions also impact cat adoption and euthanasia rates. Black cats are only being adopted at about 10 % of all cats adopted, while they make up 74 % of cat euthanasia. This causes many black cats to live out their lives in shelters. In correlation, many shelters do not adopt out black cats in an around Halloween because of an unsubstantiated sense threat of violence against them, or (more commonly) the likelihood of the cat being returned when the holiday is over.     

 

CONCLUSION

The continuation of these myths and superstitions about black cats that were originally used to reinforce a religiously oligarchic patriarchy which eventually spanned cultures, and infiltrated our popular culture has left an ineradicable effect on the lives of cats. This unfortunately obfuscates the health benefits of cat ownership. In addition to the common factors of pet ownership with its increase in overall health, reducing stress and increasing serotonin and dopamine; purring cat frequencies have been shown to help heal injuries and reduce inflammation. With more accurate testimonials from good cat parents, and a more accurate depiction of Cats in popular media, hopefully these myths and superstitions about black cats can soon be dispelled.

 

Author’s Note: This article was written during the processing of my grief from the loss of my cat Poncho.  He is now with his sister Mia. I love you. My floofy little fascist.   

 

REFERENCES

Bourdieu Pierre 1987. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press

Durkheim, Emile 2001.  The Elementary Forms of Religious Life New York: Oxxford University Press

Weber Max 2002. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism and other Writings New York: penguin Publishing

__________2019. Economy and Society: A New Translation Massachusetts Harvard University Press.

Wilde, Layla Morgan 2017. Black Cats Tell All: True Stories and Inspiring Images New York: Cat Wisdom 101  

---

[1] This leans into the obvious ongoing misgendering of dogs and cats to be only associated with cisgendered masculine and feminine traits respectively 

[2] https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/black-cats-tell-all-layla-morgan-wilde/1127199937

[3] Since we typically mislabel the sex assigned category of cats, is it any wonder we are having a difficult time understanding the realities of trans-folk and the importance of their representation?

[4] One of the more recent examples of this is Mizu, the protagonist of the Blue Eye Samurai series  

[5] Think of the “Hello Kitty”esque prosperity figurines that you see in small shops in Japan.

[6] Though these numbers are rising

[7] Most Cat Owners should not have cats

The Films of Celine Sciamma: An Introduction

 

INTRODUCTION

             Director Celine Sciamma is a modern cinematic vanguard of Feminist French filmmaking. Her inspiring work consistently challenges the parameters of the patriarchal mechanism of masculine moviemaking. This boundary pushing has given us a coming-of-age trilogy, a film centered around motherhood, and another that epitomizes the phrase “love lies longing”. In this, albeit still short filmography, Sciamma not only challenges the audience with what they should be looking at, but why they should care. In the confection of cinema, Sciamma creamily marbles together theme, story, and dialogue unlike anyone else, taking additional care in incorporating intricate flavors of allegorical political complexity that are refreshingly at the forefront of the palette, while making the audience dreamily contemplative before they swallow. It is because of this longingly nostalgic meditation, that Celine Sciamma is the next subject in my director deep dives; covering all her auteur films.[1]

BACKGROUND

Born in Nov 1978, Celine Sciamma was introduced to film by her grandmother and her love of old Hollywood. By the time that she was a teenager, she was going to her local theater three times a week, clearly part of cinema’s cult. Sciamma originally envisioned herself as either a screenwriter or a critic, but not a director, stating:  “Directing just seemed like too precarious a profession, too much a male-only preserve.”    This changed when she got a chance to direct her first film, the one she originally wrote after Grad school at La Femis. 

Sciamma has always been mesmerized and confident in the power of cinema to capture an audience and reflect culture in different ways. In a 2021 interview with The Observer, Sciamma extrapolates on the power of film to be endlessly interpreted; believing that because the audience changes, films are different each time we go back to them.  She recounts the interpretation of a sex scene in Water Lillies, and she is struck by two things: One, through a more contemporary lens she considers what she shot now, a rape, rather than the feminine universality of “first time bad sexual encounters”. Secondly, that the female aggression that follows is more widely accepted and embraced now than when it was originally shot.

Recognizing the power of cinema to be a political tool, Sciamma became a founding member of the 50/50 by 2020 movement, a group of French filmmakers and industry professionals advocating for gender parity by 2020. While this mission is sadly still ongoing, Sciamma and others that uphold this disparity in egalitarian common sense as a blight upon the industry, have helped to develop intimacy coordinator positions, assisted women on contract negotiations and the implementation of inclusion riders. “Cinema is always political” Sciamma states “And women making films about women is a political act. (Oumano 2011).

This political conviction carries through to her criticism of the industry itself. In 2018, she and acting muse Adele Haenel walked out of the 45^th Cesar Awards, an award she previously won for Water Lillies in 2014, because the award was given to Roman Polanski; a director in American exile because he faces sexual assault charges of a minor in Los Angeles. Sciamma and Haenel shouting “Bravo pedophilia” as they left. This criticism of terrible men is continued in the thematic messaging of her overall work.

