Facultat de Filosofia i Lletres Memòria del Treball de Fi de Grau
Thelma and Louise (1991) and Masculine Representation
Lucía Savino
Grau d’Estudis Anglesos
Any acadèmic 2020-21
DNI de l’alumne: X4698212W
Treball tutelat per Eugenio Guillermo Iglesias Díaz Departament de Filologia Espanyola, Moderna i Clàssica
S'autoritza la Universitat a incloure aquest treball en el Repositori Institucional per a la seva consulta en accés obert i difusió en línia, amb finalitats exclusivament
acadèmiques i d'investigació
Autor Tutor Sí No SíNo
Paraules clau del treball:
Hegemonic masculinity, abuse, power dynamic.
Abstract
This paper examines the masculine representation in the 80’s classic Thelma and Louise (1991) and its relation with hegemonic masculinity and profiles of abuse. The rise of Critical Male Studies (CSM) as an academic field in the last few decades has contributed to the rise of revisions and analysis of cultural texts that portray gender inequalities and significant
representations of patriarchal dynamics. Thelma and Louise (1991), considered by many as a classic of feminist cinema, has been the subject of many academical discussions since it was released. Although the gendered dimension of the film has been the central topic of many of these investigations, not many of them present an analysis of its depiction of masculinity.
Through an in-depth analysis of the five main male characters, this paper aims to explore the problematic nature of these representations and demonstrate their role as pillars of the patriarchal structure.
Key words: Hegemonic masculinity, abuse, power dynamic
Table of Contents
Introduction ... 1
Hegemonic Masculinity: a Toxic Male Discourse ... 2
The Evolution of Masculinity in Cinema: from abusers to father figures ... 3
Case Study: Analysis of the Male Characters in Thelma and Louise (1991) ... 6
Darryl or the Domestic Abuser ... 6
The Figure of the Rapist ... 7
The Greek God Archetype: a shift in cinematic gaze ... 9
Johnny: The Problematic Partner ... 11
Hal Slocumb or the Figure of the Failing Hero ... 12
Conclusion ... 14
Works Cited ... 15
Introduction
In its beginnings, cinema was little more than a fair spectacle designed to entertain and inspire curiosity and excitement in the population. However, it has come a long way since then. The cinematic phenomenon, which started in France at the end of the nineteenth century, quickly became a global sensation, eventually spreading to North America, where it expanded into institutions as prolific as Hollywood. Nowadays cinema represents one of the most important industries of our time, as well as a great economic power that moves millions of dollars every year. Being the film industry so ideologically powerful, it is no surprise that it has become one of the main state apparatuses of our culture. With a great variety of genres and storytelling styles, films have the power to reproduce and affect cultural discourses and ideas in the common immaginnery of society.
During the twentieth century, cinema experienced an exponential growth in movie production that led to a high release rate of new movies in its last few decades. The decade of the ‘80s has been described as one of the most prolific in cinematic production of the century, where many of today’s Hollywood classics were born. Iconic movies such as The Breakfast Club (1985), Blood Simple (1984), or Dirty Dancing (1987) were released during this period.
This decade also brought attention to newer genres that were already popular in the ‘70s, such as science fiction, with films such as Blade Runner (1984) or noir cinema, with the continuation of The Godfather saga or staples of the genre such as Scarface (1983).
Another genre that got a lot of attention during the 80s decade was the buddy movie genre, where, especially in this decade and after, started intersecting with other genres such as westerns, comedies, or road movies (Mick, 1996). An example of the latter is Thelma and Louise (1991) which revolutionized the genre being one of the firsts to introduce females as the protagonists while breaking many of the molds that this subgenre had established.
This film is one of the most iconic movies in cinema history to deal with the female experience and it has been considered by many as a feminist classic from the moment of its release. Dealing with issues of feminist concern and the overall experience of two women traveling within a social structure that oppresses them, the movie received varied criticism due to the events it portrays. Most of the male film critics, such as Richard Johnson accused the movie of male-bashing and misrepresentation of masculinity (quoted in Collins et al. 1993, 120) while critics like John Leo called it “a fascist version of feminism” (quoted in Collins et al.
1993, 120). Most of the criticism coming from female cinema reviewers dealt with the tragical end and the hopelessness it implied regarding the advance of the feminist movement (Saphiro
1991, 43). The complex social nature of this film invites further reviews and analysis decades after its release, making it one of the most emblematic movies under the feminist eye. There has been a variety of material written around this film and the dilemmas it tackles, from the possibility of a queer undertone in the movie, the psychological state of the protagonists, to questioning the realism of the film itself, but there has been little analysis on the male characters of this film and the roles they represent.
