Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    Why not?

    Why not handguns at thirty paces? Wow! Cut the tension with a knife?
    

    C'mon Herb, if you can't trust, Gerry, you can't trust anyone.
    
    I've never seen Gerry fail to apologize, when he steps on
    someone's toes.  He fights hard, and you may have a big
    job on your hands convincing him that your toes got stepped
    on, but he delivers.  He's really consistent.
    
    Wil
    

>    Why do you want to know?

Because I have a deep dark hidden agenda meant to castrate all males 
whose politics do not align with mine.

(Because I was tired of the heavier discussions in here that I was 
involved in, because I love movies, because I love talking about them, 
and...just because.)


							--Gerry

    
    Tis time like these I wish we had a rathole topic.
    (Would the mods reconsider?)
    
    All Gerry did was ask about a movie and based on what I've seen
    and read, it could and should make for a fine topic in mennotes.
    I'll look forward to reading a review here from any
    men who might go see it.
    
    							Hank
    
     
    

>    Have you seen the movie?  
    
    Yes.
    
    
>    What do you think?  
    
    Ridley Scott should stick to Sci-Fi.
    
>    Was it man-hating?
    
    Yes.  I enjoyed it as much as getting a hockey puck in the groin.
    
    Kris

    RE: .9
    
    Oh please.  Any gay man who writes here openly as an equally important 
    and valid member of society is *automatically* "pushing the acceptance of 
    homosexuality as an appropriate life style."  Further, implicit in gay 
    relationships is support of feminism insofar as it purports to break down 
    gender roles.
    
    This is news?
    
    You announce this agenda as if it were some kind of secret subversive plot.
    
    Yes. Yes.  I, for one, am shocked!
    
    I've followed Gerry's noting for YEARS and as far as I'm concerned, 
    the stuff about intentional insults and embarrasing comments is just so
    much sour grapes.   Your damn right he's articulate and if that causes
    you frustration maybe you ought to take an expressive writing course in
    order to keep up.
    
    /Greg
    
    

    Um, what's the movie about?

    Thelma and Louise (Susan Sarandon and Geena Davis) are two women who's
    home lives and relationships are not entirely satisfactory, who take
    off for a weekend of fun.  along the way, stuff happens and they become
    fugitives from the law.  they run for awhile.  It has been called the
    great american road movie, ala Bonnie & Clyde or Butch Cassidy and the
    Sundance Kid, but for women.  I haven't seen it yet.
    
    DougO

    I've not seen the movie, but I've read a half-dozen reviews. It's for
    women, apparently, in that women are highly likely to like it and men
    are not. However, it's certainly not a feminist movie, in that (1) the
    two protagonists are living anything but a liberated life-style as the
    movie opens, and (2) their response to their awful domestic problems is
    to go on a shoot-'em-up like any MAN would. Apparently the women don't
    act like women, e.g. one of them is entirely unforthcoming about her
    personal life and history, e.g. one of them is continually on the make.
    This is a male-buddy film adapted only by substituting persons with
    ovaries for the usual persons with gonads.
    
    - Hoyt

>    In the absence of specific evidence to the contrary I believe that the
>    quote below is illustrative of why I feel that your motivations are not
>    trustworthy.

Herb, I wish we were talking face to face.  I think that it would be 
easier for me to explain where I am coming from.

I'm human, too.  I also feel tired and anxiety ridden over the 
discussion in (what is the name of the note?) "War of the Sexes."  
Even though I don't mind talking in discussions that get heated, I 
certainly don't want to _live_ like that.  I'd have so many ulcers 
that I'd have to have my stomach removed.

I just wanted to talk about movies, that's all.  Movies, to me, are 
fun.  I suppose I could have talked about the male bonding scenes in 
"City Slickers," but "Thelma and Louise" does seem to be the movie 
that most people are talking about (it's on the cover of 2 national 
magazines and has a major article in the third).

I'm really not a monster, Herb.  You've seen a side of me that you 
don't like.  But I can also be a really, _really_ nice guy, too.

I am not my notes.