THEMES

              Having a foundation in Feminist scholarship, a majority of political and social principles are woven into Sciamma’s cinematic tapestry. One of the strongest threads that is carried through her work is that of “The female gaze.” The female Gaze is a response to the literary criticism of “The male Gaze”. An example of the normalization of maleness and masculinity within a patriarchal system, “the male gaze” is the assumption that the lens of the camera is always gendered male, and will, by default, present the male perspective as the lens by which the audience will experience the story. This cisgendered masculine focus is also often heteronormative and objectively sexist when women are the subject of its regard. Sciamma regularly employs its opposite. She not only presents the narrative proscenium through a female perspective, but one that provides and presents women having agency, acceptance and nuance. One that is character forward in orientation.

            More broadly however, “The female gaze” is unfortunately not framed as Sciamma and others of her ilk have presented.  The term’s larger breadth is simplistically understood as “The view a female filmmaker brings to the process that is different than their male counterpart.” This unfortunately paints women as a singular monolith without the deeply complex verisimilitude that intersectional feminism strives to maintain. This “female gaze” then gets misinterpreted and thusly appropriated to promote the patriarchy. This creates the same problematic gaze just with a different subject: men. Girls and women are still socialized to their problematic sexist messages of bodily focused male relationship centered validity, but through this misconception this objectification becomes a “choice”. This is the result of the continued effect of the focus on Randian Libertarian ideals of individuality that distort the reality of systemic inequality by perceiving them through the lens of “free and equal choice.” Without interrogating or even allowing the agency they need to make that decision in the first place; this lack of acknowledgement of cultural, social, and economic differences, and the intersectionally compounding nature of their consequences, allows for the dismantling of the social support latticework.    

            The intentionally malformed system that teaches girls and women to celebrate “the power” given to them by their patriarchal jailers, are crumbs from the feast on the table of misogyny. Conditioning women to embrace the empowerment behind their own objectification, is not just a mechanism of social control for them but also promotes the active policing of [usually] heterosexual men on which they typically exercise that power; thereby maintaining the status quo. To that understanding, the essays in this series will be feminist forward in its analysis; each film focusing on a variety of feminist scholars. Classical scholars like Simone de Beauvoir, bell hooks and Audre Lorde will lay the foundation for a lot of arguments. While some films require more obscure resources like Julia Kristeva, others need a more contemporary framework from the likes of Helana Darwin, Peggy Orenstein, Roxanne Gay, Shanita Hubbard and Noelle McAfree.

            Through her coming-of-age trilogy (Water Lilies, Tom Boy, and Girlhood) Sciamma evokes hooks (1996):

“Movies remain the perfect vehicle for the introduction of certain ritual rites of passage that come to stand for the quintessential border crossing for everyone who wants to take a look at the difference and the different without to having to experientially engage “the other”… Movies not only provide a narrative for specific discourses of race, sex and class, they provide a shared experience, a common starting point from which diverse audiences can dialogue about these charged issues. (p2-3)  

With added flairs of gender fluidity and sexual identity, Sciamma’s teenage triptych centers “the other” from the ancillary, placing it subjectively in the forefront from their perspective.

            Audre Lorde’s essay “Uses of the Erotic” becomes important in the analysis of Sciamma’s 2019 feature: A Portrait of a Lady on Fire. The way that Lorde (2004) reframes the understanding of the term “erotic” as a source of lesbian existent power speaks to the character motivations in the film. While using Kristeva (2018), allows for the expanse of the film’s Greek tragedy allegory through the myth of Orpheus. This leads to a dismantling of the sexual binary through the evocation of Helana Darwin’s (2022) Redoing Gender, thereby broadening the film’s messaging to a contemporary point, regardless of its period setting.

Finally, Petite Maman challenges and subverts gender norms akin to a Friedanian analysis. However, using the analysis provided by hooks, de Beauvoir, Orenstein and a few others, it illustrates a complexity that challenges the misogynistic roles of wives and mothers that women still find difficult to circumvent.  Together, Sciamma’s Cinematic schema is one that not only teaches about feminism through a female gaze, it is a collective amalgamation of feminist theory “from margin to center” (hooks 2000:xv).

    

CONCLUSION

            Celine Sciamma’s work vacillates from being richly complex in its decadence, to simplistically rustic in its direct and uncompromising frankness. Every frame challenges the audience to contemplate the shot choice and give a reason as to why they are seeing what she is showing them.  While other lesser filmmakers, made inert by the shackles of the male gaze, continue to churn out misogynistic drivel that only lines the pockets of male centered heterosexual prosecutors, Sciamma decides to give you another perspective. She instead gives voice to the constantly silenced, and agency to a variety of marginalized groups beyond the placating table scraps of the oppressors.    

 

REFERENCES

Darwin, Helana 2022. Redoing Gender: How Nonbinary Gender Contributes Toward Social Change New York: Palgrave MacMillan

hooks, bell 1996. Reel to Real: Race Class and Sex at the Movies New York: Routledge

_________2000. Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center (2^nd ed) Cambridge: South End Press

Kristeva, Julia 2018. Passions of our Time  New York: Columbia University Press

Lorde, Audre 2004. Sister Outsider: Essays and Speeches Berkeley Crossing Press

Oumano, Elena 2011. Cinema Today: A Conversation with 39 Filmmakers Around the World New York: Reuters University Press

 

---

[1]  Those films that she has both written and directed

The Queering Feminist Spectacle of Thelma and Louise

 

In the organization of traditional gender stereotypes, masculinity is framed as the rational (emotionally) repressive and relationally reductive identity that thrives on aggression as well as the alienation and abuse of women. Women, thereby become the fulcrum and rubric by which men ocellate toward and are critiqued; to achieve and maintain their traditional forms of (fragile) masculinity. Conversely, in this same organization, femininity revels in the relational, having women define their identity through the emotional bonds they cultivate with their children or the variety of male figures in their lives, albethey fathers, mentors, or partners.  The normalization of this framing happens through its consistent representation in film and popular culture. Under this yoke, not only do we see a reproduction of these dangerous archetypes, but there is little room for exploration past these boundaries, unless there’s a monumental catalyst. Ridley Scott’s 1991 Thelma and Louise is the frenetic feminist film about friendship that became the popular spark for the third wave feminist movement, upended traditional gender role organization in cinema, and galvanized a generation (of women). This paper is a brief exploration of the social and cultural impact of the film, its resonance, relevant themes, and reclamation by both the industry and populace.     