In order to address the topic of masculine roles in the movie, I have divided this dissertation into three different sections. The first one will provide a brief examination of the concept of hegemonic masculinity, in which I discuss several ideas that I consider should be considered when analyzing male roles in film. In the second section, I focus on how this idea of masculinity and its deviations has been represented in cinema, dealing with the most common archetypes through the analysis of their evolution in film history. Lastly, in the third section, I offer a representative case study of the five main male characters in Thelma and Louise (1991) which proves the thesis of this paper: their inherent relation with a hegemonic version of masculinity that although varied, still represent the supporting pillars of the patriarchal system.
Hegemonic Masculinity: a Toxic Male Discourse
Since this paper focuses on male characters and their role within an oppressive gendered society, discussing the configuration of masculinity is crucial to gain a better understanding of their importance in Thelma and Louise (1991). It has been in the last fifty years that there has been a rise of academic papers and studies within the sociological and cultural fields that have given a lot of attention to the concept of masculinity and how problematic it is within the patriarchal context. The interest in this problem was cued mainly by the Women’s Liberation Movement at the end of the 1960s and the perpetual growth of feminist research on the notions of “sex roles” and gender definitions. However, the existence of the Gay Liberation movement critiquing the existence of a heteronormative notion of gender was also relevant. These issues led to the rise of the Critical Studies on Men (CSM) as a response to these social critiques, creating a field of studies that would address masculinity and men in the context of power relations linked to gender-based problematics.
The concept of hegemonic masculinity is decisive in this discussion. First coined by Connell in 1995. This term aims to describe the primary traits or general configuration that the performance of masculinity has within the gender-biased sociocultural context that the patriarchy is, in comparison with other subordinated performances of masculinity. This
approach to the concept does not ignore the differences that the term itself conveys in terms of class, ethnicity, age, and the relationship with women. It rather tries to acknowledge this variability and differences within men in the patriarchal western society.
After the popularization of the concept, and it standardization after the 1990s, Mike Donaldson (1993) started a conversation that incited the reviewing of this concept. He argued that not only it brought up certain contradictions within the discussion of men and power, but it also failed to reflect the whole autonomy of the gender system. Donaldson points out the difficulty in finding a practice that was non-hegemonic within masculine performance since the system continued to benefit and favor maleness over femininity: “is it a cultural ideal? Does it come from cultural images? Or is it a fantasy? Is it toughness, aggressive- ness, violence? Or is it corporate respectability? Is it simply heterosexist homophobia? Is it the rather general persistence of patriarchal gender arrangements?” (Donaldson 1993, 12). Jeff Hear, when discussing Donaldson’s claims, redefines the importance of the connection between hegemony and masculinity by saying that “The hegemony of men seeks to address the double complexity that men are both a social category formed by the gender system and dominant collective and individual agents of social practices” (Hear 2004, 68)
Therefore, after many years of use, this term and its definition has been profoundly explored and redefined. As authors in the field have commonly described it, hegemonic masculinity is both a personal representation and a projection of social structure that interact with each other. Understanding this, we can say that hegemonic masculinity is a form of masculinity idealized by our culture that thrives in hierarchical differences. Mike Donaldson gives an interesting perspective when he defines it as “exclusive, anxiety-provoking, internally and hierarchically differentiated, brutal, and violent. It is pseudo-natural, tough, contradictory, crisis-prone, rich, and socially sustained. While centrally connected with the institutions of male dominance, not all men practice it, though most benefit from it” (Donaldson 1993, 34).
The Evolution of Masculinity in Cinema: from abusers to father figures
Once we have discussed the importance of the concept of masculinity as hegemonic and the traits it is constituted by, it is necessary to discuss how they are represented in cinema as a way to reinforce the notion of masculinity celebrated in a patriarchal society. Therefore, we will be analyzing how film history has become a powerful weapon of representation that indulges in different masculinities within its hegemony, and how these are crucial in this paper’s analysis of the male archetypes in Thelma and Louise (1991). Gutterman (1994) explores
gender identity as a notion that is strongly tied to performance. He argues that men have at their disposal a variety of scripted performances to choose from within their culture (Gutterman, 1994). This would mean that masculinity as a concept is a historically and socially charged performative discourse that individuals acquire through their cultural socialization rather than an inherently generic trait. Therefore, this is paving the way for archetypes to be born and represented in art forms such as film.
