Bonnie and Clyde are probably the most well-known crime partner in U.S. history. The movie named after their name, Bonnie and Clyde, was directed by Arthur Penn and released in 1967. Thirty years after the controversial movie stroke the audience, a similar road movie in 1991 distantly called back to the run-and-kill setting. Thelma & Louise directed by Ridley Scott was just as controversial. Both movies incited huge debate on contemporary newspapers from different parts of America. A shift of attitude in hot topics like violence was also revealed by comparing the contemporary reviews of the two very similar movies. Viewed from and connected to modern society, these movies still provide valuable experiences for the audience.
Bonnie and Clyde featured three remarkable and hotly discussed characteristics. It was a movie with a lot of violence and crimes, including gunshots, robbery, and kidnapping. However, all the evil deeds were trackable back to the Barrow gang, a real criminal gang in the 1930s led by Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow. Despite all the controversy, Bonnie and Clyde practically incited a clothing fashion even outside of America.
The debate over Bonnie and Clyde was fierce and wide, and the major source of criticism and controversy was its violence. A reader of New York Times sent a personal observation of the film, which could provide a sense of the public discussion around Bonnie and Clyde. Mary Ellen Roof (1968), the reader, said, “Everyone I know who has seen this film either likes it or hates it intensely. No one is neutral about it and no one can be unemotional about it” (D7). Bonnie and Clyde was such a hot topic that it receives criticism from Canada, saying the film feed teenagers “on such immoral garbage” (Langmead 1968, 6). Many audiences and reviewers were concerned with the morality issue of Bonnie and Clyde since it incorporated a significant amount of actions and graphical scenes like characters shot to death in a bullet rain. A writer of New York Times, who openly criticized the immoral crimes in Bonnie and Clyde, was called Bosley Crowther (1967). As shown in the newspaper, Crowther (1967) wrote that the movie was “an amateurish mish-mash, badly acted and directed” (D7). Writing vehemently against Bonnie and Clyde, Crowther received some recognition and agreement in the audience of New York Times, but most of the responses he received were angry letters that questioned his criticism (D7-8). Many negative comments on the movie mentioned morality and violence, where haters defined the movie’s sin since it was based on two criminal leaders that were real and unforgivable. On the other hand, the supporters of Bonnie and Clyde saw different meanings in both the violence and the background story of the two real bandits. The discussion about the violence in the movie couldn’t stand alone without examining people’s attitude to the history of the Barrow gang, which was also a popular topic in contemporary newspapers.
Barrow gang’s infamous story became both the target of critics and a reflection of 1930s America. Contradictory to the movie Bonnie and Clyde, the real Barrow gang members were not hero and heroine that worth praising, and it was reasonable that some critics might find this source of inspiration disturbing. As New York Times posted, “Crowther uses most of his space to prove that the real Bonnie and Clyde were not nice people.” By criticizing the historical inspiration, Crowther held the idea that a movie shouldn’t glamorize or romanticize real criminals. He believed that moving historical figures, especially criminals, on-screen and redefining their personalities could bring bad influences. Depicting killers as protagonists implied a tendency of advocating for crimes and shifting the public impression of criminals. Together with the depictions of violence in Bonnie and Clyde, both were accused of bad influences on people. Therefore, bad influences were one reason that fostered various opposition to the movie and the one major cause that could generalize the underlying apprehension of many criticisms. Haters questioned whether crimes should be celebrated in such an influential entertainment—movie. Just as Crowther’s conclusion said, Bonnie and Clyde didn’t impress him as “wholesome entertainment.” However, supporters believed that the characters Bonnie and Clyde were supposed to be disconnected from history, and the movie, instead of promoting violence, was actively discouraging it. Both Phil Casey (1967) from The Washington Post and John Toland (1968) from New York Times conducted neutral-supportive textual research on the history of the Barrow gang as well as other crime parties in the 1930s. They also compared the movie and the history to look for any similarities or differences. Their results included findings like Bonnie wrote poems indeed and Clyde was more vicious than sentimental (Casey K5; Toland 223). Although they didn’t clearly express any value judgment on the movie, they proved that the 1930s was not a good or stable time for honest people to live. Many praises for Bonnie and Clyde often incorporated a mourn of the time. For example, The Austin Statesman from Texas posted, “this film creates a sense of the Depression period, an era when crime was a way to announce, to record yourself” (Covington 1967, 34). Supporters found greater meaning in the movie and therefore confirmed their stance. They believed that the movie was dramatically depicting a bad time through the story of criminals and the use of violence. A bad time was something we should always reflect upon before condemning bad people. Both sides of the controversy made their points, though another supportive wave was popularized without discussing the violence issue.