 

PLOT

While traveling to a fishing cabin for a weekend getaway, two girlfriends stop at a roadside bar to get a drink and proverbially let their hair down. However, after experiencing an assault and attempted rape that leaves the rapist dead, the titular Thelma (Geena Davis) and Louise (Susan Sarandon) flee the scene; understanding that they will not be believed or found innocent. What follows is a road-trip across the southwest as the pair attempt to get to Mexico while trying to avoid a tenacious cop (Harvey Keitel) and the FBI hot on their trail.

 

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

 

            Since its release in 1991, Thelma and Louise’s cinematic gravitas has been profound. This praise being validated in 2016 when the film was entered into the library of congress as a work that was “culturally, historically or aesthetically significant.” Screenwriter Callie Khouri’s female led “buddy road trip” movie both subverted and exceeded expectations. The film acts as a barometer for the time period from which it is currently being analyzed. The feminism, and barriers that were present at the time of production and the initial reviews, have different arguments for the film’s merits and shortcomings than those who view the film retrospectively.  What was harsh criticism and resistance in the early 1990’s, may be nostalgically tempered today; even perceived as quaint. It is also important to recognize that Thelma and Louise is a seminally foundational film from which other filmmakers have scaffolded and parodied in the warmest heartfelt way

            Production

            Callie Khouri originally planned for Thelma and Louise to be an independent film, with herself serving as writer/director. But after shopping it around and finding no buyers, her producing partner arranged to have the script find its way (through a series of acquaintances) to Ridley Scott. Scott loved the script and bought the film rights for $500,000. Scott only decided to direct the film after Michelle Pfeiffer convinced him; she and Jodie foster were originally going to star in the film. Both would eventually drop out due to scheduling conflicts with other projects: Pfeiffer went on to star in Love Field and Foster went on to her award-winning turn as Clarice Starling in The Silence of the Lambs. After their departure, other actors under consideration were Meryl Streep and Goldie Hawn who also withdrew. During this time of protagonist uncertainty, Geena Davis was heavily campaigning for either role. Scott liked her, but did know for which part, feeding rumors about her being able to take either part if casting took too long.  Her chemistry with Sarandon clinched it, and they were off to the races.

            During the production of the film, the lighting and framing of some of the driving scenes were difficult. Much of which caused them not to be able to wear a lot of hats and glasses as the camera always had to find their faces. Sarandon, who did a lot of driving for many of the film’s shots, commented on how she was instructed to keep the camera shot between the side mirror and Davis as she drove.            

            In one of the insert essays for the immaculately sensuous 4k Criterion Blu-Ray release of Thelma and Louise, film critic Jessica Kiang (2023) marvels at the way costume designer Elizabeth McBride visually represents Thelma and Louise’s transformation through their attire. At each act break, the wardrobe of each principal character expresses their emotional state. In act one, both women are buttoned up and constrained, trapped in the lives that they are (at this point) momentarily escaping for a weekend. The inciting incident breaks both women, and afterwards, there is a change of clothes. Eventually by the third act:

“The makeup goes the way of the headscarves, which are replaced by battered hats bartered or stolen from men. Plain tanks and sleeveless tees come to be favored over girlish blouses and crisp shirts. Soon, the two rangy, tanned, double-denimed redheads in the dusty blue Ford are almost camouflaged against the stonewashed desert skies and the pink-orange sandstone bluffs” (Kiang 2023).

The transformation of our principal characters is visually expressed within the continuity of their clothes. They become unencumbered, unfettered, freer… even as this is juxtaposed by the dangers getting closer as the police close in.  According to Khouri (2011) they’ve went from invisible to, too big for the world to contain; all of which is visually represented in t-shirts, jeans and sunglasses.[1]  Indeed, the utter simplicity with which this is visually conveyed in small increments, is so remarkable that it almost seems meditative. Thelma and Louise are stripping off all the things that they were, to embrace their new surroundings. They emerge out of their hardened gender stereotypical shells revealing that they have taken on the aesthetics of the geography of their liberation: the American Southwest.

Second Wave Representation and the Impact on Third Wave Feminism

            According to Valenti (2007) Feminism can be defined as:

1.      The belief in the social, political, and economic equality of all the sex and gender identities within the gendered spectrum that incorporates an understanding of standpoint differences based upon age, race, class, disability, sexual orientation, cultural and religious ideology.

2.      An organization and socio-political movement around such a belief.

In discussing the overall history of the Feminist movement, and to delineate the changes in scope, goals, issues, and membership, several scholars and public intellectuals have organized the movement into a “wave model”.[2] During the development, shooting and release of Thelma and Louise, the United States was on the precipice of its third wave of Feminism.

