That Would Have Been So Much Better! Legally Blonde the Musical

That Would Have Been So Much Better!

Legally Blonde: The Musical

 Reese Witherspoon as Elle Woods in the movie version of Legally Blonde

Today, at the tail end of a semester studying Courtroom Dramas, I played the original scene of the 2001 movie Legally Blonde. It is the one in which our heroine Elle Woods decides, on the basis of imperfect fashion knowledge, to out a closeted gay witness in open court. Then I played the scene from the 2006 Broadway musical featuring the number “Gay or European,” in which Elle Woods and the entire cast speculate at length about a queer-coded character and then out the closeted witness in open court, assisted by his supposedly loving boyfriend. With a dance break. The class discussed the changes that the musical made, and the way they tried to paper over the ugliness of what Elle has done. Then I asked them, “Is there a way to update this scene for a 2022 audience?”

 

Consensus was no. Throw it in the trash, write a whole new scene for Elle to prove herself to Professor Callahan. Perhaps a scene that doesn’t make him such a bonehead that he not only barely cross examines a key witness but also fails to follow up on why a witness would tell an audacious (and disprovable) lie in open court, risking a perjury charge.

 

I think there might have been one way that this scene could still be part of the story, but it would require a major change to the tone and character arc of Elle herself. And frankly, I’m all for it.

The Set-Up

 

Not exactly subtle, Hollywood...

 Legally Blonde was an phenomenon when it first came out in 2001, and even in the year 2022, it was the work of art on my syllabus that my students recognized most readily and eagerly. I found so many videos conducting a (mostly positive) cultural analysis of the film that I threw up my hands and made it a group project to examine one and report out to the rest of the class. When the musical was made, there as an entire network reality show based around picking the lead actress in a months-long competition.

 

Both movie and musical tell the story of Elle Woods, a beautiful and wealthy president of the Delta Nu sorority who believes she is about to get everything she ever wanted: a picture perfect life with her wealthy, pedigreed boyfriend Warner Huntington the Third. Instead, he dumps her with startling cruelty and self-righteousness. At this point, Elle decides to prove her worth to Warner by following him to Harvard Law School, where she eventually succeeds, first to impress Warner and then to spite him.

 

Both Warner, Elle, and Vivian (Warner's new girlfriend) are taken on by Professor Callahan (also a practicing attorney) as interns to help with a high-profile murder trial. Elle impresses the client, Brooke Wyndam, early on with her fitness and beauty knowledge, and infuriates her professor by learning Brooke’s alibi for the time of her husband’s murder but then refusing to share it with the team.

 

Refusing to share the alibi at all is a bit overkill, considering that as her attorney, Callahan could still not use the alibi without Brooke’s permission, but it might have spurred him to put more effort into finding an alternative theory on the killer. He believes that she is guilty, so he is not looking for alternative suspects. She could change that and keep her secret from the wider world. Perhaps he could even have gotten discreet confirmation of the surgery and taken it to the prosecutor, in order to convince the D.A. to drop the charges and resume the investigation to find the true killer. But that’s not the point here, it’s just always bothered me.

 

 This brings us to the trial, where the Wyndams' pool boy surprises Brooke by claiming that they had an illicit affair before her husband’s death. Brooke immediately denies the affair to both Callahan and to Elle, only the latter of whom believes her. In the hallway, between the bombshell and the defense team’s cross, Elle runs into the witness and makes an intuitive leap.

 

 Here the movie and the musical divide. In the movie, the witness, Salvatori, insults Elle’s shoes, including the season and designer. She immediately runs to the rest of the legal team, claiming that he is gay. The only other corroborating evidence is Brooke’s triumphant claim that he “left a Cher CD in the pool house once,” and yet, when a junior lawyer (Emmet) who has befriended Elle cross examines Salvatori, he tricks him into naming his boyfriend – thus outing him in open court.

 In the musical, Elle bases her gaydar on the witness failing to respond to her “bend and snap” maneuver in the hallway, leading to a musical number where Warner and Callahan (and somewhat Vivian) caution the rest of the cast that the witness could be European instead of gay, until Emmet plays the same trick and the witness’s boyfriend charges forward to out his partner even as he insists with increasing panic that it is not true. But it all ends with a kiss so everything is okay? That we advanced elaborate stereotypes for TWO demographics?

  

Seriously, it is remarkable how hard this scene works to acknowledge how weird a thing this is to do, yet indulge in even more one-dimensional stereotypes, and yet still have Elle come out looking like a good person. Both gay men kiss her on the cheek as she leaves, as if thanking her for forcing them out into the open against their will. The counterpoint that outing a witness in open court is cruel is said, but by two villains of the show, allowing the audience to dismiss their objections as simply not having faith in Elle herself. I could go on, and we had a bit of fun in class doing so.