The Bonnie and Clyde style of dressing was widely recognized and brought more appreciation to the movie. As reported by The Sun, “the ‘Bonnie and Clyde’ look is London’s latest fashion craze” (London’s Latest 1967, B1). The movie and its costuming were indeed gaining popularity in the United Kingdom, as people paid a lot of attention and wished to know more information about the movie. The great visual experience provided to people outside of the U.S. was further confirmed by Toland’s (1968) writing, in which he wrote, “I received from an English youngster begging for more information, the tiniest scraps, about Bonnie and Clyde—and pictures, please” (222). Audiences were interested in the movie and its fashion, indirectly reflecting that they also approved the idea of the movie. The costumes that characters were wearing in the movie accurately revealed their personalities. Theadora Van Runkle (1968), the costume designer of Bonnie and Clyde, confirmed the idea of expressive costuming by saying, “I try to make my costumes express the inner character of the role to be portrayed” (Bryne 1968, F2). Young, rebellious, and dangerous were all the characteristics demonstrated by Bonnie and Clyde’s costumes. By praising and even following the dressing fashion, audiences subliminally accepted and agreed with the cinematic expressions. Therefore, another loyal fan base of the movie was built besides all the quarrels of morality.
Bonnie and Clyde ignited huge discussion and fostered three opinion parties. Haters condemned the violence and bad influence of the movie and refused to celebrate it. Supporters praised the artistic reflection of 1930s America. Fans of the fashion were excited about the great costume design and indirectly approved the movie. Newspaper from all over the country reported and commented on Bonnie and Clyde, including New York, Los Angeles, Austin, and so on. There were enough varieties in each local newspaper and demonstrated little geographical division of opinions.
A similar debate started again when Thelma & Louise was released in 1991. In the movie, another crime partner Thelma and Louise commenced their escape after shooting a rapist to death. Just like Bonnie and Clyde, Thelma & Louise included many scenes where protagonists frequently committing crimes like robbery, murder, and kidnapping. Violence and crimes again stirred up controversy. Some condemned the movie because it was violent and offensive. Some praised the movie for its announcement of female’s liberty.
Criticisms targeting Thelma & Louise were scattered and argumentative on multiple aspects of the movie: bad feminist movie, bad male depictions, and too much violence. Peter Rainer (1991), the staff writer of Los Angeles Times, considered the movie and its characters were awful representations of feminists. Rainer (1991) fired at feminism in the movie by saying, “The expectations of feminism have gone bust, and in its place is a righteous, self-immolating fury” (F18). Describing feminism in Thelma & Louise as reckless implied the idea that feminism out of control was not good feminism. Rainer categorized the movies as a problematic display of good feminism according to him. M.S. Mason (1991) from The Christian Science Monitor took a more direct attack on the characters. Mason (1991) complains about the failure in characterizations, and wrote, “Though it very clearly carries the freight of feminist issues, it characterizes two women…as childish, stupid, violently reactive, amoral, easily manipulated, emotional, led by their sex drive instead of their intellect, self-destructive, and…as permanent victims, unwilling and unable to act creatively (let alone ethically) in adverse circumstances” (11). Using every possible negative word to describe Thelma and Louise, Mason linked their characterizations as a product of the movie’s “freight of feminist issues.” Similar to Rainer’s point, Thelma and Louise were defined as ill-portrayed representations of feminists and were therefore dispelled from critics’ feminist families. After criticizing the awful female portrayal, critics and audiences also felt bad about the male characters in the movie. The Sun (1991) introduced a general description for Thelma & Louise’s controversy, saying, “…it’s some sort of male-bashing movie, a filmic feminist manifesto” (3C). Some audiences found the movie intentionally offending males and were unhappy about it. Rainer also addressed the problem by saying, “Movies like ‘Thelma & Louise’… were pumped with feminist mythology and chockablock with macho straw men. Neither of these pictures has a