‘Legally Blonde’ scene wouldn’t hold up in court
As the rom-com celebrates 20 years, key moments are showing their age.
The scented résumé. The clandestine liposuction. The “bend and snap.”
“Legally Blonde,” which celebrates its 20th anniversary July 13, is a perfect movie. Well, a nearly perfect movie.
Every time I watch, I reflexively roll my eyes at a particular chapter: scenes that lazily demean one of the film’s two central queer characters. Just because the film premiered in 2001 doesn’t mean the harm it caused stayed there.
The romantic comedy stars Reese Witherspoon as Elle Woods, a fashion merchandising undergraduate in Los Angeles. She follows her ex-boyfriend to Harvard Law School to try to win back his affections after he dumps her. The film ultimately transforms into a feminist rallying cry after Elle realizes just how smart she is and becomes a formidable, fabulous lawyer.
Something happens during that process that I wish was more progressive. And I propose because the seminal movie remains timeless and relentlessly re-watchable, it’s that much more worth examining.
Elle interns for one of her law professors who represents Brooke Windham (Ali Larter), an exercise guru accused of murdering her husband. A pool boy, Enrique Salvatore (Greg Serano), claims he had an affair with Brooke. It turns out he’s gay and is later outed on the stand, disproving his dalliance with Brooke. But it’s how Elle figures out he’s gay that’s the problem.
After cutting in line at the water fountain before court, Enrique tells Elle: “Don’t stomp your little last-season Prada shoes at me, honey.” Elle then infers (correctly) that Enrique must be gay – because gay men know designers and straight men don’t.
To be abundantly clear: I’m not canceling “Legally Blonde.” Ask anyone, it’s my favorite movie.
The film’s slapstick, silly scene is funny. Between Elle’s facial expressions as she realizes he’s gay and the lengths gone to discredit his testimony, one can’t help but laugh. I still do.
That doesn’t mean, though, it’s not worth reexamining under the harsh (but necessary) light of 2021.
Look, stereotypes are stereotypes for a reason.
Many gay men could rattle off a Rolodex of designers like it’s their grocery list. But the movie treats Enrique’s designer knowledge – his authentically, ardently expressing himself – as something wrong. That exhibiting qualities associated with gay men will lead to punishment in a court of law – something not terribly far-off from a not-toodistant past in the U.S. The plot line is flat-out offensive.
Plus, Enrique’s reveal to Elle he can spot Prada is a slip-up many queer people work years (hell, decades) to hide. I remember the sleek sweat that used to pool at the top of my forehead when a friend growing up would grab my iPod to play something, praying they wouldn’t fiddle around and find “gay” pop music on it revealing my sexuality.
The scene sends an explicit message to young queer people watching this movie that self-expression has catastrophic consequences.
“Legally Blonde” opts for an easy explanation for why Enrique would know such information and be lying about his affair with Brooke, oversimplifying sexuality in the process.
Enrique could be bisexual or pansexual. The affair with Brooke could still have happened without invalidating his queer identity. It speaks to a dated mainstream understanding of sexuality; it is in fact more fluid than the movie presents.
And what’s further frustrating? How lawyer Emmett (Luke Wilson) questions Enrique. He catches Enrique in a lie by asking what his boyfriend’s name is on the stand. Enrique replies “Chuck,” and the room erupts in shock and laughter.
Are they laughing at the fact that Enrique is gay or how ludicrous his previous testimony was? Unclear.
Enrique tries explaining that Chuck is just his friend, only to have Chuck flamboyantly stand up and shout in the back of the court, “You b----!”
The movie reduces the couple’s relationship to a cheap gag. It speeds along the path to justice for Brooke, sure, but stops any hope of meaningful queer inclusion.
The original film premiered in 2001 – clearly a very different time. No state had passed any kind of gay marriage equality act. The military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell“policy was in full force. LGBTQ people weren’t protected from workplace discrimination.
Both the musical version and sequel include similarly eyebrow-raising gay plots as the original – a pattern in the “Legally Blonde” universe that must be addressed before the third film comes out. The musical features the song “There! Right There!” about the trial, and Elle’s dog Bruiser turns out to be gay in “Legally Blonde 2: Red, White & Blonde.”
A franchise adored by queer people for its quotable lines and quixotic plot owes it to the community to be more thoughtful with its comedy. Kick up the camp without kicking up the cheap laughs. Bring Enrique back, even, Chuck in tow, and have him and Elle have a quip-filled exchange about fashion minus the courtroom drama.
I would love a day where gay characters can play heroes, villains and everything in between. And we’re certainly getting closer but trivial representation inhibits that goal.
Perhaps “Legally Blonde 3” can live up to present-day LGBTQ audience expectations and leave us saying “What, like it’s hard?” to witness inclusion onscreen.
Otherwise, I’ll be the first to say “I object.”