            When the public thinks of “The Feminist Movement” they think of  “The Second Wave,” immortalized by names like Betty Friedan, bell hooks, and Audre Lorde. “The Second Wave” feminist movement coincided and overlapped with the Civil Rights movement beginning in the 1950’s. Motivated by the renewed domesticity of Post World War II, women, particularly white women, felt a non-specific malaise. This feeling was articulated by Betty Friedan (1963) as “the problem that has no name.” to describe the state of personal unfulfillment many women felt not having anything outside of embodying the roles of wives and mothers.

“The most glaring proof that, no matter how elaborate, “Occupation Housewife” is not an adequate substitute for truly challenging work, important enough to society to be paid for in its coin…having their husbands share the housework didn’t really compensate women for being shut out of the larger world.” (Friedan 1963: 350-351).

            This state of “profound unfulfillment” motivated the second wave feminists to fight for women’s ability to work outside the home, reproductive rights, abortion rights, representation in government, and rights to education; and against: the wage gap, sex discrimination, body image, hyper-sexualization, and sexual violence. This ultimately led to such victories as contraception access, equal pay acts, and federal body rights for women. These became the foundation with which women and their allies could build a third movement.

  

            Third Wave Feminism rose to prominence through the fighting back against the anti-feminist movement that rose out of the hyper conservative corporate cultural flavor of 1980’s individualism (Hyde Amendment, Bombing/ defunding of abortion clinics, murdering of abortion doctors). By 1987 85% of clinics provided no abortions.  It was a culture where Feminism became known as “The other F-word.” The Third Wave Feminism officially began during the outrage over the Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas scandal.  This controversy, coupled with the shaming of Hill and the eventual appointment of Thomas to the Supreme Court, energized feminists into a new movement, sparking Rebecca Walker to coin the term "Third Wave” in 1992.

            The third panel of this Feminist Movement triptych, focused on the topics of language re-appropriation, body and sex positivity, intersectionality (problems and different realities living within a gendered system), social justice representation in popular culture, sexual harassment, rape culture, LGBTQAI rights, and "Girlie" Feminism.[3] At the time, this burgeoning new wave, bursting with youth and vitality (as all movements are initially) claimed many victories. They successfully staved off the weakening and repeal of Roe (something that would remain commonplace until its eventual repeal with the Dobbs decision in June of 2022). They helped to pass and implement the Sexual Harassment ban by creation of a ‘hostile environment’ in 1986. 1992 was deemed "The Year of the Woman", which saw the election of the most women elected to congress in US History at the time. Third wave feminists championed the federal ban against raping your wife in 1993, The Family Medical Leave Act 1993, the Violence Against Women Act 1994, and the illegality of FGM (female genital mutilation) in 1997. In popular culture, we also saw an increase in Feminist Icons: Madonna, Queen Latifah, Angelina Jolie, and characters like Buffy Summers and Xena, who like Thelma and Louise were not only feminist icons, but were also Queer claimed.   

           

“We don’t live in that kind of world Thelma.” Louise 

 

In Thelma and Louise, Thelma’s story arc is one that demarcates the transition from Second wave feminism, to the more radicalized third wave.  In the opening of the film, Thelma is the isolated and embattled housewife Friedan (1963) describes above. Marrying Darryl right out of high school, Thelma has little of an identity outside of the one she has cobbled together behind his back, primarily through her friendship with Louise. As the road trip begins, having never been on a vacation (presumably without her Husband) and not knowing what to pack, Thelma brings (almost) everything. Not knowing how to act, Thelma also begins to imitate Louise, playfully smoking a cigarette and declaring: “I’m Louise.” like a child copying their parent’s behavior to learn how to be an adult. This infantilism of Thelma continues when she suggests stopping for a drink before they continue to the cabin. The acquiescence of Louise is framed more as the capitulation of a mother to her daughter rather than another adult. “Ok, but it’s gonna be a quick stop.” Louise amends. An enraptured Thelma becomes a giddy schoolgirl bouncing in her seat.

            Thelma’s innocent, open and naïve nature becomes a plot device that moves the story forward; being the catalyst for the inciting incident and bridging the different acts of the film. Because of this, cheap, easy, and intellectually uninteresting criticisms full of victim-blaming were lauded at the film upon release in 1991. Rather, what Thelma’s arc depicts is the persistent virulence of a misogynistic rape culture that does not allow women to be open, honest, and trustworthy; without being harmed for putting that faith in people. This messaging was unfortunately drowned out in the public consciousness of the 1990s that saw Thelma’s victimization as a catalyst to grasp feminist power, which now has become a tired trope hung around the neck of every “strong female character” since. The public takeaway of Thelma’s attempted rape (and the implied rape Louise experienced in Texas) was not just that the patriarchal misogynistic cesspool of our culture destroys our belief in humanity (framed by Thelma’s feminized innocence); but that we need to break women of their femininity in order to make them worthy of (Masculine) power. Thus, after the attempted rape, Thelma baptizes herself in sex with a young robbing drifter, JD (Brad Pitt) and becomes born again. And after surviving the crucible of his sudden and inevitable betrayal (he steals their money) she is reforged into a liquor store robbing, cop threatening, truck exploding badass. Thelma, like Louise before her (in Texas), morphs from a second wave archetypical cautionary tale into a third wave paragon. “This is what a (third-wave) feminist (will) look like.”  