single sympathetic male” (F18). From critics’ point of view, the movie became unrealistic and served only for feminists’ emotional outlet. After all, there were supposed to be many sympathetic males in reality, and not including them made the movie a myth. Mason held the same point and took one more step by saying, “what’s wrong with ‘Thelma & Louise’ isn’t so much its male bashing and female bashing” (11). Male audiences were offended and felt angry, mistaken, and contempt about their images on the screen. Besides all the gender-related criticisms, violence always had its place. Unlike the comments on Bonnie and Clyde, the accusationof violence became the last resort and baseline of the criticisms. Rainer gave his comparison, saying, “But, as drama, it’s just about as vague and negligent as any macho shoot’em up” (F18). Since the violence in macho shoot’em up was not acceptable, a female shoot’em up was for sure equally unacceptable. In order to be recognized by critics, feminist filmmakers had to produce a movie with higher values than shoot’em up to be qualified as a good feminist film. Mason also despised all the action movies, which he wrote, “maybe we should reconsider the whole violent genre…embrace death as a kind of romantic escape. It is the embrace of nothingness, which defies any meaning. ‘Thelma…’ are all meaning-less” (11). According to critics, violence was the original sin of movie, and Thelma & Louise was sinful by depicting violence. Haters of the movie developed versatile reasons against Thelma & Louise, including bad feminism, male-insulting, and violence. On the other side, supporters had their unique arguments as well.
Supporters had simple yet powerful opinions on both the gender conflict and the violence in Thelma & Louise. Kenneth Turan (1991), a Los Angeles Times film critic, remarked, “it makes its points while scrupulously avoiding being preachy, managing to seamlessly blend political concerns with mainstream entertainment” (F12). Turan (1991) considered that the movie successfully conveyed feminist ideas through a widely accepted form of expression. Whether a movie achieved its expression or not depended on its cinematic story-telling techniques, instead of if the characters were living up to a standard of a certain social group. Turan’s opinion also applied to the male depictions in the movie. Ruth Walker (1991) from The Christian Science Monitor listed a lot of kind male characters in the movie to clarify the male-bashing accusation. She also made a statement of movie as an art form, saying, “a movie is under no obligation to present a statistical cross-section of the general population. This…is a movie in which the men are the second sex, and that will be unsettling to some” (18). Walker (1991) captured the underlying reason of male audiences’ fury and ridiculed it, demanding men to reflect instead of blaming the movie. Supporters of the movie not only tried to resolve the gender controversy, but they also found social meaning in the violence, just like supporters of Bonnie and Clyde. Walker gave a formal analysis of the violence, saying, “ ‘Thelma & Louise’ validates the observation of everywoman, and…help us get on with…healing the breaches between men and women” (18). Walker brought the movie up to the level of social justice. A movie speaking from a female’s perspective pointed out some intolerable prejudices that were previously lurking in society. Walker believed that the movie helped to eliminate those prejudices. The screenwriter of Thelma & Louise, Callie Khouri (1991), provided an honest and direct interpretation, saying, “It just seems ludicrous…to ask whether this is hostile toward men…I think it is hostile toward idiots” (Rohter 1991, C21). Thelma & Louise was a great counterattack to all the unjust deeds done to females, and Khouri wrote a story that brought courage to female audiences.
Haters of Thelma & Louise condemned the gender conflicts and the violence in the movie by saying it was a bad feminist film, an insult on males, and a violent shoot’em up. Supporters viewed the movie as politically, artistically, and socially successful in the way it helped healing the gender breaches.
Although the time difference between Bonnie and Clyde and Thelma & Louise’s release dates was twenty-four years long, some similar attitudes in different parties were carried through ages. A conventional disgust in violence was found in the conservative critics, who cared much about morality. A socially active attitude in seeking the larger meaning of violence was found in supporters, who cared more about humanity.