						--Gerry

>    He is a very articulate man and that I feel causes a lot of frustration
>    among our brethren. 

And you accuse _me_ of being on a mission!?!  

I'm a bit floored by this attack.  I really, _really_ thought that, 
overall, I was mellowing out, that I was not as judgemental and 
hard-headed as I used to be.  And I do believe that I can get 
mellower.  But it doesn't happen overnight.  I'm working on it.

I can't believe that my character is being reduced, primarily, to one 
string of note replies.  I think I'm being judged unfairly. 


							--Gerry

    I think it's an unfair judgement too, Gerry.
    
    I have known you through the Men's Forum work and
    have heard you talk about what you are working on
    and I see it happening, and I have a lot of admiration
    for what you are doing and the path you are on.
    
    It does not bother me at all that you have an
    "agenda", in fact, I admire you for it.  And I think
    you are up-front and honest about that agenda and
    that you don't beat anyone up over it.  That gets
    a lot of respect from me, and I listen hard when you
    speak.
    
    And when you are "into" a note, exchanging replies
    hot and heavy, and someone cries "foul", I see you
    "go away" for a while, and I wait with anticipation
    for your return, because I know that you will have
    done some hard work on it, and that it is going to
    be worth reading.  Sometimes your hard work leads 
    you to a new realization about how you were relating
    and I have seen you apologize to the person or persons
    who were crying foul.  And sometimes, you realize that
    the cry of "foul" was unjustified, or a result of a
    misunderstanding of where you were coming from, and 
    you carefully restate yourself.
    
    That's what gets all my admiration.  You know where you
    are going, you are careful and considerate of others
    and you work hard at it.
    
    That's why I said that if you can't be trusted, then
    no one in this notesfile can be trusted.
    
    I took your opening question as a simple interest in
    discussing the movie.  I didn't feel that you were
    setting a trap.
    
    Wil
    

    I hope this works, because I'm not an experienced noter, so bear with
    me.....
    
    I saw the movie "Thelma and Louise" and was EXTREMELY disappointed!  I
    would not recommend it.  I was under the impression that it would be a
    'fun' movie, but was very depressed by the whole plot.
    
    I don't know if it could be termed a "Man hater" movie, Thelma has a
    very egotistical husband who wants her to be the little woman who is
    seen not heard, to be there all the time at his beck and call....things
    like that.  I honestly don't know anyone who is as much of a jerk as
    this person was!  Louise wanted to force her boyfriend to reach a
    decision regarding how much she meant to him.  Later in the movie he
    comes through for her, no questions asked, and is definately a
    fantastic friend.  
    
    Thelma was not very intelligent, and as a result, the majority of the
    scrapes they got into were her fault.  I found myself anticipating the
    really foolish things she was going to do and their repercussions
    before they even happened.  It was disappointing to find out I was
    right.  They put her is situations that anyone with any type of common
    sense would walk away from.
    
    The police officer/detective who was assigned their case, was a very
    nice character.  He wanted the most to help them out of the mess, and
    was genuine in his intentions.
    
    Those were the main characters...........I thought the whole movie was
    very unrealistic, and from the middle to the end, it was extremely
    depressing.
    
    Two thumbs down!

    	-1

    	Thanks for the review.
    
     	I never paid much attention to the movie 
    	because I wasn't too impressed with the previews I'd seen of it 
    	(looked like a grade-B movie, but with female main characters
    	instead of male).

    	After being surprised that someone said this film deals with
    	feminist agenda, I called a few friends more in pulse of women's 
    	issues than I am to get the scoop.

    	From what I gather... it is not a feminist film by any means. The
    	scenes involving a woman being raped and then sleeping with a man
    	(of her own will) the next night were especially controversial.
    	It is not an anti-male movie, as men are displayed with both good
    	and bad traits (as were the women).

    	I dunno. Unless I hear otherwise I won't see this film. The plot
    	seems to wear really thin and seems quite contrived... typical
    	summer-release movie? :-)
    
    

    RE: .20
    
    If you haven't seen _The Grifters_ yet, I recommend it. 
    