Cinema, and especially Hollywood, seeing how it constitutes a major source of global cinematic production, is not simply a form of media that works as a machine that reproduces and perpetuates all globalized notions of hegemonic masculinity (Cohan, 1997, p.36). It includes in its production of discourses, other subtypes of masculinities that show deviations from the most central and paradigmatic form of masculine dominance. These create a space for differences in male representation and contribute to the creation of a repertoire of masculine prototypes in film. However, these deviations do not necessarily constitute marginalized forms of masculinity. On the contrary, they still reinforce the masculine ideal by approaching the same gender presentation from different angles. Therefore, even if Hollywood does not only present a single perception of toxic masculinity as tough, aggressive, and with a particular enjoyment of violence, its secondary male roles still prescribe to the patriarchal form of manhood without challenging it.
As S. Jeffords explored in his publications, Hollywood films from the ’80s seem to have had an immense influence on the contemporary forms of hegemonic masculinity that we see represented in contemporary cinema. He argues that many of these films “highlighted masculinity as a violent spectacle that insisted on the external sufficiency of the male body/territory” (Jeffords, 1993, p. 246). This point is especially relevant to this study because Thelma and Louise (1991), released right after the end of this cinematically iconic decade, presents archetypes with a complexity related to the affirmations of Jeffords.
In this discussion, it is also relevant to study how culture and cinema themselves have eased the path from new masculine identities within the hegemonic discourse to appear. One important example of this phenomenon is the apparition of the new man in the 1970’s, which hoped for a more caring and involved figure of masculinity that appeared as a response to the feminist theorization of gender roles in the ‘60s and ‘70s. This figure of the new man allowed for different representations to appear in film media, from involved parental figures to caring fatherly caretakers. This figure was often characterized by its apparent rejection of domination, and they would appear to establish horizontal and non-overpowered relations with other characters. However, this figure also presented controversial attitudes. Authors such as Hanlon
have argued that these figures are still performing dominant attitudes, especially towards women (Hanlon, 2011). Although this figure was supposed to appear as a representation of masculinity outside the hegemonic portrayal and the enforcement of gender roles, it has been argued that these attitudes were only a response that presented a dimension of post-feminist masculinity (Aguirre, 2012) and that this caring masculinity should still be analyzed, since it often presented oppressive and patronizing attitudes towards women.
During the nineties, this new man came to be complemented by the apparition of the figure of the new lad, which was born in the UK and USA but that rapidly extended elsewhere.
It mainly gained visibility through a generation of magazines described as lad mags in the mid-
‘90s. The new lad as a cultural figure is, as Rosalind Gill describes, “organized around homosocial bonding and predatory and objectifying attitudes towards women”, and the magazines in which this figure was born were “a hedonistic, apparently shameless, celebration of masculinity, constructed around men's assumed obsessions with drinking, football, and heterosexual sex” (Gill 2012, 45).
This new figure paved the way for a new cinema genre to appear: the lad flicks, and these movies appear to show the different transformations and contemporary views of masculinity and laddishness presented in cinema. Lad flicks, however, do not show such an intense engagement with notions of masculine representation, like other genres as the buddy movies did in the ‘80s and ‘90s decade. This is especially relevant to mention in this analysis precisely since Thelma and Louise (1991) was one of the pioneers in this genre to represent the buddies as women, while still including in its criticism the over masculine representation that coincides with the lad archetype that we see represented in this genre.
Therefore, forms of hegemonic masculinity are reinforced and celebrated by role models and media discourses that help fortify these attitudes (Carrigan, Connell & Lee, 1985; Connell, 1990). These attitudes, as Connell argues in her studies, are closely related with the “enforced subordination of women, the marginalization of queer men, and the association of manhood with traits revolving around toughness, physical strength, competitiveness, and a repetitive concern of proving gender superiority to other individuals” (Connell 1995, 126). Authors in the fields tend to agree that it is precisely this exaltation of the hegemonic masculinity in media representation that repetitively establishes and enforces the gender order (Connell, 1990;
Coston & Kimmel, 2012).
Case Study: Analysis of the Male Characters in Thelma and Louise (1991)
Darryl or the Domestic Abuser
Darryl will be the first example of abusive masculinity of the movie, and the one who serves as preparation or normalization of violence in order to get to the more physically violent examples that will appear later in the narrative. He treats Thelma as a servant, a mere tool, and shows signs of strong emotional abuse towards her. The typology most frequently used to differentiate types of male abusers is the Holzworth-Munroe & Stuart which classifies them into three different categories according to dimensions such as violence, the generality of abuse, or presence of mental disorders (Holtzworth-Munroe & Stuart 1994). Darryl seems to be a perfect match on the first subtype of abuser, which is characterized by insecurity and poor social skills that allow him to hold this oppression in a closed and crafted atmosphere like his household.
