Dance, Girl, Dance

Today, another accusation of a public person (also an outspoken moralist) committing sexual misconduct has surfaced, sending the 24/7 news channels into a tizzy (except for an abbreviated, more muted one at Fox). Some of the accusers are men, but most are women accusing men of abusing their power. And after an especially salient story about Weinstein was broken earlier this year in "The New Yorker" by a man (Ronan Farrow), the writers and media hosts are increasingly women. To some, the revelations might be shocking, even unbelievable (but only if you were born yesterday, or if you decided a year ago that the recorded confessions of an unrepentant, habitual "groper" should not disqualify him for the office of the Presidency)..Wny did voters--and of both genders--feel this way? Could it be because of a residual bias that positions the male as "man" of the house? as "lord" of his land? as the male warrior who fights other males on behalf of his land, his property, and his belief in the integrity and enduring value of "male privilege"? From this line of thought proceeds an unwritten but still widely accepted imperative: "What the man of the house says, is what goes!"There are several ways to approach the viewing of this admittedly "Grade B" movie. As tempting as it is to spend words on the movie's historical context and entertainment value or on the performances of its actors (the three leads participated in the greater part of film history in the 20th century, acting in well over 300 movies), DGD has a greater claim to the public's interest, meriting the present-day spectator's attention for reasons that go beyond the feisty indestructibility of Maureen O'Hara (a familiar face on Turner Movie Classics until her death at the age of 95 in Oct. 2015). The importance of DGD even transcends the surprisingly sparkling (and "sexy") performance of America's favorite woman comedy star, Lucille Ball), who "almost" steals the show from O'Hara. So vibrant and attractive is Lucy in the role of "Bubbles," the veteran "bumper-and-grinder," that her appeal threatens the film's message about the female body (especially as constructed by the lens of commercial cinema) and the men who exploit women for their own pleasure and profit.But the "real" story here--surpassing the aforementioned attractions of DGD--is the film's director, Dorothy Arzner--the first (and only) woman director to work in the Hollywood studio system. Within those confines--and given a formula script along with a small budget and three of the studio's busiest actors for the duration of a mere 2-3 weeks--Arzner accomplishes more than delivering the 90-minute "time-filler" asked of her by the studio: she manages to expose the invisible, assaultive power of men in American life, commerce and entertainment.The big moment is Maureen O'Hara's first strip-tease number in a burlesque theater where she is auditioning for a regular spot. Shortly into her routine, she experiences her personal epiphany--and then decides to share it with an all-male audience staring at her in anticipation of the removal of another piece of covering. Although shaming her audience in the theater with a brief lecture about THEIR indecency along with their infidelity and hypocrisy, O'Hara's words inevitably carry beyond the theater-in-the-story and its fictional audience to the "actual" spectators of the film--in movie theaters throughout the land and, eventually, to viewers watching the film on television screens.To any man who has--as Jimmy Carter once confessed in a moment of perhaps excessive candor--experienced "lust in his heart," Maureen O'Hara's seizure of the male gaze and condemnation of its owners will, at the very least, strike home and elicit a twinge of recognition and guilt in male viewers everywhere. Arzner constructs the scene to penetrate "the 4th wall" of cinema with a biting indictment of the film's male viewers everywhere! Moreover, she has, in effect, managed to "get one by" on the Hollywood establishment by exposing the devious underpinnings of the entire entertainment industry including film. Whether in a burlesque theater or a movie theater, adults enter into a dark place where they proceed to experience private fantasies even as they sit alongside strangers. For men, the fantasies in movies were provoked, from the very beginning, by depictions of sin in Biblical contexts (to get the movie past the censors). Or the camera might come to rest on the intimate personal real estate of Mae West --or on an infinity of naked female legs in a Busby Berkeley chorus line (one of the first acting jobs for Lucille Ball). For women, the camera might provoke fantasies of escape and "rescue" by the images of a powerful Clark Gable or a calm and steady Gary Cooper or a boyish Jimmy Stewart or a devilishly cool Humphrey Bogart. (Who can blame them?)The director's camera indicts all of the above and, as I once demonstrated in an "academic" paper analyzing the film, Arzner confronts one of the most powerful forces accounting for the success of the "classic" Hollywood film, which has from the beginning been the envy of every movie industry in the world. That undercurrent, or basic instinct, on which the power of cinema is based, is "the male gaze." Men "own" the gaze (and indirectly its contents); women, on the other hand, are the "objects" of the gaze.Arzner not only forgrounds the male gaze (in the burlesque theater): she uses her camera, in subtle but clever and effective ways, to "subvert" it. "Dance, Girl, Dance" is that rare movie that "explicitly" represents the dominant gaze--but does so through the eyes of a woman director who is working within a system requiring her to "follow the usual rules." She does so--just enough to ensure the film's approval by the male establishment. But she exercises the inventiveness of a creative artist to preserve and represent, as an alternative to the gaze of men, her own way of seeing.Would a "radical" feminist making an independent film with no strings attached do a better job? In one respect, yes. She could explicitly take on the patriarchal system and make a film in which women are "the lookers; and men, the "looked at." The next step is to "condemn" all of the films that show female leads who routinely are required to "sacrifice" everything for men--their health, their lovers, their children, their reputation ("Stella Dallas," "Dark Victory," "To each His Own" are just three of the typical "women's films" that always extract tears from me--largely because "reader-response theory" has trained me to position myself as a woman spectator watching the film). Next, comes the politicization of these issues into society, along with predictable responses by threatened conservatives determined to preserve the tried and true values that have always made America great, until now.Enough. A well-made film is not effective if it becomes a sermon or a manifesto or a jeremiad. In most cases, it's simply ignored. Perhaps the same was true for Dorothy Arzner's films. Before Alfred Hitchock's "Psycho," the public rarely took note of a movie's director, who was just one of many names in the credits. But no doubt there were a few spectators who noticed something unusual: the director had a woman's name. And the characters in her films were, more often than not, strong women protagonists (O'Hara and K. Hepburn). The times, they were changing. (Five years after this movie Maureen O'Hara would come out and publicly denounce all of the executives and moguls in Hollywood who expected her to sleep with them--"pay if you expect to play"). (In 1945 her stunning accusations, which would have gone "viral" today, amounted to a short column on the back page of one Hollywood newspaper.)Still, O'Hara almost always got the part--but on her terms--making clear up front that if there were any "illicit persuaders," she would simply walk. She didn't need movies apparently as badly as the movies needed her. She became one of the most filmed actresses in Hollywood history. Whether you see "Dance, Girl, Dance" as the story of her life or as the moment that gave her a fictional role that she would continue playing for the rest of her life, the point is equally and indelibly clear: Dorothy Arzner's movie was no "Gone with the Wind," but it anticipated the winds of change that arrived on college campuses in the '80's, currents that have progressively stirred things up throughout America.