    It was playing at Copley Place in Boston on June 8th.
    
    /Greg

I thought the movie was fun.  I like road movies ("Butch Cassidy and 
the Sundance Kid," "Easy Rider," "Something Wild," and "Wild at 
Heart").

I liked some of the male characters.  I really liked the head 
detective (who was also one of the only sympathetic male characters in 
Demi Moore's "Mortal Thoughts," also playing a policeman).  I liked 
Sarandon's boyfriend.  And I liked the hitchhiker (and disagreed with 
some friends as to whether he was a "positive" male character in the 
film; I thought he was okay).  Davis' husband and the truck driver 
were cartoons, so I laughed at them and didn't take them seriously as 
Men.

Although I didn't think that the movie was man-hating (Thelma and 
Louise never attacked a man who didn't attack them first; they never 
violently went after men just for the sake of "getting a man"), it 
is...different...watching a movie with no sympathetic leading man.  
Watching Hollywood movies for years, it's not what I'm used to.

I also think that it is very difficult to understand the events of the
film outside of the whole context of what was happening in the plot.
The movie is a road movie (which are usually summer-action movies, not
much in the cerebellum department).  You know, two buddies make a bad
decision and hit the road to try to find their salvation. But there is
something really new, exciting, and exhiliarating about the growing
sense of freedom and power that these women begin to feel.  And it is
rare to see this happen to women as main characters in a film. 

Spoiler:


Outside the context of the film, a woman choosing to have sex one 
night after a rape doesn't make sense.  Also, the criticism that women 
probably would have shared their secrets with each other (instead of 
Sarandon refusing to tell the story of what happened to her in Texas) 
is probably more realistic.  The same goes for the criticism that a 
friend of mine used against the movie: "Their driving through the yark 
and knocking over the clothes line [a scene that I've seen in 100 
car-chase movies; what about the "Blues Brothers," for god sakes] was 
dangerous because there could have been kids in the yard."  It's very 
true.

But it does't fit what was happening at that point in the movie.  They 
were desperate.  They were wanted by the law.  And everything felt 
very accelerated.  There wasn't a lot of free time to sit quietly, 
reflect, and chat.  

Here's a good explanation [from "Time" magazine] as to why it "works" 
that Sarandon never explains what happens to her in Texas and why 
Davis decides to sleep with the hitchhiker so soon after an attempted 
rape:

	"...'The violence I liked in a way,' says Sarandon, "because
	 it is primal, and it doesn't solve anything."

	"[The event in Texas] is blessedly unexplained.  In the 
	 aftermath of the killing, we do learn that something
	 dreadful happened to Louise years ago.  Obviously, it was
	 some kind of sexual assault, but she never reveals it's
	 exact nature.  This, of course, runs counter to the 
	 conventions of popular culture.  If this were the TV-rape-
	 movie-of-the-month, a hysterical revelation of the exact
	 nature of the abuse--expecially if it were, say, gang
	 rape or years of incest--would be obligatory in order
	 to balance the moral scales.

	"Such an explanation would have quelled much of the "male
	 bashing" criticism leveled at the movie.  But it would also 
	 have cheapened the movie in some measure, suggesting that
	 some kinds of sexual violence grant their victims murderous 
	 entitlements while others do not.  By leaving Louise's 
	 mystery intact, the film implies that all forms of sexual
	 violence, great or small, are consequential and damaging.

	 [and about Thelma:]

	 "Literalists criticize Thelma's erotic awakening
	  because, they say, it could not happen so soon after
	  the trauma of near rape.  Doubtless that would be true
	  in circumstances less special than the ones the movie
	  sets up.  The point it's insisting on is that a sudden
	  access of freedom is eroticizing as well as empowering.