This is a type of abuser who is closely concerned with his image and sense of masculinity, and therefore, he will try to use external signs of power that reinforce his self- image as authoritarian (Holtzworth-Munroe & Stuart, 1994). Darryl matches with this notion, and even uses signs of dominance related to masculine power: having an expensive car, always presenting himself to the outside world in a suit that highlights his authority, making constant reference to a hierarchical job position or his overall preoccupation for physical appearance.
Referencing once more the Holzworth-Munroe & Stuart typology, domestic abusers are directly linked with a rooted insecurity that brings a sense of fragility to the structure of oppression of their partner. This can be seen with the desperation Darryl portrays when he learns of Thelma’s runaway adventure (Scott, 0:38:14). His power is based on his control of Thelma’s life, and when she is not there, he might feel his power being threatened. Going back to the close link between masculinity and power described in previous sections, I believe that his desperate response is not rooted in the fear of losing the usefulness that Thelma represents, but by feeling emasculated by his loss of power when she is not there. Without authority, he loses his sense of masculinity.
Since this sense of power is based on insecurity and the perpetuation of a power dynamic, he is constantly having to confirm his position within the power relation with whom is operating as a victim. Therefore, Darryl constantly uses psychological violence to maintain his power within the relationship. The movie does portray instances of psychological violence in their conversation, but the generality of the abuse is mostly proven by Thelma’s behavior around him. In her interactions with her husband in the first few scenes, she is constantly using
signs of gratification: sets his tie correctly, gives him his coffee immediately, avoids topics he doesn't like in conversation, etc. (Scott. 0:04:01). Signs of gratification are a common response in victims of domestic abuse, who are attempting to avoid acts that could trigger their abuser’s violent response by trying to show servitude (Gans, 2019). These gestures are reinforcing the abuser’s ego and making Darryl feel valuable, creating a closed feedback dynamic within the abuse.
It would also be relevant to mention Kong et al.’s description of abusive profiles, in which they claim that the person who uses their power to subjugate someone apparently weaker, bases their sense of worth on the submission of the other. Abusers often react as victims of abuse, and when someone more powerful appears, they tend to turn to passivity themselves. A similar attitude can be appreciated in Darryl’s behavior around the policeman working in his house. Policemen and agents of the law are culturally related to the notion of masculinity within western culture, being how they represent a high surveillance power in society and the exaltation of masculine traits (Alston, 2017). Therefore, it is not a surprise that these powerful masculine figures trigger the insecurity and poor social skills on which Darry’s profile is based.
In front of these real authority figures, he seems to lack control in his own home, appears clumsy and lost, and constantly embarrasses himself, proving once again the fragility and conditioning nature of his oppressive dynamic (Scott, 0:47:31).
The Figure of the Rapist
Harlan, second in chronologic apparition, is not only the most violent of all five main male characters but also the one whose violence and perpetuation of toxic masculinity is more physical, reaching the level of sexual assault. Rape, although it may seem new to film production, has been part of cinema since its inception. From movies as old as Beggars of Life (1928), classics such as Gone With the Wind (1939) to 20th-century classics such as Blade Runner (1982).
In cinema history, rapists have been represented with a variety of profiles and archetypes whose personalities complemented their violent nature. In a lot of cases, the rape has been dismissed by the narrative as part of the romance, especially when it is performed by the hero/protagonist, as is the case of the rape in Blade Runner (1982) or The Revenge of the Nerds (1984). On other occasions, when sexual assault is indeed criminalized by the movie’s perspective, the rapist is normally portrayed with personality traits that solely complement his
role as a rapist. For example, we will find instances of grooming1 followed by increasingly abusive behaviors. This pattern can be appreciated in movies such as Lolita (1997), The Color Purple (1985), or Thelma and Louise (1991) itself.
John G. Taylor described abusive men as “very clever, smart and extremely charming.
Most of these men have a personality that draws people in because of their level of charm. This is part of their art to deceive and manipulate” (Taylor 2013, 1). Authors such as Bauermeister have argued that the profile of the rapist is characterized by personifying other types of violence that precedes the sexual assault, including instances of verbal and physical violence. Hence implying that rapists perform other levels of abuse that may be considered unthreatening but that is indeed hinting at the nature of this psychological profile (Bauermeister, 1977). Therefore, and with the information previously given, we can identify Harlan with the prototype of a rapist.
To illustrate these issues, I will briefly analyze key scenes of the character’s appearance to show the relation between the theory given and the case study.
