Good Times at Hood Rat High?
"Later, in a Mexican motel room, Stony cries over the money scattered across the bed and remembers the good times she had with Cleo, Tisean and Frankie, now dead." Springer p199 CP
I'd like to call into question what constitutes "good times" in this montage. Most of the shots include the women surrounded by money post bank robbery. Very few shots deal with the characters before their entrance into a criminal life. I'm sure they had good times that didn't revolve around their criminal escapades. So are we to understand that good times can only found when fighting heterosexual patriarchy? They may not be economically or socially up, but they have their own culture between them—"good times� had to have happened.
Good times must refer to the life of an the anti-hero. These women commit crimes and are therefore not privy to commendation for fighting a system they find to be rigged. In most films, we would side with the officer, but in this case these women market themselves as robin hoods—robbing from the rich and giving to themselves. This kind of "good time" could have been avoided and I don't think the criminal activity fights stereotype. In my opinion, it can only solidify it.
The way to avoid crime would be through Keith. He's rich and definitely has to have some connections and would help Stony in any way that he could. But what about the other three you ask? Well, Stony isn't the kind of person to leave her friends in the lurch, therefore the entire group of friends could have benefited from Stony asking Keith for help. Some would probably argue that it would only support the patriarchal system: Keith is a man and the women can only prosper through him. I could understand that argument, but wholly disagree. Most of the women in this film are strong, Stony especially. Her gaze was dominant over Keith's(e.g. the love scene focused on the naked body of Keith) and she dictated where and when they would meet. This is control, not a relationship, but it demonstrates that she would be able to be "liberated" through someone else's help--even if that someone is a man. Alas, that would make for a very boring movie and to get the point the filmmaker wanted, the plot would need more punch.
In the end only one character “liberates� themselves from their economic and social strife. But, is it really liberation? She is in exile and can never again see her friends who have died. Were the "good times" worth this liberation? One over three?