 

SOCIAL ANALYSIS  

            A lot has been written about Thelma and Louise since its release. The initial criticism of the film by critics were eventually drowned out by the reclamation of the film in the eyes of the public. It is daunting to write about a film that is so much a part of the cultural and socio-political zeitgeist. A film that is used as a bridge between two subsequent eras of feminist liberation signifying its transformation without becoming overwhelmed and a pedantically glib facsimile of other work that is better written and researched. The film is even a part of academic discourse.  However, what seems to be missing in this discourse is a deconstruction of the patriarchy through an analysis of the film’s male characters, a focus on Adrianne Rich’s “The Lesbian Existence” not just through its queer reading (though we’ll talk about that kiss), but through the importance, and power of female friendships, and the main character’s liberation through masculinization that echoes the wisdom and warnings of Audre Lorde.

            “You get what you settle for.”- Louise

            Patriarchal Takedown: The Men of Thelma and Louise

            The male characters of Thelma and Louise are a cinematic rebuke of the misogynistic institutional shackles of marriage, family, and masculinity itself. From the extremes of Thelma’s husband, Darryl, to the Arkansas Detective, Hal, with Louise’s beau Jimmy, and honey trap JD in between. Each man represents a certain type of masculinity and how those masculinities co-exist (or not).

For this purpose, Masculinity can be defined as:

…simultaneously a place in gender relations, the practices through which men and women engage that place in gender and the effect of these in the body experience, personality and culture [through] everyday conduct of life…in relation to a reproductive arena defined by the bodily structures and process of human reproduction. (Connell 1995: 71).

Darryl is the embodiment of the masculine stereotypes within the institution of marriage: a bumbling, philandering, oafish, meanspirited man, who barely rises to meet his own mediocrity. He is the archetype of a common and likely story: he peaked in high school, and imprisoned a smart, capable excitingly vibrant woman with the chains of matrimony.  Additionally, because traditional masculine gender socialization has robbed him of any knowledge of how to care for himself, or others, (he is a selfishly poor lover); he begins to fall to pieces once Thelma leaves. In other films, where this device is often employed to allow a (usually male) character to achieve an epiphany; and learn to treat their spouse with more care and attention, Darryl doubles down (albeit meekly) and attempts to use anger and threats to get Thelma to comeback, a tactic that, prior to the events of the film, would have worked. While this depiction is more believable than a sudden transformation that populates other (lesser) films, it also points to the way that masculinity only allows men to express the complexity of emotions through anger. He is scared, distracted and utterly clueless without a woman to guide him. As the final chase begins to escalate to its climax, we cut to Darryl one final time and push in on his void and vacant face. He is dumbfounded. He is lost.  

Jimmy is the epitome of Masculine domestic violence. He classically fits into the behaviors of the power and control wheel of sexual violence.  He is sweet and caring one minute, explosively violent the next. He is willing to help wire some money to Louise (out of her own account). But when she goes to pick up the money, she also finds Jimmy, because his help always has strings attached. He sternly banishes JD and sidelines Thelma so that he can be alone with Louise. In their hotel room, she doesn’t want to confide in him what happened, so he violently throws a tantrum of an insecure man with arrested development. When Louise rightly attempts to leave, he blocks her exit and gives her an engagement ring. This whiplash reaction is common with domestic abusers and is a textbook example of the cycle of violence.

Typical cycle of physical domestic violence

 

1)      Unrealistic Standards or expectations in the relationship (involves coercion)

2)      Verbal abuse (yelling, screaming)

3)      Threat of Physical attack (“I’ll kill you.” “Don’t make me beat the shit out of you”) which may include destroying property

4)       Actual Attack- One hit or multiple, closed fist , open fist, with an object, sexual or not, doesn’t matter

5)       Remorse from Attacker:  minimizing/denying the attack and/or blaming the victim. The police may or may not be called “It will never happen again”

6)       Unresolved Action: Fear of leaving attacker, forgiveness, internalizing blame, not pressing charges (Cycle then starts over).

 

The morning after the violence in the hotel room, Jimmy is back on the cycle in his remorseful contrition stage; telling Louise that he won’t tell anyone where she and Thelma are, where they are going, or that he’s even seen them. Louise blithely asks if he took a drug that made him say “all the right things.” (implying that he regularly doesn’t). It is in this moment of serenity that Jimmy, again, brings up the ring. With the gentleness of talking to a small, wounded child; Louise quietly says: “Why don’t you hold on to this for me.” And pushes the ring and (metaphorically) him away.  The last we see of Jimmy is him being confronted by the cops to interrogate him about Thelma and Louise’s whereabouts. Yet, unlike his promise, it is later revealed by Hal that he told the cops everything that he knew.  Whether that was a ploy to get Louise to come back to him (assuming they were caught), or as punishment for her rejection of him, remains to be seen.