During the dance scene (Scott, 0:17:50), we can already see instances of escalating abuse. He gropes Thelma inappropriately and repeatedly pulls her close to him, triggering her uncomfortably. We may argue that he is using the chaotic atmosphere of the dance scene to freely take advantage of Thelma without being criticized. Harlan’s next move as an abuser will be to neutralize his victim to make her manageable and passive. This is done by over- intoxicating her and forcing her to spin until she loses balance and can barely walk.
As it has been discussed in previous sections, hegemonic masculinity is largely based on emphasizing power and force to support the gender imbalance (Hereck, 1987). The rape scene shows that this assault is the result of said power dynamic, which is reflected in the dialogue. When Thelma says she wants to go back to the bar he tells her “Oh, no, you are not”
and gets in her way (Scott, 0:19:48). Not only is her consent being violated but her attempts at running away are blocked, establishing a prey/predator dynamic. In terms of setting the scene, the filmmaker carefully anticipates the assault: a dark night, very little light coming from secondary sources, and a labyrinthic structure of cars revolving around our victim and her aggressor.
The duality of the inner moral discourse is another trait that points out Harlan as a typical opportunist sexual aggressor. Studies show that this male profile tends to believe that they have
1The act of building a relationship, trust and emotional connection with someone so they can manipulate, exploit and/or abuse them.
Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, s.v. “grooming,” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/groom
the right to perform the assault, which they believe to be non-abusive (Marshall, 2001). Said trait can be appreciated when Harlan hits Thelma after she starts resisting and begging for him to let her go. While she flinches, he yells “listen up, I said I’m not gonna hurt you, I just want to kiss you, so relax” (Scott, 0:20:13). This evidences the irony of his violence and the lack of recognition of his abuse.
Just as the figure of Darryl helps the narrative establish the detrimental and unsafe relationship the protagonists have with male characters; Harlan will serve as a representational figure of the most extreme abuse. His role serves to further intensify the distance between the protagonists and their trust in men, which characterizes the narrative of the movie. Harlan not only provides the early climax of the movie, but he also serves to settle the idea that Thelma and Louise, as women in these circumstances would be, are alone in this situation and cannot afford to trust the men who will come after Harlan.
The Greek God Archetype: a shift in cinematic gaze
J.D is a perfect example of a manipulative and narcissistic profile, a man who oversees someone's vulnerability to obtain a benefit. Although at first one may not easily connect him to the idea of hegemonic masculinity, he fits in the parameters previously discussed. Cavanese (2013) argued that most cinematic representations of masculinity can be matched to one of four main archetypes. According to the characteristics given to this typology, the character of J.D matches the Greek God archetype: a youthful representation of beauty standards and charming manners who uses his physical attractiveness and sexual appeal to manipulate women (Cavanese, 2013). Although this depiction of masculinity may not seem hegemonic at first, it prescribes to the basic notions of power and abuse: his physical appearance and manipulative personality are used as means of control and power over women to acquire something from them.
Authors have argued that the representation of masculinity in cinema suffered a change due to the representation of JD in Thelma and Louise (1991). Many have stated that it was the first time that a male character was constructed in a sexualizing way for the so-called “female gaze”. During the ‘70s and the ‘80s male depictions in cinema were based on a heroic and muscle-bound fighter with little to no emotional display who always managed to save the day with his heroism. Therefore, figures such as Schwarzenegger, Stallone or Van Damme constituted the epitome of manhood during those decades. Hence, the apparition of a young,
apparently simple, and attractive man who displayed empathy for women, constituted a change in the discourse that described masculinity up to that point.
Not only was his charm and his sympathy that supposed a change in masculine depictions, but the way his body was shot in the movie too. The cinematography of the movie emphasized half-body shots of a shirtless and humid torso while the accent points of the composition were often protagonist by tanned firm muscles (Scott, 0:58:39). His kind facial features were often the center of close-up shots, which provided a lot of humanness and invited the sympathy of the audience (Scott, 0:59:03). Therefore, we can conclude that it was not only the character’s personality that presented a change in the notion of masculinity in cinema, but the way to approach his body as highly sexual was also uncommon at the time.
Regarding his theft of the money that represented the protagonist’s only escape to safety, there have been authors such as Glenn Man, who perceived it as positive, and even feminist.
The author claims that the events are contrary to the misogynistic narrative that punishes the woman who experiences sexual liberation, and that in this case, the event is portrayed with no shame present. He reiterated that this is the cathartic moment that gives Thelma the strength needed to grow into a stronger woman (Man, 1992). However, I disagree with this statement.