Both Bonnie and Clyde and Thelma & Louise will be less controversial in a modern context. One major contemporary concern about both films is the immorality accusation on their violent scenes. The fierce opposition against violence has already weakened much from 1967 to 1991. As observed in Thelma & Louise’s contemporary reviews, disgust on violence is the last resort instead of the prevalent target of critics. In recent years popular movies also include many action movies or movies with many fighting scenes. A well-known example will be superhero movies like the Avengers series by Marvel Studio (2012-2019), where fight scenes are necessary components for popular entertainment. Therefore, the tolerance of violence increases throughout the years and will accept violence in Bonnie and Clyde and Thelma & Louise. Another hot topic in Thelma & Louise is the feminism condition, which is an obvious target for some social groups. A feminist movie becoming the center of discussion in 1991 is because of its innovative nature as a pioneer. Thelma & Louise was one of the first movies that demonstrate different female characters comparing to traditional ones. Khouri, before writing Thelma & Louise, observed many stereotypical female characters in Hollywood and felt the necessity of a counterattack (Rohter 1991). Khouri’s effort pays out in the modern film industry, as female characters are becoming more diverse and versatile. Some examples of new female movies include Portrait of a Lady on Fire by Celine Sciamma (2019) and Marriage Story by Noah Baumbach (2019). TV series are even more active in portraying female characters. Why Women Kill by David Grossman (2019) and The Queen’s Gambit (Frank 2020) are all widely accepted series. If Thelma & Louise is released in modern days, accompanied by other feminist movies, it will be less controversial than in 1991.
If produced in the modern movie industry, Bonnie and Clyde will present differently but Thelma & Louise will not. Bonnie and Clyde incorporated many vintage production choices that will be replaced by now. The lighting and hue of the movie are bright and shining, which is unusual in modern realism movies that would like to have darker and dimmer images. The action scenes with gun-shooting will enjoy upgraded sound and visual effects from modern industrialized movie studios. While Bonnie & Clyde looks outdated, Thelma & Louise is not. It is because Ridley Scott, the director of Thelma & Louise, is still actively making new movies and TV series. Therefore, many directorial and artistic choices are supposed to remain the same if the movie is created in 2021.
Bonnie and Clyde and Thelma & Louise provide rich details in the socially concerned issues and conflicts. Through investigating contemporary film discussions, topics like violence, morality, and feminism are frequently debated. Both movies yield inspirations and controversy to their times, but they will be less controversial and equally appreciated by modern audiences.
References
Associated Press. “‘Thelma & Louise’: the big debate.” The Sun, Jul. 7, 1991.
Baumbach, Noah, director. 2019. Marriage Story. Netflix.
Benjamin et. al. “‘Bonnie and Clyde’—Facts? Meaning? Art?” New York Times, Sep. 17, 1967.
Byrne, Julie. “How Bonnie, Clyde Designer Does It: BONNIE AND CLYDE.” Los Angeles Times, Sep. 10, 1968.
Casey, Phil. “Bonnie and Clyde Like It Really Was.” The Washington Post, Times Herald, Dec. 17, 1967.
Covington, Renee. “‘Bonnie and Clyde’ Vivid.” The Austin Statesman, Sep. 23, 1967.
Frank, Scott, director. 2020. The Queen’s Gambit. Netflix.
Grossman, David, director. 2019. Why Women Kill. Paramount+.
Langmead, L S. “Bonnie and Clyde.” The Globe and Mail, Feb. 9, 1968.
Marvel Studio, producer. 2012-2019. Avengers series. Marvel Studio.
Mason, M S. “FILM COMMENTARY: The Movie ‘Thelma & Louise’ Isn’t Just About Trashing Men.” The Christian Science Monitor, Jul. 1, 1991.
Penn, Arthur, director. 1967. Bonnie and Clyde. Warner Bros. Picture.
Rohters, Larry. “The Third Woman of ‘Thelma and Louise’” Los Angeles Times, Jun. 5, 1991.
Rainer, Peter. “Thelma & Louise Just Good Ol’ Boys?” Los Angeles Times, May. 31, 1991.
Sciamma, Celine, director. 2019. Portrait of a Lady on Fire. Lilies Films.
Scott, Ridley, director. 1991. Thelma & Louise. Pathé Entertainment.
The Sun. “‘Bonnie And Clyde’ Craze: London’s Latest.” The Sun, Dec. 7, 1967.
Toland, John. “Sad Ballad of the Real Bonnie and Clyde.” New York Times, Feb. 18, 1968.
Turan, Kenneth. “On the Road to Summer: Smooth Ride for ‘Thelma & Louise’” Los Angeles Times, May. 24, 1991.
Walker, Ruth. “Why We Cheered ‘Thelma & Louise’” The Christian Science Monitor, Jul. 17, 1991.
Комментарии