           

            JD is the female gazey incel that entices naïve sex-starved Thelma into a romantic dalliance, so that he can rob her. Thelma is clearly his target, setting up their meet cute for just after she tells Darryl, in a phone call, to go fuck himself. In another instance, he leans over while purposefully being backlit from the setting sun from Thelma’s side mirror vantage point. All of this to trap her in a honey pot scam.  However, unbeknownst to him, Thelma is motivated toward the same passionate interlude to free herself from the fear of the assault and attempted rape, so she can reclaim her body. JD’s actions have a two-pronged effect: It complicates Thelma and Louise’s plans to get to Mexico, forcing them to begin robbing from convenience stores and other people, while it also provides Thelma with an (orgasmic) catalyst for her soulful and spiritual awakening. The audience is left to determine if this nonconsensual prostitution payment was money well “spent”[4]

            Hal, the police officer, is the film’s attempt at a male savior. In his initial investigation he believes that the shooting was in self-defense, and in the face of mounting additional evidence, supports them being brought in. He understands both Thelma and Louise’s circumstances and what led them to make their decisions.  At the end of the film, he is pleading with the FBI field officer (Steven Tobolowsky) to not let the police shoot them, screaming: “How many times does this woman [Louise] have to be fucked over?!” We last see Hal as he desperately runs after the Thunderbird in vain, as it launches off the cliff and into the Canyon.           

  The last man in the film worth talking about is “Earl”, the truck driver. He is the personified caricature of “toxic” masculinity’s sexual objectification of women. Every encounter he has with Thelma and Louise on the road is disgusting. He leers, hoots, hollers, makes obscene gestures, and verbally harasses them in aggressively sexual ways. Yet, when they lure him to pull over, being an oblivious imbecile who only sees women as things for his pleasure, he believes he’s walking into a possible three way. Even when Thelma and Louise give him a chance to apologize for his lewd behavior, he aggressively refuses.  When they shoot out his tires in response, he gets irater, prompting them to blow up his tanker truck in feminist cathartic retaliation.                

In looking at the intersections of masculinity, a greater light can be shined on these men when looking at their interactions with each other. Among them, Darryl is less confident, and preoccupied with cost and inconvenience, more so than his wife’s safety. In meeting him, Hal is so unimpressed that he just finds him comical, laughing at his antics and somewhat shocked by his ineptitude. Jimmy folds like laundry under the slightest police pressure, while clearly dismissing JD upon meeting him.  It is also no surprise that Darryl, is the one to be cuckhold by JD. This is framed as the ultimate insult and the obliteration of Darryl’s fragile masculinity. As he is being led out of questioning, JD mentions to Darryl in passing: “I really liked your wife.” This sends Darryl into the most explosive tirade yet, having to be held back by four police officers from attacking JD, who from a comfortable distance away, begins to mock Darryl with sexually suggestive gestures. However, JD’s suave and swagger instantly crumbles when he is stuck alone in a room with Hal. Hal proceeds to treat JD like a sniveling child, berating and threatening him. Hal tells him: “If anything happens to them, I will hold you directly responsible for your part of it. Your ruin will be my God Damn mission in Life!” He, like Jimmy, acquiesces to Hal’s authority and masculinity.    

 

 

            Sometimes, “The Lesbian Existence” is just “Friendship” 😉    

            The Feminist impact of Thelma and Louise cannot be overstated. Regardless of the fact that the stars and filmmakers never intended to make an exclusively feminist film, the public ownership and social consequences as such, makes it one (thank you WI Thomas). This feminism is empowered by Thelma and Louise’s friendship.  

In a Previous Essay, I explain Adrianne Rich’s “The Lesbian Existence”:

In her article, Rich exclaims:

 

“Lesbian existence comprises both the breaking of a taboo and the rejection of a compulsory way of life. It is also a direct or indirect attack on male right of access to women. But it is more than these, although we may first begin to perceive it as a form of nay-saying to patriarchy, an act of resistance. It has of course included role playing, self-hatred, breakdown, alcoholism, suicide, and intrawoman violence; we romanticize at our peril what it means to love and act against the grain, and under heavy penalties; and lesbian existence has been lived (unlike, say, Jewish or Catholic existence) without access to any knowledge of a tradition, a continuity, a social underpinning. The destruction of records and memorabilia and letters documenting the realities of lesbian existence must be taken very seriously as a means of keeping heterosexuality compulsory for women, since what has been kept from our knowledge is joy, sensuality, courage, and community, as well as guilt, self-betrayal, and pain”

As the term "lesbian" has been held to limiting, clinical associations in its patriarchal definition, female friendship and comradeship have been set apart from the erotic, thus limiting the erotic itself. But as we deepen and broaden the range of what we define as lesbian existence, as we delineate a lesbian continuum, we begin to discover the erotic in female terms: as that which is unconfined to any single part of the body or solely to the body itself, as an energy not only diffuse but, as Audre Lorde has described it, omnipresent in "the sharing of joy, whether physical, emotional, psychic," and in the sharing of work; as the empowering joy which "makes us less willing to accept powerlessness, or those other supplied states of being which are not native to me, such as resignation, despair, self-effacement, depression, self-denial[7]

 

Rich identifies in this stitched together passage, (as in the article as a whole) that in a patriarchal system women are taught to see other women as a source of contention and competition for male attention (Thus making heterosexuality compulsory through socialized behaviors, reinforced by rewards from social structural institutions (Marriage, family, Military economy etc.)), and denying the reality of the power women have among and with each other by placing undue emphasis on the type and nature of a relationship rather than what that relationship provides for the individuals involved. Thus, women are socially trained through compulsory heterosexuality and patriarchal oppression that the most important relationships that they have are with men, and that all other relationships are secondary within this structure.