 

 Seriously, there is just so much wrong with this scene.

 

The Moment That Suggested Better

 

 I mentioned above that Elle’s previous conflicts during her internship revolve around her integrity and kindness. Having used the latter to get Brooke’s trust, Elle is entrusted with their client’s alibi. While not the best strategic decision, Elle (in both movie and musical) shows integrity by not revealing the alibi even under enormous pressure from friends, peers, and her boss/professor. She rejects the idea that she should get ahead at Brooke’s expense and the idea that they cannot win the case without stooping to unethical measures like going behind the client’s back.

 

Previous moments have also set up Elle as an ethical lawyer, compared to her classmates and professor. In the movie, Elle answers the question about which kind of offense would she prefer her client to have commited with “Neither, I would rather have a client who is innocent!” (Luketic). Her professor laughs, “Dare to dream, Miss Woods” (Luketic).

 

This same teacher, Professor Callahan, is introduced in the musical with the song “Blood in the Water”, which features several lines that set up his ethos of being cutthroat and even unethical in support of vicious clients in order to get ahead. Elle does not have quite so clever a comeback in this scene, but she later argues to Callahan and her friend Emmet that they can’t get ahead “at the expense of integrity” (Hach).

 

 That being said, the moment that Elle excitedly suggests outing a closeted gay man in open court, for her own personal gain and in service of her client, is a significant shift.

The Change

           

Besides impersonating a lawyer for her friend Paulette (something skipped in the musical), this moment is the only unethical thing that Elle has even considered doing in the course of either the movie or musical. You could perhaps argue that trying to win back an engaged man is at best a gray area, but Elle never agrees to cheat, simply to remind Warner that she is an option…admittedly aggressively.

 

And yet, here, Elle does not even seem to understand the moral quandary of outing a closeted man against his will. Not only a closeted gay man, but a working class person of color, who has so few options that (in the movie version), he cannot even afford to object when a rich woman demands he do his work in a thong. Movie Brooke then dehumanizes him by saying, “You know a Delta Nu would never sleep with a man who wears a thong!”(Luketic)…the very thong that she asked him to wear, as if he is responsible for her choices because of his desperation for the paycheck she offers.

 

A few tweaks of Callahan and Warner’s objections would make it clear that they are practically opposed to the outing. Enid, the gay woman also working as an intern with Elle, could then object on the grounds that outing a closeted man is cruel. She could be shouted down by the musical number, perhaps offering a few objections in the midst of the verses. It would give the cheap jokes more cover without even having to tamp down the homophobia.

 

The real scene that I want, however, would come directly after the triumphant moment when Mr. Slavatori is discredited and outed in a very public trial. The cruelty of what Elle and Emmet has done could be emphasized by having the reporters covering the trial salivating at the new gossip and speculating outside the courthouse. This moment could give Elle a moment of pause, to realize that she got caught up in impressing Callahan before Mr. Salvatori and his partner confront her.

 

 This scene could go a lot of ways, but above all, it would be an opportunity to humanize the witness, allow him to speak for himself and make clear to her that she has forever robbed him of the chance to control his own coming out story.  I’m not picky about what reasons he should hint at for not coming out, though I’d love the writer to avoid the most obvious cliches. But there is a rich well there.

 

I also would not complain even a little bit about Enid being in the scene and refusing to give Elle a pass on the “shark” behavior. Seriously, if you’re going to have out gay characters, maybe give them something besides punchlines. Especially when they’re mostly hitting themselves.  

 

This scene could even allow the book writer to keep the overly cheery tone of “Gay or European”, with Elle/Emmet and (most of) the audience experiencing a crash down from a righteous high to guilt alongside the characters.

 

This not only gives Elle a chance to realize that she hurt someone, on purpose, for perhaps the first time in her life, but it allows Emmet to present her with a reality of being a lawyer. It was their duty to impeach the witness to protect their client – the very client she insists is innocent, after all. It was a good thing to do as a lawyer. It was a crappy thing to do as a person. Sometimes zealous lawyers really can’t have it both ways. They have to pick helping their client over being decent to the witnesses committing perjury.

 

I want that discussion for its own sake, of course, but I also think it adds complexity to Elle’s arc as a character.

 

But on a plot level, the last thing in the scene should be Elle (and/or Emmet) attempting to counter Salvatori’s argument (and make themselves feel less guilty), by asking why Salvatori would lie in the first place. It’s a good chance to remind the audience that it was a working class POC that was hurt here, and also for Salvatori to point Elle toward Chutney.

 

I can almost hear the “Daddy’s Little Princess was afraid stepmommy would walk without a motive” and the way it would get Elle’s wheels turning about who really committed the murder.

 

Yep, that’s right, this change also solves a plot hole.

Ripples, Good and Bad

            

But I’ll get back to the plot hole in a minute.