	 [And this about taking the film in general:]

	 "This [unselfconscious quality], indeed, is its salient 
	  redeeming quality.  If it were as certain and as clummsy 
	  about what it was up to as its more virulent critics think 
	  it is, it might easily have been as overbearing--and as 
	  deadly--as some oftheir interpretations of it are.  It is
	  not, though and anyone with a sense of recent film history
	  can see the movie in the honorable line of movies whose
	  makers, without quite knowing what they were doing, sank
	  a drill into what appeared to be familiar American soil
	  and found that they had somehow tapped into a wild-rushing
	  subterranean stream of inchoate outrage and deranged
	  violence [I _like_ deranged violence in a movie!]. "Bonnie
	  and Clyde," and "Easy Rider," "Dirty Harry" and "Fatal
	  Attraction"--all those movies began as attempts to vary
	  and freshen traditional generic themes but ended up 
	  taking their creators, and their audiences, on trips
	  much deeper, darker, more disturbing than anyone imagined
	  they were going to make...And (best thing about these films
	  really) they have a way of driving some people--the ones who
	  think movies ought to be a realistic medium or an 
	  ideologically correct one--crazy.

	 "Should we care (that they aren't realistic or correct)? As
	  Barbara Bunker, who teaches psychology at the State 
	  University of New York, Buffalo, very sensibly notes, "It's
	  a dramatic piece, not a [literal] description of what's
	  going on in our society.  It seems to me that drama is
	  supposed to make things larger than life so you get the
	  point."  Agrees Regina Barreca, who teaches English at
	  the University of Connecticut and is the author of "They
	  Used to Call Me Snow White...But I Drifted," a book
	  about women and humor: "It has got to be seen not as
	  a cultural representation but as a fairy tale."  In other
	  words, as a dream work, full of archetypes and 
	  exaggerations.


I think I'm having more fun with all the articles on the movie than I 
did with the movie itself.  And I really liked the movie.  I like 
something that is quirky and really hard to pin down.


							--Gerry	

    Eric, I wish you wouldn't try to review films you haven't seen.
    
    I liked this film, would give it a 7.5 out of ten, did not see it
    as a man-hating film, thought the acting of Geena Davis, Susan
    Sarandon, and everyone else was very good. I also did not see the
    truck driver or the character of Harlan as charactures, as I have
    met guys just like them both, I hate to say. Ridley Scott used
    atmosphere in a very interesting way, as well. I thought most of
    the film as very believable.
    
    The ending of the film was too over-the-top for me, and the film lost
    some of it's credibility for me then. It was a too self-concious effort
    to become mythic.
    
    The film is not just a buddy-road picture with women substituted for
    men. It was about women in trouble. It is not just another 'summer
    release' film; there is a good deal that is original and creative
    in this film, with some good character development and depictions.
    
    -roger
    

    Sorry, I'll have to wait to tell you when it comes out on video. :')
    
    
    Mike aka "couch potato"
    
    Nah, really it has to be a comedy or something I'm really interested in
    (Backdraft) for me to shell out that kind of money for a movie.  All
    you who use the phrase "putting out fires" go see backdraft and then
    tell me.....I hate that expression.

    
    	Not to worry Roger, my reply clearly stated that those were my
    	impressions from the previews and not from the film itself.
    
    	I'll let you know what my impressions are when I see the film...
    	on cable. :-)
    
    	Just saw "Nuns on the Run" on HBO. Boy am I glad I didn't throw
    	$7 after that film, oy, yet another disappointment...  
    

    Well, I'm a very erudite person with very refined tastes :^), and my wife
    is even more refined.  But I got her to go see "Nuns on the Run" in 
    exchange for my going to some artsy-fartsy movie (which I enjoyed 
    immensely).  Well, let me say, the person who got absolutely the
    silliest in the whole theater was my wife.  It was almost embarrassing.
    It was well worth the money to see her screaming with laughter at such
    low humor.  I got pretty silly myself.  I think the movie works better
    with an audience.  It might not work so well at home with little
    resonance from lower types in the audience.  :^)
    
    						- Vick

[Blush of embarrassment] I paid to see "Nuns on the Run."  I got 
burned on that one.

