Thelma & Louise (Ridley Scott, 1991)

"I don't ever remember feeling this awake." 

Introduction

This was my achilles heel. The conversation would begin whereby the group sing the praises of Ridley Scott. I love Alien. I love Blade Runner. I love Gladiator. I love Black Hawk Down. Then, some smart-alec claims how they love Thelma & Louise. I would sit in silence. I haven't seen that one. Until now.

As a man, this film seems to stand up and shout: "If you are a man and you act like a man ... then you can fu** off". In all it's angry intonations, this is what I believe is at the core of Thelma & Louise. Anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves. Women are beautiful creatures - as stunning as the landscapes our titular characters drive past. Men pass down the highways, oblivious to the beauty, and instead simply dominate the roads with their hulking bodies, shaped like trucks. From the outset, it is clear that there is more beneath the surface of Thelma & Louise; Louise (Susan Sarandon) has clearly been through something exceptionally heart-breaking; the abuse which Thelma (Geena Davies) has faced for years in a loveless marriage doesn't bear thinking about. With regard to Thelma, it is no surprise she is naive to the intentions of men as she has needed to block out the horrendous treatment from her husband for years.

Rape

Sexist attitudes can often emerge within (what people believe) is a grey-area when discussing rape. Released in 1991, the conversation regarding who is at "fault" was much more prevalent. The opening-act set-up shows Thelma dancing "cheek-to-cheek" with Harlan (Timothy Carhart) and, as he propositions her, her rejection transforms him from a seedy, lecherous man into a rapist. Or, more honestly, he was always a rapist. No transformation - no discussion. Harlan is a rapist. End of.

In the same argument, you can play with "Who is responsible for the theft of the money". Thelma's attraction to JD (Brad Pitt) lead to the wired money being stolen. Was Thelma foolish for falling for JD in the first place? Shouldn't she have thought ahead before opening her door to a stranger - however attractive he is? And, as I understand, Brad Pitt in Thelma & Louise is the definition of an attractive-male.

The truth is that just as Harlan is a rapist, JD is a thief. Thelma isn't responsible in either case - the men are. Too often, people will transfer the blame, but it is clear that in both cases, men are at fault. Indeed, when you then reflect on the sequence involving sexist men stating how "women love that shit", you realise men seem to be given a pass on such attitudes. Even now, 22 years on, has it stopped? It should stop - and like Louise, we should be angry about it.

Ridley Scott-isms

But this is by no means 'alien' (badum-tish!) to Ridley Scott's style of film-making. A stunning shot passing across the '66 Thunderbird seems to hark straight back to Alien, whilst the transition from a sunny-road to a rainy urban-street to reveal Jimmy returning home doesn't seem a far stretch from the type of pan-shots in Blade Runner. Indeed, the fact that Ridley supported the change-in-gender of the lead-character of Alien also supports his pro-feminism attitudes.

But the film remains an established classic due to the brutally honest attitude towards sexism. Louise, who is clearly intelligent and incredibly aware of the inequality within society is also tragically cynical - and carries her own cross to bear from a time in Texas. Thelma seems naive - but is, more likely, keen to keep a positive spin on life and refuses to be dogged-down by the ills of society. Men, on the other hand, are shown as desperate for power - primarily power over women, but additionally over each other.

The question that hovers over the film is the finale as Thelma and Louise, rather than give themselves up, decide to drive off the stunning cliff-faces of Arkansas. Are we to believe that there is no way out of our sexist, animalistic ways? Can we ever exist in an equal society, whereby women and men are seen as the same? Or are we destined to pass the blame of our own gender-issues onto each other ...

Originally published/written for Man, I Love Films on 7 March 2013

Terminator 2: Judgment Day (James Cameron, 1991)

"On August 29th, 1997, it's gonna feel pretty fucking real to you too. Anybody not wearing 2 million sunblock is gonna have a real bad day. Get it?"

Introduction

Randomly, I bought this before watching The Terminator. Reason being that I was going through the early-DVD phase of my life and, in a tin box ... with loads of special features ... a 'classic' film I hadn't seen ... I had to buy it. Ironically, I am sure that this film marked the end of my watch-the-film-and-special-features-all-in-one-go phase ... so many special features, many of which are relentlessly dull, simply stalled me pretty soon and I decided I'd bail on the special features, content that I'd watched a 'classic' film. Then I watched it again when Sarah's Mum visited. Lets see what we can pull from the 'flames' of Terminator 2: Judgement Day.

Future before Modern Day

So, in the same way as its predecessor, the opening delivers the background to 'The Terminator' whilst also setting the scene for entire film itself. As if the previous film did not exist, this film sets Sarah Connor up, now as narrator explaining the nuclear war that killed the vast majority of humans. The nuclear war still happens, the future is still set - and this film is about stopping the nuclear war from happening - opposed to the previous film whereby the focus is Sarah Connors survival to give birth to John Connor, the leader of the resistance. Cameron explands the universe and, as if in a dreamlike-state, we are walked through this nuclear attack: childrens play on swings, the laughter and fun drowned out by the intense light and heat destroying all human kind. This is Sarah Connor's fear - and, the storm clouds that approached at the end of The Terminator has clearly hit home as she is currently in an asylum, whilst her son - John Connor - is a rebellious youth.

Rehash and Renew

In the same way as in The Terminator, he returns in the same way - his point-of-view tinted in red whith details highlighthing his actions. The clock-like 'tick-tock' soundtrack beating as he makes his move. He even finds his 'look' very quick -finding leather and sunglasses to update his style. This is within 10 minutes. I heard the following information from Andy and john on The Hollywood Saloon. If you can imagine watching  Terminator 2: Judgement Day up until he confronts John Connor, you are - again - unsure about his motives. You are supposed to think he is the same terminator, with the same motives - on a rampage and killing John Connor... but things have changed. The terminator has a new motive - he has, in fact, been sent to protect. This is lost on so many people now because the terminator is seen as the protector - the same role played in Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines.

Hope and Humanism

I believe this film has a primary focus on how humans and their personal perspectives is what needs to be valued. There is 'no fate' - no inevitable options. Humans "have feelings" and are "afraid". It is these emotions that stop hope from blooming. But then again, it is these emotions that make people reflect on their actions. T2 builds on the argument set-up in T1 ...captialism and a lack-of-foresight into the effects industrialism. The SKYNET company is given more depth - that one hand being the reason for the quick evolution of technology. We know Cameron's very pro-nature attitude and this is clear in this film too - but it is our ignorance of the bigger-issues that is the concern. We are all responsible.

Miles Dyson - the scientist directly involved in the development of the technology that will, in turn, create the war on Judgement Day - is a good guy. He has a family. He has children. He could be anyone who simply wants to be successful - who doesn't want to be successful?

When Sarah Connor finishes the film, narrating over the ongoing road ahead - she ends on a message of hope - "If a machine, a terminator, can learn the value of life, maybe we can too". The question is - who is she talking to? The Terminator himself? Or the clueless development of military machinery and nuclear power - are they not terminators themselves? Putting the cogs together for someone, with less good intentions, to use. Is that too much depth? Who supplies the armies in the middle-east with their weapons? Technology can be a dengerous thing in the wrong hands ...