Dance, Girl, Dance

I love classical Hollywood as much as anyone I know, but I am also aware that the films are often mechanical and emotionally distant. Very few reach the level of Dance, Girl, Dance. The plot is great. It is not exactly original, but it seemed that way to me. I was entirely hypnotized. This is due to the direction, characterizations, and acting. This is one of the few Hollywood films of the era directed by a woman, Dorothy Arzner. Generally, you can't tell this fact, except for in the climactic scene of the film, where Maureen O'Hara delivers a powerful feminist speech. The direction is amazing, but it's definitely subtle and sometimes hard to catch. All the characters in this film, especially the lead two, are very well realized. They're people, and we believed them. The acting is the best of all. Lucille Ball may be best known for her television show, but she was a great movie actress, as well. I can't say that I've seen too many of her films, but it would shock me if she was ever better than she is in Dance, Girl, Dance. She is the spark of the film, and Maureen O'Hara is the emotional core. I think that her part represents one of the best female characters to be found in the cinema. O'Hara is simply fabulous as a ballet dancer who has to lower her artistic standards to make a living. And, like I mentioned before, listen for that speech she gives near the end of the film. I hadn't heard of this film before. I had never heard of Dorothy Arzner. I love the feeling that I've made a major cinematic discovery. This is most definitely one of those. 10/10.

This film followed the delightful film "Stage Door" by only three years. Perhaps that is why Bosley Crowther wrote for the New York Times that it is "just a cliché-ridden, garbled repetition of the story of the aches and pains in a dancer's rise to fame and fortune." The film was a financial failure. But I disagree with Crowther. Though it is difficult to live up to the quality of "Stage Door", this film stands on its own and merits attention. And it is very entertaining.

Unlike the earlier film, Lucille Ball is a huge part of "Dance, Girl, Dance", playing a burlesque star named Bubbles with panache and charisma. In sharp contrast, Maureen O'Hara plays the role of Judy O'Brien-a dancer who longs to perform serious ballet. Both women are strong in their roles, though O'Brien does not perform her character's most demanding dance moves.

Much has been written about the influence and effect of director Dorothy Arzner on this film. Much of that is overstatement and revisionism. But the director gives us some terrific close-ups of the characters in this film, something many directors don't do enough of.

Also deserving mention are the lighting and the costuming.

Watch for Maria Ousopenskaya in a brief but strong performance as the ballet mistress/manager whose life is dedicated to dance.

And watch for the speech in the courtroom scene. It outshines the earlier speech where Judy addresses the burlesque audience, though the latter speech is often lauded.

More than anything else, this film has a lot to say about tabloid journalism. And it says it well.

Is it unfair to judge a film by the gender politics suggested by its director? I walked into a screening of this film tonight (free at a library branch) knowing only that it starred Maureen O'Hara and was directed by Dorothy Arzner. Yet it seems impossible to react to the the film without factoring in the subtle yet remarkable effect on its content that Arzner's participation represents.

Though thoroughly in a B-movie mold (back projections and modest decor abound), the film has a distinctively assured "feel" and personality, seems photographed intimately and with distinction and even boasts one ambitious "modern ballet" production number that must have borrowed one of those RKO Fred Astaire soundstages for a few days.

Grittily rather than luminously shot, Maureen O'Hara still manages to look astonishingly lovely throughout, whether in occasional soft-focus moments or in dramatic shots and contexts. Lucille Ball comes off extremely well in a relentlessly "bad girl" role, though while some claim she steals the picture, I wouldn't agree. Bellamy and Hayward are effective, though clearly subsidiary in importance and focus.

The whole proceeding seems to unfold metaphorically, almost like a fable, as though no one really expects us to find it believable for a minute. No-one behaves realistically, yet neither is it a farce. Nor is it a conventional "romance," since Judy (O'Hara) ends up transcending the whole issue of love "saving" her; when she is seen embracing Steve at film's end, it can be easily seen as an expression of relief or exhaustion after all the preceding duress, of accepting the new professional direction in her life rather than in any way being "saved" by anyone but herself, despite a brief unconvincing flurry of conventional "you listen to ME now" dialogue from Ralph Bellamy that Judy doesn't seem to be heeding anyway.

In fact, Judy walks a refreshingly hybrid line between enlightened self-determination, pluck, and competence tempered by a gentler, luminous femininity. Every character of any real dignity or depth or dramatic power is female, and the male characters are truly secondary in their dimensionality.

Judy's old Russian dance mentor Basilova (representing another weird parallel to FLASHDANCE, wherein a real-life Alexandra Danilova played the old Russian dance mentor to Jennifer Beals) is a striking catalyst in this context, rendered initially as very masculine by starkly drawn-back hair and male clothing (she's always seen in a suit and tie). We could easily be unsure of her gender in her first scene (on the phone) though gradually and knowingly she is "softened" by Arzner (we see the severity of the hair is a result of her dancer's "bun", she gradually morphs to a more maternal role after her initial mercenary businesslike impression, etc.).