Also, to tip my hat to what Erik is saying, I almost couldn't get my 
friend to see the movie because he thought the preview was so stupid.  
And he ended up loving the movie.  But we have this running joke about 
the preview:

	Thelma says, "Ya-hoo!"
	Louise says, "Ya-Hoo!!"
	They both say, "Ya-HOO!!!"
	And then they blow up a truck.

I've been sending him E-Mail messages that just say:

	"Ya-HOO"  (*BLAM*)


						--Gerry

    There are 3 reasons why I "have" to see this movie. One is that
    my wife's name in Thelma and my mother's was Louise. An other is
    that the previews looked fairly interesting and funny. The third is
    to make up my mind for myself what all the fuss in media, Usenet (you
    should read what they're saying about it in talk.guns.politics), and
    notes.
    
    			Alfred

It's been a long time since I've seen such moaning and wailing in the press
about a movie, and I find it rather peculiar that so many seem to be
reeling in horror about "man-bashing" in this film, when for so many years
movies have tended to treat women like dirt.  Maybe if for the next thirty
years all we saw were movies where men get "blown away" by women, there
might be cause for concern, but I'm not going to get excited over one film
which simply reverses the roles of men and women of any one of hundreds
of earlier films.

Sometimes I wonder if all the fuss is a deliberate ploy to increase ticket
sales.  I'm sure that the producers are laughing all the way to the bank!

I haven't seen the movie in question and don't have plans to do so, so I
won't comment on the film itself.

				Steve

    
    I've seen this movie, and I loved it.
    
    For me the key themes were female friendship, growth, change in
    self-perception......a keynote line for me was "something's crossed
    over in me, and I can't go back"....
    
    I was so excited by seeing these female themes shown through the
    movie that I hardly gave the men's roles a thought.
    There were the typical mysogenistic stereotypes who, for a change,
    did get to deal with the consequences of their actions.
    There were some "good" men too to balance that out.
    
    I also thought the soundtrack was excellent, and the scenery was
    very lovely.
    
    'gail

    I saw the movie, I enjoyed it. It made minor commentary on
    men-woman relationships. I didn't find it man hating, maybe
    jerk hating.
    
    			-Jim-

           <<< Note 605.32 by GLDOA::KATZ "Follow your conscience" >>>
>
>    I saw the movie, I enjoyed it. It made minor commentary on
>    men-woman relationships. I didn't find it man hating, maybe
>    jerk hating.
    
    Isn't that what a lot of movies and TV shows are about lately, Jerks 
who should get the short end of life for a change? (Sorry, I don't enjoy 
much TV or  many movies.....mostly for the reason expressed....)

    Vic

PS:On the other hand, I am glad to see a movie where the woman is something 
more than cute/useless/dumb/helpless/manipulative/etc/etc/etc.....It sounds 
like this movie fits that description.

    I don't think it was man-hating. Male-truck-driver-hating, maybe.
    
    It's very funny. The relationship between the two central characters is
    very well done. I'd recommend it highly.
    
    	Andrew.

    Well, I saw it after reading the recommendations here.
    
    I wish I had not seen it.  I found it sad and depressing.
    
    I don't think it was man-hating.  I think it was
    society-hating.  "The world is all screwed up,
    let's escape, get drunk, blow away what we can,
    including ourselves."
    
    The only two "decent" men in the movie are totally
    ineffective.  They can say sympathetic things, but
    they can't change what happens.
    
    Thelma "crosses over" after being raped, screwed,
    robbed and after drinking a LOT of Wild Turkey.
    
    Some small steps forward:  they throw the empty
    booze bottles in the rear seat in order not to 
    litter!  There is a policewoman in one of the 
    chase cars.
    
    Do we make movies like this because society is
    this screwed up, or is society this screwed up
    because we make movies like this?  Does this 
    movie make things better or worse?
    
    Wil

    
    >Do we make movies like this because society is
    >this screwed up, or is society this screwed up
    >because we make movies like this?  
    
    I think we make them because they reflect experiences, or fantasies,
    or release feelings that many of us have in common because of our
    shared experience of living in this society. 
    I'm not sure that this means that our society is particularly
    screwed up - just that "civilized" social living in this century is a 
    strain, and certain "hotpoints" are shared by many and can be used as 
    communal releasers in our efforts to stay sane.
                                                   
    >Does this movie make things better or worse?
    