J.D’s theft could also be read as an immediate punishment for Thelma’s relaxation and vulnerability, which would appear to condemn that behavior. The catharsis that brings Thelma’s evolution is fueled by shame and hopelessness, rather than empowerment. I believe J.D’s theft is rooted in a male entitlement intrinsically related to perceiving Thelma as weak and vulnerable. Therefore, it can be claimed that his actions are inherently patriarchal, due to certain key aspects.
The first one if that J.D makes himself noticeable to Thelma not only for his looks but because of his charming personality and witty use of words. He is a master of persuasive language and portrays exaggerated politeness. He appears humble and servile and uses his charm to acquire what he desires. Taking into account the fact that he is purposely constructing a non-intimidating attitude to be able to take advantage of Thelma's vulnerability, I consider his behavior to be grooming (Scott, 0:56:16). Although the practice of grooming is most often used to describe relationships with substantial age differences, it is also used to describe relationships in which a figure holding power over another, uses apparent charm and persuasive attitudes to obtain a benefit from a vulnerable being. J.D’s charming personality is not circumstantial, it is used as a tool of deliberate manipulation to obtain a benefit since this attitude is not ever shown in his interaction with fellow men, who he treats respectufully (Scott, 1:23:42).
Johnny: The Problematic Partner
The character of Johnny, although it may inspire trust in the audience by acting as the lifesaver providing an escape for our protagonists, may be more complex than one originally thinks. Johnny fits in the characteristics of an abusive partner, due to his obsessive controlling attitudes and manipulating use of power (Calvete, 2008). This character does not show or perform abusive behaviors as long as he appears to control the spaces that he feels entitled to control. Once he loses dominance over said spaces, he becomes increasingly more violent. It can be argued that his whole behavior and attitude is not stemming from affection and love, but from a desire to keep a sense of power that is closely related to hegemonic masculinity.
Apart from the fact that the character is constructed under the archetype of the Tough Guy (Cavanese, 2013) who appears emotionless and physically imposing, the movie provides a crucial scene that proves love not to be a defining factor. When in a vulnerable position and emotionally charged scene, Louise asks him whether he loves her or not, there is an uncomfortable silence broken only by his laughter. We see Louise wipe her tears and tell him to “forget about it, it was stupid”. He answers with a very hesitant “well, yeah baby, I love you, sure” (Scott, 0:31:32). He appears hesitant and regretful, while Louise seems unsatisfied, arguably because she senses his response was not genuine.
As mentioned before, we only see Johnny perform abusive traits or behaviors in circumstances in which he appears to have lost control over Louise. Even from the first scene in which this character is introduced, we see him react with aggression. When Louise calls him for the first time after leaving, he answers the phone by saying “Louise, you just tell me what the hell is going on right this second” and “what the fuck is going on here Louise, I come back and you are gone, no one knows where” (Scott, 0:21:37), which points at a verbal tension and possessiveness key in abusive partner types (Calvete, 2008). His violent response is likely rooted in a feeling of desperation after Louise begins taking independent decisions that are out of his reach. It is curious to observe that the harshness of his manners only diminishes once money is involved. She asks him for a substantial loan, which is relevant since it would constitute a way to regain control over her situation. Historically, financial control has been one of the key tools of the patriarchy, and the economic independence of women is one of the goals of the feminist movement. Although it is not an academic source, this quote by Beyoncé illustrates it perfectly “I truly believe that women should be financially independent from their men. And, let’s face it, money gives men the power to run the show. It gives men the power to
define value” (quoted in Mirza, 2013). The calmer attitude he shows after this request proves this point and it will be maintained until the next instance in which he lacks power over her.
That next aggressive outburst comes in the motel room scene. At her refusal to hive him further explanations and due to his suspicion that she has found another lover, he starts breaking glasses and throwing tables around, displaying his first sign of physical violence in the film (Scott, 0:54:25). After this display of aggressiveness, he also blocks Louise’s attempt to leave and apologizes for the reaction. Apologizing right after a violent outrage is one of the most typical signs of abusive profiles (Calvete, 2008). It is a way to keep the victim tied and controlled, and guilt them into staying by showing remorse.
Even Louise acts as a third-party spectator who directly tells the audience that the character of Johnny is not as trustworthy as he first appears, speacially after appearing unannounced at the motel. While Thelma, a character characterized by her naivety, is relaxed and trusting around Johnny, Louise seems more reluctant and cautious. When questioned by Thelma about her distrust, Louise simply says “you see, I didn't ask him to come. He is no different than any other guy, it’s like I said, he loves the chase” (Scott, 0:52:27).