Judy has the upper hand, ultimately, in every situation. Wonderful moments include the scene where she confronts a brusque audience in a burlesque theater, her cogent assessment of the nature of Jimmy's heart in a warmly realized courtroom scene, and yes, even that famous catfight with Ms. Ball. Many scenes require O'Hara to react in ways where certain complex emotions need to be communicated wordlessly. She does not fail us, in reaction shots throughout the picture to injustices, frustrations, assessments of people's true personalities, her indignance and misunderstanding of Steve's motives, "awe" at the ballet company and even her association of a kind of idealised love with the little "Ferdinand" stuffed bull (one of two unabashed examples of RKO's nearly exploitatitive relationship to Disney at the time).

Yet the "Ferdinand" subplot is handled with real aplomb by both writers and director. Judy associates the little bull (clearly a masculine image) with a kind of idealized love, and while it ulimately isn't a love in which she participates, her instinctive take on it proves authentic as an image which connects two other characters.

Another recurring image is starlight: Judy dreams of a ballet about a star, then when she visits "Club Ferdinand" with Jimmy, a singer sings of starlight (in a song by Wright & Forrest). At the close of that evening, she wishes upon a star in one of the film's more romanticized views of New York City.

Ultimately though, this film is more "about" the disparity between art and commerce than it is about love. Ball's "Bubbles" character is a financial success while Judy's ballet dancing is maligned completely. An issue that remains unresolved in our own cultural lives, over 60 years later, "Art" still lumbers along, clumsily out of the mainstream, ignored by a public which embraces well-crafted junk and rewards the less challenging with higher ratings and plenty of dough.

And yet Steve's "populist ballet" number is nothing to write home about. Then, as now, the dilemna still exists when so much "art" seems more pretentious and less well-crafted than a good vaudeville act. It's goal is higher, but it can be irrelevant to a public clamoring for ready-made fun.

However all this plays out as aesthetic philosophy, Ms. Arzner has achieved a unique and decidedly pro-woman tour-de-force within this little forgotten RKO classic. While closer in spirit of imagery to STAGE DOOR than any other film that I can think of, it creates its own small symbolic world full of not-quite-real characters telling a fable-like structure. And although at some point, someone in the film (I can't remember now who!) says "I don't believe in fairy tales!" -- that's exactly what this film is, in its accomplished, proto-feminist way. Judy is our Sleeping Beauty or Snow White, but triumphs not through being "saved by a man" but by her own integrity, adherence to a dream and inner strength of conviction and values.

That alone makes this oddly compelling little film well worth seeing.

In some ways, the plot to "Dance, Girl, Dance" is a lot of nonsense. After all, if you are looking for a realistic movie that could happen on this planet, you'd better keep looking. However, if you can accept the film for the campy picture that it is, it is quite enjoyable.

The film begins with a dance troop. Their performance is interrupted by a police raid and they appear to be out of work when a nice guy (Louis Hayward) encourages the patrons to pay the girls for that show. He then shows a lot of interest in Judy (Maureen O'Hara), but the super self-absorbed Bubbles (Lucille Ball) steals the guy and goes off on a date with him. Although the date turns out to be a bit of a bust, this is the pattern that would continue throughout the film. In other words, although Judy is a nice person and the most talented dancer, Bubbles would routinely step in and hog all the glory. And, in the world of dancing, Bubbles ego-centrism really helps her make a splash with a new job--doing a dance that is only a step or two better than being a stripper. Later, she gets Judy a job--but only in a very subordinate role which is meant to be laughed at by the audience! There is far, far more to the movie than this.

The best way to describe it is to compare it to two movies--one old, one rather new. It reminds me of a Bette Davis/Miriam Hopkins film called "Old Acquaintance". The two are friends but repeatedly, the one 'friend' takes all the glory and treats her friend poorly. This continues throughout the film until finally the put-upon friend has had enough and she realizes that this friendship just isn't worth it--and finally tells her off. The other film is "Showgirls". While I've never seen all of this trashy film, the behind the scenes backstabbing and egos are clearly evident in both films. Overall, "Dance, Girl, Dance" is entertaining and the ending is pretty satisfying. However, don't expect a film that is particularly realistic or that seems even remotely plausible--though both actresses did a nice job in their respective roles.

Dance, Girl, Dance (1940)

This competent if unremarkable film was directed by Dorothy Arzner, Hollywood's one female director of note between the silent years and Ida Lupino. It's a package of different kinds of dance numbers, from show girl to burlesque to high art ballet. The thread that keeps it going is the usual: girls trying to make it in one show or another.

Lucille Ball, famous for her television shows of the 1950s and 60s, might seem to be making an early appearance in this 1940 song and dance drama. But she had made fifty (fifty!) films before this one. She's no a remarkable dancer by any means, nor singer, but she has personality to spare, and she's fun, period. She plays the worldly girl who will dance anywhere, anyhow. In contrast is the Maureen O'Hara character, sweet and restrained. She's rather humiliated in the movie, and you can feel her pain, but it's a forced contrast.

Musical numbers intersperse the thin plot, and those might or might not be your taste. I found even the ballet, which looked like a serious ballet troupe in action, pedestrian. And it was poorly filmed: the camera sat at the edge of the stage and watched. In truth, the movie as a whole was functional, not reaching for the stars, and not getting any. The one surprise, for me, was the ease and presence of Louis Hayward as a kind of good guy leading man who appeared now and then to properly show his love for O'Hara's struggling character.