 

 In the wake of the defense team’s celebration over their day in court, both versions of Callahan single out Elle for praise – for following her instinct on the witness’s sexual orientation and for winning the client’s trust.

 

 It makes even more sense for (especially Musical) Callahan to be impressed by Elle if the story directly addresses the cutthroat choice to out a man to the wide world. After all, it could signal that sweet little Elle, who won’t betray a confidence, is learning what he taught her the first day, “You’re nothing until the thrill of the kill / Becomes your only law” (Benjamin). Up until now, he has been telling her in vain that “Your scruples are a flaw,” but now she has done something wrong morally, in order to win a legal victory and impress him.

 

Which also makes his decision to make his move on her more plausible. What Callahan knows of Elle Woods until this day does not suggest that she would be interested in a quid pro quo situation with him. Her high-minded ideals wouldn’t necessarily be enough to fend off a man like Callahan. However, if he sees her doubting herself and her morals, it makes more sense that he would try now to take advantage. 

 

In the original, he swoops in when she is riding high on professional success. It is much more plausible (and heartbreaking) if he takes advantage when she (1) needs reassurance, (2) is not entirely comfortable around Emmet at the moment, and (3) otherwise seems down and conflicted and undeserving of his praise. 

 

 The change would also give Elle a chance to claw back out of her guilt spiral by having to defend herself. She would suffer the double whammy of the harassment while also realizing that she did something wrong, and that she herself might be becoming more like Callahan. Her rejection could then do double work – rejecting the man and his objectification while also giving Elle the chance to decide that she does not want to be the kind of Shark that Callahan approves of.

 

Now, Elle has two compelling reasons to flee law school. She feels degraded not just by Callahan’s sleaziness but also because of her own actions. Her desire to retreat back to California where she never had to wonder if she was the good person doing the right thing makes even more sense. After all, she must have had to fend of lecherous creeps in her former life. The moral break with Emmet would also explain why his appeal (elaborate in the musical version) would fall flat with her. After all, Emmet is also becoming more like Callahan every day. If even a good person like him can fall prey to becoming a shark, surely that is what is in store for her, if she stays!

Emotionally, this is far more powerful, and it gives Elle more arguments to give to her friends at the beauty salon for why she is headed home. She thought she wanted respect, but what she really wants is to be herself, the girl who always does the right thing above all else. Especially if even becoming a shark doesn’t stop her from being objectified herself.

 

This double motive to return home would also enrich Elle’s eventual decision to stay. In this new version, Elle would have three reasons to return to the trial:

1. To show Callahan that she does not need his approval to be great just as she is (the original one)
   
2.  To prove to herself (and Emmet) that she can be an honorable and kind lawyer and still win the case, and
3.  To save her friend Brook by exposing Chutney, since only she knows that Salvatori was paid by Chutney.

 

That’s right!

 

Because if Salvatori told Elle who paid him to perjure himself, then Elle’s decision to return to the trial can be motivated both by a mentor/friend’s encouragement and the realization that Callahan won’t go after Chutney because he does not believe in Brooke’s innocence. That allows Elle’s motivation not just to be personal self-worth (however worthy a goal) but also realizing that her way of being a lawyer is the way to save Brooke. Thus, Elle can’t leave and abandon her friend in her time of need. Her way of being a lawyer is needed here!

 

This change also addresses Elle’s willingness to let her friend Brooke risk life in prison in order to give Elle an ego boost. It gives her a concrete reason to believe that she will do a better job than a successful, experienced attorney rather than relying on moxie and luck to have her big moment and protect her client.

 

It also makes Elle’s cross examination of Chutney not an implausible lucky break in the case but part of Elle’s plan. You still have the moment when Elle realizes in an instant that she has caught Chutney in the lie about her perm. Those lightning-fast reflexes will still be on full, impressive display.

 

But now, it is part of a strategic plan rather than Elle just happening to stumble on a break in the case while questioning a random witness. Elle may not have known how she was going to impeach Chutney, but she succeeds in doing so because of her excellent hair care knowledge. It makes her triumph all the more impressive that she figured out the murderer and maneuvered her onto the witness stand in the first place in order to try for the big caught-in-a-lie moment.

What We Got Instead

            No one questions Elle’s right to out a closeted man on the stand – or why Mr. Salvatori perjured himself in the first place. Elle comes back in triumph and has a brilliant flash of insight – but she doesn’t make a stand for kindness and honor in the legal profession in the process. Which is a shame, because we could have had our cake and eaten it too.

 

And ole Professor Callahan wouldn’t have been able to say “She got lucky” to console himself that he was out-sharked by honesty, kindness, and a pink-clad blonde with a sense of style as brilliant as her strategic mind.

 

And why did we lose it? Because the writers seemed terrified of the idea that the audience might not like Elle for ten seconds in a two hour musical.