Hal Slocumb or the Figure of the Failing Hero
The character of Hal Slocumb, the lieutenant police officer, is probably the most complex male character of all five. He seems to be a character made to be liked by the audience, constructed as the hero who wants to save the protagonists from their destiny and the authorities that are after them in a typical good guys vs. bad guys Hollywood dynamic. The hero is another one of Cavanese’s (2013) main male archetypes created by cinema. This figure is characterized by a noble personality, apparently strong moral principles, and an inherent desire to sacrifice himself for the greater good (Cavanese, 2013). Although this character presents traits that deviate from the discourse of hegemonic masculinity, Slocumb still shows traits that could be characterized within the concept.
Even though this character’s actions seem to always be motivated by the moral desire to provide justice for the characters, he still surrenders to one of hegemonic masculinity’s most recurrent traits: abuse of power. In the scene in which Slocumb interviews J.D, he becomes physically violent with him (Scott, 1:24:21). The narrative of the movie does not seem to condemn the event, since the abuse is accompanied by a discourse defending the protagonist and not even J.D seems to be affected by it. Nonetheless, the event is still worth mentioning
since physically abusing a person during an interrogation is illegal in the US, and it constitutes an abuse of institutionalized power. Moreover, this is not presented in the narrative as a desperate reaction of the moment, but rather a calculated abuse, since Slocumb asks the federal police to leave the room in order to approach the interviewee without being punished (Scott, 1:23:02).
However, his biggest connection to hegemonic masculinity is his paternalistic attitude.
Paternalism has been defined as “the interference in the actions and decisions of an agent against their will but oriented in principle to their benefit” (Lynch 2007, 32). What characterized the paternalistic individual is that they not only believe that they are better qualified to analyze a situation, but also their dismissiveness of other’s opinions, therefore acting solely as they think best (Rubiano and Blanco, 2017). According to the studies of Lynch and Dworkin on this matter, paternalism always includes a justification of involvement that suppresses the autonomy of the individual (Lynch 2007, Dworkin 2010), which is an attitude we see Slocumb portray.
He not only acts as a superior judge of the events but finds a variety of ways to get involved in the prosecution in order to control its direction.
Hal Slocumb seems to be the only character that acknowledges the injustice of the legal system apart from Thelma and Louise. He repeatedly sprinkles criticism of the federals’ ways with quotes such as “Hey! Don’t let them shoot these girls. This is too much, they got guns pointed at them!” while the other agent argues that this is standard procedure. This criticism of institutionalized law becomes more clearly specified in the last sequence of the movie when he yells at the federal agent “how many times Max? How many times will that woman be fucked over by us?” referencing Louise and her previous experience with sexual assault and a case that failed to defend her. However, although Slocumb seems to understand the struggle of the system, he does not fight it. He remains in his position and continues to obey his superiors without taking matters into his own hands, which would defy the stereotypical attitude of the figure of the hero. Refraining from being involved in complex situations to save an individual is another trait that characterizes paternalism. Their desire to protect is conditioned to maintaining their status, and they will always try to avoid personal conflict (Rubiano and Blanco, 2017).
Conclusion
The main objective of this paper has been to provide an exploration of the notions that constitute masculinity as a cultural term and use that information to analyze masculine representation in Thelma and Louise (1991). Hence, allowing this paper to prove that the five main case studies of male characters prescribe to a problematic form of gender presentation.
In the first section of the paper, I revise what has been said in this field about masculinity and its revision of the concept. I continued by exploring how these different versions of masculine presentation have been adapted in cinema history, becoming a crucial source for the evolution of the concept through time. Once the paper has already provided contextualization for this discussion, I start exploring how this information fits with the different representations of gender in the movie. The male characters seem to cover several relevant positions: the partners, of which we have an emotionally abusive husband, and one who appears to be a sincere helper but displays signs of an abusive profile; two charming strangers, one who will end up trying to rape Thelma and one who will rob them of their only chance at a better life.
Lastly, we have a figure of authority that reminds the audience of a father figure, who ultimately fails in his pursue of salvation. I believe that the failure of all these characters is relevant in the narrative, since it’s rounding the recurrent theme of the protagonists only being able to trust themselves.
This is restating the actual autonomy and power of the protagonists in a time and political system that refuses to give women that control. This is once again reinforced by the tragic ending of the movie, in which the liberation of death appears more freeing than continuing to prescribe to the rules of a world that fails to protect them. I believe that the cathartic ending, although unrealistic, is the ultimate metaphor of female liberation from the context that oppresses their existence. Also, the movie does a great job at crafting the patriarchy, the five main men that appear in this film seem to represent pillars of the patriarchal structure, and therefore portray the different versions that define masculinity within this social structure.