  The journey that Thelma and Louise go on, is one that sees a relinquishing of their primary relationships with men, while understanding “the lesbian power” of their relationship with each other. The arc of both Thelma and Louise is one of amalgamation. Throughout the course of the film, they blur and blend into each other; becoming the same unified person, together in the same place, just by different roads.

Thelma, in the beginning of the film, actively looks up to Louise and sweetly emulates her because she has no other role models, or really any relationships outside of Darryl.  Thelma’s journey is punctuated by the lines of dialogue said to her that she repeats in a different context.  The first time that she stands up to Darryl she uses the words Louise gave her, and when she decides to hold up a convenience store, she cribs word for word what JD said to her the night before.  Through these experiences, Thelma becomes harder and a little less trusting. Whereas Louise’s edges soften a little and she becomes more introspective (Syme 2023). However, the credit and power of the “Lesbian Existence” is displayed when Thelma and Louise have these heartfelt exchanges:

One

Louise: I think I fucked up. I think I got us in a situation where we both could get killed. I don’t know why I didn’t just go to the police right away.

 

Thelma:  You know why. You already said. No one would believe us. We could still get in trouble, still have our lives ruined. You know what else, that guy was hurting me. If you hadn’t come out when you did, he would have hurt me a lot worse, and probably nothing would have happened to him because people saw me dancing with him all night. They would have made out like I asked for it. My life would have been ruined a heck of a lot worse than it is now. At least now I’m having some fun, and I am not sorry that son-of-a-bitch is dead, I’m just sorry it was you who did it and not me.

___________________________________________________________________________

Two

Thelma: I know this whole thing was my fault!

Louise: Damn it, Thelma! You should know by now that none of this was your fault!

 

Thelma: Louise, I want you to know whatever happens, I’m glad I came with you.

_______________________________________________________________________

Three

Thelma: I guess I went a little Crazy, huh?!

Louise: No, you were always this crazy. This is just the first time you’ve had to really express yourself.

___________________________________________________________________________

 

These examples are of two women supporting each other, validating their choices, and moving in lock step with each other.  After the film’s release, Thelma and Louise became the paragons of female friendships for its audience. As they clasped their hands and rocketed into the Grand Canyon, they were subsequently launched into the future.  It is not much of a stretch to think if you mined the Photo albums of the late 90’s, they would show women, best friends, sisters, lovers (possibly unrequited) jumping off sand dunes, diving boards, out of planes, or the faces of cliffs, mimicking the final moments of the film in solidarity with Thelma, Louise, and all women. This moment is so powerfully iconic, that it has not only been recreated in the lives of many young people at the time, but across popular culture.  

Queer Coded and Claimed

            When looking at the basic plot structure of Thelma and Louise, it is obviously a queer coded story. A quick and easy queer reading of the story could be: Two women, unsatisfied with their lives with their heterosexual male partners, decide to go off for a weekend alone. As they leave their lives behind them and begin to relax, they are haunted and hunted by the heterosexist white male patriarchy in the forms of a would-be rapist, Truck driver, and the army of police and federal agents after them. The story that unfolds is allegorically damning their love and annihilating their existence. First, they are enticed with the bait of the heterosexual female gaze, in the form of JD. Then, the patriarchy tries overt objectification through the Truck Driver. But at every turn Thelma and Louise choose resistance and coupleship, each refusing to leave the other’s side. In the final moments of the film, when the police are ready to assassinate them, to put an end to their queer subversion; Thelma and Louise know that if they surrender and are somehow not murdered by the army at their back, that they will be separated, never to see each other again. Rather than life in a heterosexist patriarchal cage, torn from the one they love, Thelma and Louise choose love and death on their own terms. With their fate decided, the passion they have held for each other finally breaks free of its heteronormative bonds and they share a short but intense kiss of romance, recognition, and resolve. They choose love over the cage that was their former lives.

Examples of Queer Coded Dialogue:

One

Thelma: You’re not gonna give up on me, are you?

Louise: Thelma, I’m not making any deals.

Thelma: In a way I get it, that way you’ll have something to go back to [beat] with Jimmy.

Louise: Jimmy’s not an option.

Thelma: Listen, something has…crossed over in me. I just can’t go back.

Louise: I know. I know what you mean.

___________________________________________________________________________

Two: (very next scene)

Thelma: You awake?

Louise: I guess you could say that; my eyes are open.

Thelma: Me too, I feel awake.

Louise: Good.

Thelma: Wide awake. I don’t remember feeling this awake, you know what I mean? Everything looks different. You ever feel that way, like you have something to look forward to?

Louise: We’ll be drinking Margaritas by the sea, mamacita.    

_____________________________________________________________________________

Three:

Thelma: What are you doing?

Louise: {Loads and chambers her pistol] Look, I’m not giving up.

Thelma: Ok, then. Listen, let’s not get caught.

Louise: What are you talking about?

Thelma: Keep going.

Louise: What do you mean?

Thelma: [Gestures to the cliff] Go.

Louise: [Smiling and Crying] You sure?

Thelma: [Nods] Yeah. Yeah.

Louise Grabs Thelma and Kisses her.

