Moral in the film Thelma and Louise

The film Thelma and Louise certainly portrays the role of the female in different instances. The initial scene is interesting because it shows two women, one working at a diner and the other working for her husband at home, being subordinate. The filmmaker captured that initial scene in order to later "shatter" it with a whole new perspective on the two main characters. The initial moral questioning of the film, at least from what I understood, was whether those women should leave their lives behind and drive away on a trip because they were tired of living the same routine. Was it right for Thelma to pack her bags without telling her husband, simply because he did not treat her properly? It seems easy for me to answer, maybe because I am a woman. I think Thelma finally broke away from the role of subordinate housewife the moment she got in her friend's car and gave Louise a huge smile. However, Thelma had too much fun at the bar, as Louise mentioned, and practically got raped by a disrespectful drunkard. At that moment, it’s interesting to see Thelma’s vulnerability in contrast with Louise’s anger and instinct of defense. Previously, Louise got angry with Thelma for bringing a gun on their trip, and just as easily, she got hold of the gun and shot the rapist. Was it moral for Louise to shoot the man who was hurting her friend? Was it moral for her to shoot him because he was being completely disgusting and showing no respect for the two women?

Throughout the rest of the movie, the question in my head was: why did she shoot him? What if she hadn’t shot him? The filmmaker, through the development of both these women’s characters, shows us a different side to a person who feels vulnerable at first. Women are already considered the “inferior sex”, the vulnerable ones, so for the film to portray them as tough, even making a police officer cry for his life, is a very clever choice with a clever moral vision. What surprised me towards the end of the film was that Louise had a deeper reason to shoot the man at the parking lot. She had been raped before. I saw her act as some sort of closure, or revenge for the man who raped her in Texas. This man from the bar wasn’t at all connected to her internal struggle, but she made him a part of her suffering and he ended up dying as a way for her to feel some power over a man. The film becomes even more intriguing because after I understood Louise’s reasons for shooting the man I felt pity for her. Either way, was it morally correct for Louise to shoot a man because she had been raped before and felt the same pain Thelma was going through? Was it morally correct for Thelma to rob a grocery store simply because she had been taught by the robber and he had taken all her money?

These women were hurt because they had never before stepped away from their content lives. When I say content, I don’t mean it in a positive way. Their lives were convenient and from the moment they broke away from it they lost control of themselves and maybe even their morals. The most beautiful scene is the end, when they would rather kill themselves than be caught by the police, mainly because they did not want to pay for a crime they had committed in self-defense. Who would believe them if they had told the truth? Would the police chief who got emotionally involved believe them? Or would he blend in with the other men and downright accuse them of cold-blooded murder? These are very difficult to weight, and by the end of the film I still had no clue whether to deem their actions morally right or wrong. 

The only character who seemed concerned with their well being was the police chief, when he was interviewing the robber and he really wanted to remove the blame from these women and find reasons for them to have shot a man and then committed other felonies. He was the only character who actually weighted their guilt and sought Louise's rape story, which is an interesting choice the filmmaker made. His character should be the one to be tough and find these women no matter what, not caring about their motives or their lives, but he broke away from that expectancy. Not even the two women were concerned with their morals as much as he was. Because the film is a form of art and displays a moral vision, art is moral. In this film's case, the filmmaker clearly conveyed moral through his choice of character and their traits, however the question is not whether art should be moral, but rather how art conveys moral. From my point of view, it’s not that art itself should be moral. Art should evoke moral and not strive to be moral. When art has moral value to it, that means the observer/reader/viewer should make a moral judgment out of art. The person who is receiving the art in some way, should be the one deriving principles of right and wrong from art. The artist conveys a message, which might or might not be explicitly moral from his perspective, but what the observer receives from that art might be completely different from what the artist conveys. Therefore, I don’t believe art should be moral, because it will mostly always end up evoking some moral judgment, and it may or may not be the same for different people.