    I think it makes things better.
    Before you can change things you need to become aware that there's
    a problem. I think that movies like this that deal with today's
    "hotpoints" can help to motivate change - if it does this in only
    a few of the audience then it's a few more people working to change
    our world.....
    
    'gail
    
    
    

                                                   
>    >Does this movie make things better or worse?
>    
>    I think it makes things better.

I agree.  Not so much because it has a powerful impact on changing 
society, but because it allows people to feel about, think about, and 
empathize about the darker and more upsetting aspects of life without 
having to risk trying them out.  

I made a similar comment about the Mapplethorpe exhibit, that it 
allows people to relate to a risky and widely misunderstood behavior 
in a relatively safe environment.

For two hours, you can empathize with what it might be like for two 
women to respond to violence with violence before they are subsumed by 
their own bad decisions and by a system that doesn't provide healthier 
outlets for powerful women.

...and, maybe, after thinking about it for a while, people might be 
motivated to so small things, in small ways, in our everyday lives, to 
let women be a little more wild and free.


							--Gerry

    Yeah.  I see your point, 'gail.  The movie certainly
    illuminated a problem.  And so maybe it woke up a few
    people in the audience.
    
    I guess I would have liked some glimmer of hope behind
    the illumination.  
    
    The final resolution of the problem for the women is to 
    (literally) ride off the edge of the world, ie, escape.
    
    The final resolution of the problem for the men is summed
    up by the stoned (black) bicyclist blowing smoke from his joint 
    through the bullethole (made by the women) for the trapped
    and sniveling authority figure roasting in the trunk of his
    police cruiser in the middle of the desert.   And I found
    myself laughing hardest at this point.
    
    Was there anything hopeful?
    
                                    Wil

    I guess I'll have to wait for "Thelma and Louise, Part II"
    for the hopeful segments?    Next summmer...

    
    	Wil,
    
    	You know personally I'm waiting for "Thlema and Lousie - 
    	The Next Generation".  :-)
    
    	-Erik
    

So is Sigourney Weaver going to play the title character in "Terminator 3"?
That would be interesting....

				Steve

    Weaver is going to play in another Alien movie, with a 'brush cut'
    hair cut.
    
    BJ

    Wil:
    
    I don't understand why 'hopeful' is necessary in a movie. To me,
    that would be the old, happy-ending syndrome that made Walt Disney
    and many others famous. 'Truthful' is a more important quality to me,
    and whether that truth is happy or sad is really irrelevent, as long
    as that truth reveals.
    
    -roger
    

    Roger,
    
    I guess I agree with you that 'truthful' is more important
    than 'hopeful.'  This movie drags you into the truth, without
    any doubt, and I don't want to run away from the truth even
    when it is painful.
    
    By 'hopeful', I don't mean a happy ending.  Thelma's husband
    is not going to go from bad-ass to saint, Louise's man-friend
    and the sympathetic cop are not going to get her off with a
    suspended sentence, the women and their men partners are not
    going to walk off into the sunset, hand-in-hand.  I agree 
    with you, that would be a trash ending to an otherwise
    'truthful' movie.
    
    But I don't get any message that says, "Here is how bad it can
    be for some people, and yet even at this level of badness, there
    is the possibility that it can be turned around, and something
    better can happen, albeit with a lot of work and against the
    odds."
    
    Instead, I get the message, "Here is how bad it can be for some
    people, and if you (the woman) try to do anything about it, 
    here is how much worse it can get, and in the end, you will
    either suffer worse than you are suffering or you will welcome
    death."
    
    For a woman who is ALREADY "out of" that scene, who is already
    liberated, who is already capable of avoiding that snake-pit
    that Thelma is in, the movie may be a real blast, because she
    can revel in the freedom and joy of the joyride, and she can
    take the rape, screwing, robbery, boozing, etc at a kind of
    metaphorical level, and the "release" that comes at the end
    is a kind of endorsement of her own freedom, perhaps hard-won,
    and so it gives her a shot of self-pride.   She knows that 
    this can be changed, because she has changed it for herself.
    