____________________________________________________________________________     

            One of the reasons this dialogue can be queer coded and not explicit is due to the historical time period of its release. At the time of the film’s production, in the US, gays and lesbians were scapegoated into being the cause of the AIDS epidemic, labeling it “the gay plague”. With the moral objection to non-heterosexual sexualities increasing as AIDs case numbers rose, mainstream popular culture was reticent to explicitly provide open and direct queer representation without fear of reprisals.[5] Therefore, the LGBTQAI+ community had to comb film, TV, music and other popular culture for subtextual breadcrumbs in order to satisfy their hunger. Yet, even today, while the Queer community are not starving for representation, they have never had a full meal.  In 2021, the annual GLAAD report on representation in media found that only 20.8% of films that year contained LGBTQ characters. However, this was not equally distributed throughout the group. Most of these characters were gay men with Bisexual and Trans people having the least representation among them. This decreased even further when the report factored in race and had no representation of non-heterosexuals with disabilities. Secondarily, even when representation is achieved it is usually in declaration only. Many gay characters today are not allowed to be gay. Even with 20% representation in 2021, far fewer numbers are also showing affection, the dating process, romantic rejection, fights, and reconciliation. Basically, being gay without showing it.  At least with Thelma and Louise we got a kiss before dying… That’s more than some studios will allow, even today. [6]

 

            Thelma and Louise: Appropriating tools to knock down the House

In a heterosexist white male Patriarchy the escalation of violence is the result of noncompliance, not compassion and empathy. Therefore, what started out as a clear action of self-defense, accelerates into an inter-state chase, robbery, and assault, because the Masculine institution of The Criminal Justice System can not be compromised with, nor will it reckon with its misogyny and rape culture, the components of which, are the reason Thelma and Louise decided to flee in the first place. When developing the film, writer Callie Khouri talked to police officers and asked them what would be said to alleged criminals once cornered.

She put their response in the film, verbatim:

Any failure to obey our commands will be considered an act of aggression against us.    

She might as well have had the police say “Signed, “The Patriarchy””          

 

            As Thelma and Louise slough off their traditional femininity (Thelma more so than Louise) and break free from the patriarchal power and control that has ruled or overshadowed their lives for so long; they also begin to accumulate items, behaviors and attitudes that are more masculine. With each set piece in the film, they shed a little more of tradition, and move away from acceptable femininity. As stated earlier, this can be read as the adoption of a gender fluid and queer coded context. But it also can be seen as an attempt to use the tools of the oppressor against them. Couple this with the uncompromising nature of the system, and the result is when an unstoppable force (Unbridled Feminism) meets an immovable object (The Patriarchy). Unfortunately, Thelma and Louise learn that the more they push back against the carceral system and actively resist using the tools of violence they have acquired, might keep them going, but it won’t provide liberation.

Audre Lorde (2007) said it best:

“The Master’s tools will never dismantle the Master’s house. They may allow us to temporarily beat him at his own game, but it will never enable us to bring about genuine change.”

 Thelma and Louise aren’t changing the world with their actions, they are just trying to eke out an existence based upon the terrible choices they have been given.  As horrible as choices can be, like the choice between getting shot or driving off a cliff, bad; you still have to make them. Thelma and Louise choose the latter, because even though the master’s tools won’t ever dismantle the master’s house, it doesn’t mean that you have to live there.    

 

CONCLUSION

Thelma and Louise is an iconic Feminist Masterpiece.  A generation later, it is still inspiring and foundational to both individuals, communities and causes.  The more you watch, the deeper the analysis and appreciation goes. The filmmakers believed that they cracked a glass ceiling with the success of this film and that more films like it would flow from the breech. While we have seen a steady increase in female led films in a variety of genres, there has never been another Thelma or Louise. They remain frozen in mid-air on their pedestal, daring us to follow them.   

 

 

REFERENCES

Connell R. W. 1995. Masculinities California: University of California Press

Friedan Betty 1963.  The Feminine Mystique New York:  W.W. Norton and Company Press

Khouri Callie 2011. “20th Anniversary Edition: Callie Khouri Looks Back on Thelma & Louise.” In Script Magazine retrieved at https://scriptmag.com/features/20th-anniversary-edition-callie-khouri-looks-back-on-thelma-louise

Kiang, Jessica 2023. “Three Routes through Thelma and Louise: How The West Was Won.” New York: The Criterion Collection   

Lorde, Audre 2007. “The Master’s Tools will Never Dismantle the Master’s House.” Sister Outsider California, Crossing Press

Scott, Ridley 1991. Thelma and Louise MGM

Syme, Rachel 2023. “Three Roads through Thelma and Louise: Bringing to Life.” In Current New York: The Criterion Collection

Valenti, Jessica 2007. Full Frontal Feminism: A Young Woman’s Guide to Why Feminism Matters New York: Seal Press

---

[1] I’ll come back to this idea of clothing again in Social Analysis

[2]  There is a legitimate argument against organizing feminism into particular waves According to Rory Dicker (2008):

 

                       "Approaching Feminism as a collective project aimed at eradicating sexism and domination seems the most practical way to continue feminist work. Quibbling about which wave we are in now or in whether I think of myself as a second, third, or fourth waver hardly seems a good use of my limited time; instead, I'd like to see sustained feminist activism performed by young, middle-aged and old women-separately or better yet, together."

 

 

[3] An attempt to reclaim feminine beauty and body norms as feminist and not just a symbol of traditional patriarchal gender norms.

[4] Plus, it would take A LOT more than $6000 to sleep with Brad Pitt nowadays 

[5] Much of the direct queer representation came a little later in the 90’s but were mainly independent films

[6] I am looking at you Disney! Also, does that count as a “Bury your Gays” trope if the Queer representation is coded and claimed rather than explicit?