We have the aggressors, both from the inside and the outside of their relationships, the charming lovers (who both end up becoming a danger for their stability) and the failing hero, who paternalistically wanted to acquire a better future while still dictating the writing of the story.
Thelma and Louise end up defying all these figures in several ways, experiencing a character evolution that is iconic even decades after its release.
Works Cited
Alston, Aurelia Terese. 2017. "The Force of Manhood: The Consequences of Masculinity Threat on Police Officer Use of Force" PhD Dissertation., University of Washington.
https://doi.org/10.15760/etd.5416
Bauermeister, Martin. 1977. “Rapists, Victims and Society” International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 21, (3) : 238-248.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X7702100308
Brittan, Arthur. 1989. Masculinity and Power: Collaboration and Resistance. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. ProQuest Ebrary.
Canavese, P. “Archetypes: The beast in me” Masculinity Submit 17, no. 4 (August): 1-3.
Calvete, E. 2008. “Justification of violence beliefs and social problem- solving as mediators between maltreatment and behavior problems in adolescents.” The Spanish Journal of Psychology 10 (6): 131-140.
Connell, R. W. 1996. “Teaching the boys: New research on masculinity, and gender strategies for schools” Teachers College Record 98, (2): 206–235.
Connell, R. W. 1995. Masculinities. Cambridge: Polity Press, Google Scholar.
Donaldson, Mike. 1993. “What Is Hegemonic Masculinity?” Theory and Society 22, (5): 643- 657. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00993540
Dworkin, G. 2010. “Paternalism” The Stanford encyclopaedia of philosophy 3 (2): 15-23.
Gans, Steven. 2019. “Top Warning Signs of Domestic Abuse” Very Well Mind 31(2): 1-3.
Gutterman, David S. Postmodernism and the Interrogation of Masculinity. New York: Sage Publications, 1994. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781452243627
Hearn, Jeff. 2004. “From Hegemonic Masculinity to the Hegemony of Men” Sage Journal 5 (1): 49-72. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464700104040813
Herek, G. M. 1987. “On heterosexual masculinity: Some psychical consequences of the social construction of gender and sexuality” Sage focus editions 88 (3): 68–82.
Holtzworth-Munroe, A., & Stuart, G. L. 1994. “Typologies of male batterers: Three subtypes and the differences among them”Psychological Bulletin 116 (3): 476–497.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.116.3.476
LaSalle, Mick. 1996. “The Buddy Film Goes Way Back - Sure, it's a formula but not all are alike” San Francisco Chronicle 22 (3): 23-32.
Lynch, R.J. 2014. “Care: An analysis” Swansea University Journal 14 (6): 41-44.
Man, Glenn. 1993. "Gender, Genre, and Myth in "Thelma and Louise"." Film Criticism 18 (1):
36-53. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44075990.
Marshall, W.L., Moulden, H. 2001. “Hostility toward Women and Victim Empathy in Rapists”
Sex Abuse 13 (7): 249–255. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017518414946
Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, s.v. “grooming,” accessed May 29, 2021, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/grooming
Mirza, Aisha. 2013. “Beyoncé in GQ: All the ladies! Put your hands up for feminism!”
Independent 34 (5): 1-2.
Preacher, Ava, Hilary Radner, and Jim Collins, eds. 1993. Film Theory Goes to the Movies:
Cultural Analysis of Contemporary Film. 1st ed. New York: Routledge. Google Scholar.
Rubiano, Christian Algredo and Jose Alexis Blanco. 2017. “El problema del cuidado en psicología: Un diálogo entre principios y sentimientos” Ética Psicológica 21 (8): 15-17.
Scott, Ridley. 1999 [1991]. Thelma and Louise. Written by/Screenplay by Callie Khouri.
Hollywood, CA: MGM-Pathe Communications Co. VHS.
Seong Sook Kong, Dae Ryong Kang, Min Jung Oh & Nam Hee Kim. 2018. “Attachment insecurity as a mediator of the relationship between childhood trauma and adult dissociation” Journal of Trauma & Dissociation 19 (8): 214-231.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15299732.2017.1329772
Shapiro, Laura, Andrew Murr and Karen Springen. 1991. "Women Who Kill Too Much: Is Thelma and Louise Feminism or Fascism?" Newsweek 63 (13): 27-31.
Taylor, John G. 2013. “Behind the Veil: Inside the Mind of Men Who Abuse” Psychology Today 120, no.6 (Feb): 1-3.