    But I have known a couple of women who were (and still are)
    in situations like Thelma's, and they are so beaten down in
    spirit, that I don't think they can see this movie and get
    anything but more scared, more angry, more depressed, and
    more helpless.  They are holding tightly to the little bit
    that they can control.  Often it is their kids, sometimes
    it is a job that gives them some satisfaction, sometimes it
    is some kind of "goodness" that they can pour out in some
    little way in school, neighborhood, church.
    
    They have friends who urge them to be more assertive, to
    fight back, to DEMAND that their husbands change, etc.
    Like anyone who has kept something locked up inside themselves
    for years, their fear is that once they let out their assertiveness,
    their anger, their demand to be treated better, that they will
    go "crazy," that they will not be able to control it, that they
    will be out of control (a terrible fear) and if they think 
    beyond that fear, that they will lose everything, including the
    few things that they have.   Often these husbands have guns,
    and they are afraid that they will end up using their husband's
    gun on him, because THEY DON'T KNOW ANY OTHER WAY TO FIGHT.
    It looks to them that if they let themselves feel their anger
    they would not be able to stop themselves from blowing him away.
    
    So what does this movie tell them?  It says, "Hey, leave him a
    note on the microwave, and have a fun few days with your girl
    friend.  Let him shift for himself."  Then, an hour later the
    movie is telling them that after
    you have gone out of control, been raped, screwed, robbed, after
    you have committed armed robbery, locked a cop in the trunk of his
    cruiser, blown up a gasoline truck, and left a hundred miles of
    highway littered with wrecked police cruisers, all that is left
    for you and your best friend is to drive off the edge of the
    world.  "That's what it leads to, little lady.  That's what will
    happen if you get out of line."
    
    I think the women that I know would "decide", without admitting
    it aloud, that they had best hunker down, count their small 
    blessings, and keep their mouths shut. 
    
    What I wanted was some kind of hope, some kind of escape for
    Thelma via some kind of empowerment.  (and some kind of escape
    for Louise from a haunting memory that she has kept locked up
    until, when she lets it surface, causes her to "blow away"
    the rapist.)  See how this movie feeds a beaten woman's worst
    fears?
    
    Wil

        re .31, "and the scenery was very lovely."
        
        Oh yes, this movie had the best backgrounds I've seen
        since Silver Streak.  As a Massachusetts resident I need
        to be reminded sometimes just how much natural beauty
        there is in this country. :-) [just teasing, folks!]
        I've got to spend a couple weeks touring this country
        sometime.
        
        Dan

    
    "T&L" is opening here in the UK this week - there's been a lot
    of media coverage, anything from  "Film 91" (the most
    respected film guide on television) to "Spare Rib"....
    
    In "Time Out" (the weekly London events guide) there was a
    discussion with Ridley Scott where he raised a point that I
    found illuminating....
    
    Basically, he said that Thelma and Louise's trip is a "last
    journey" - sort of an odyssey in the mythic tradition - and
    that the events and people they meet along the way are
    archetypes....
    
    This made sense to me. Archetypes are not the same as sterotypes,
    but they are symbols rather than individuals - would this
    account for the view of the male characters as relatively
    "shallow", in your opinion?
    
    'gail

    The "rescue" of the policeman from the trunk of his cruiser
    had some kind of statement in it.  (The story could have left
    him there, or could have showed another cruiser coming along
    to investigate why the radio transmission failed.)  The fact
    that he is rescued by a black man riding a bicycle, dressed
    in gaudy colors, puffing on a huge joint, and that the black
    man first blows smoke into the trunk of the cruiser is mythic
    stuff.  I would say that the black man is the jester, the
    trickster, the court clown, telling authority (the king) to 
    cool it.   I laughed hardest at this point.
    
    And the herd of police vehicles, near the end, traveling at
    high speed across the desert, all in a line, also seemed
    surreal, but I don't have the myth to relate it to.
    
    And of course the final "flight" is a release from the 
    groundedness of being  in the world, and being subject to
    all the trials and tribulations of the world as defined by men.
    
    But if Ridley Scott is using the archetype/myth argument to
    divert attention from what the movie says about how to live
    (or how to avoid living) as a woman in a grounded world, then 
    I think he is puffing hard on his own joint and blowing smoke 
    in our faces.  He becomes the trickster himself, and in effect,
    the movie then becomes his joke on the audience.
    
    Are you laughing or are you angry?  Is he the good trickster
    or is he the evil trickster?  (Every archetype has a "good"
    and an "evil" side.)
    
    Wil

    First of all, I read somewhere that Geena Davis said that men offended
    by this film are identifying with the wrong character. I wouldn't have
    put it like that, but can see what she means...
    
    Secondly, I'm glad I didn't read this topic before I saw the film. I'd
    know how it ends, and I'd know about most of the "surprises" along the
    way. Perhaps the title of the string could be changed to include a
    spoiler alert?
    
    Lastly, without seeing the film again and doing an exact count, it
    seemed to me that there were more stereotypes than archetypes.
    
    	Andrew.

    The 'mythic' part for me was the lamest part of the film; when
    a film-maker conciously reaches for it, it doesn't work. The
    film started to go downhill for me at the exact point that
    the dope-smoking bicyclist showed up.
    
    It is one thing to present an archtype; it is another to illuminate
    some aspect of it in an original way, with some insight attached.
    
    I happened to see "Rebel Without A Cause" for the first time in many
    years this weekend; it is pure Robert Bly material, that became
    mythic because it struck a common nerve and resonated, by presenting
    a small down-to-earth story, by staying in the real. Talk about no
    male role models, and trying to mentor oneself!
    
    -roger
    
    

I only see movies about every six months or so; last fall it was Ghost,
last winter it was Dances with Wolves.  Friday I saw Thelma and Louise.

I walked out of that movie trying not to cry.  My SO was really upset, too.
Not being a videophile, I've found that the emotional impact of a movie can
hit you really hard if you're not used to having your emotions jerked around.
I'm not hardened to all the deaths in modern filmmaking.  OK, that was first.

Trying to come to terms with it; there's always a need to suspend disbelief.
I found that suspension very easy in this movie.  Everything that happened
(apart from the ending, which I'll discuss separately) I could easily see as
happening sometime, somewhere, to someone.  There are (how many?) women married
to ignorant, dominating, infantile men like Thelma's husband.  There are (how
many?) urban cowboy bar hustlers who'd knowingly spin a woman around until she
got sick, to get her alone; who'd rape her given the chance.  There are (how
many?) women who've been pushed around so many times that one final time, 
sassed by the attempted rapist, would trigger rage.  And so on down the chain 
of events; ignorance, bad luck, bad timing, unfortunate history, the whole
thing could happen.  Scott was making a statement about what kinds of buttholes
men can be, and are, out there in the real world.  All of those men EXIST; most
women who meet them don't dare fight back against them, because the system won't
support them.  Louise knew that.  Once she'd fought back, she knew she had to
run.  That was the lesson her life had taught her "in Texas".

And during the running, the freedom they found!  Nothing left to lose.  They
didn't want to hurt that state trooper; and they didn't.  They didn't mind
teaching a trucker a lesson; and they did.  In both cases, the ignorance and
arrogance of the men, dealing with women, was breathtakingly normal.  (Some) 
men act that way because they can usually get away with it.  Swaggering around
in his uniform, or leering from the truck window; those men were just asking to
be taken down a peg.  Thelma and Louise merely obliged.

Well, so much for the logic of movies.  Its way past time for moviemakers to
begin to explore the capriciousness of the ordinary male and the limits (broken
in this movie) that such boorishness often places on an ordinary female.  I hope
that Scott's movie makes people think about what women have to put up with, for
a little while.  Lord knows not enough men are willing to admit it happens.

DougO