The cast is wonderful and the film is especially enjoyable - showed all of Lucille Ball's talents - her singing (she was not dubbed in this roll of Bubbles) and dancing were most enjoyable as was her acting - showing both her comedic and dramatic talents. The female director, Dorothy Azner, was great choice for this film.Not sure if there were any female directors at the time. While Maureen O'Hara got top billing, I think Lucille Ball stole the show.

I caught part of Dance, Girl, Dance on TV a few months ago, so I was glad to find this movie was on DVD so I could finish the story. This film is a really interesting look at working-class women making their way in a "man's world," and actually has some pretty striking feminist sensibilities, considering it was made in 1940. This is probably due in no small part to the fact that the film was directed by Dorothy Arzner, one of the only major female directors from Hollywood's "golden" age. The story follows two members of the same dance troupe - Bubbles (Lucille Ball) and Judy (Maureen O'Hara) - as they strive to hit the big time. The two friends are a study in opposites - Bubbles is all sass with a heart of gold and knows what she wants (money, and lots of it) and isn't afraid to do whatever it takes to reach her goals. The conservative Judy loves to dance, not as a means to an end, but because dancing is her passion. Lucy really seems to relish playing the vampish Bubbles, and dominates every scene in which she appears. I don't think I've ever seen Maureen O'Hara play such an innocent ingénue like the role of Judy - however, when Judy snaps and tells off all of the patrons of a burlesque club, it hints at the feisty, strong-willed personality O'Hara exhibited in her later films (particularly those opposite John Wayne). The subplot involving Louis Hayward, whose marriage is on the rocks, is pretty interesting - Judy's interested because he's hurting and she wants to "fix" him while Bubbles sees dollar signs. I only wish that Steve's (Ralph Bellamy) character and relationship with Judy had gotten a bit more screen time. The DVD picture is crisp & clear, and the disc is padded with two extras - the short "Just a Cute Kid" and the cartoon "Malibu Beach Party." I was pleasantly surprised by how well this movie has endured, and with it's unusually strong exploration of women's roles circa 1940, it's a flick I see myself revisiting in the future.

It's hit and miss when trying out old movies. I guess it's still the same today. Well, especially today when over the top, graphic sex scenes, vulgarity and filth seem to be all that Hollywood wants to make. I really enjoyed this movie. For once, I didn't see Lucille Ball as Lucy Ricardo and I'd never seen a Maureen O'hara movie. I was not disappointed at all. No swearing, no vulgarity, no graphic sex scenes...... what a relief!! I really liked this movie and will enjoy it again and again.

I only learned about this film watching "These Amazing Shadows," a documentary about the National Film Registry. It was directed by Dorothy Arzner, one of the few women directors working consistently through the Golden Years of Studio Filmmaking. As Arzner came into the film a few weeks into shooting (when the male director left over a dispute over the script), she can't be credited as the authentic "auteur" of the film but, boy, she really plays up the female point of view, shockingly so for a film of 1940. The script's uneven and there are a lot of screwball comedy clichés, but all in all, Arzner's work is surprisingly good, even in a couple of unexpectedly elaborate musical and dance numbers, and she gets her female performers to shine. Lucille Ball is terrific and young Maureen O'Hara shines. The men - Ralph Bellamy and Louis Hayward (playing like a ersatz Orson Welles) - are pretty stiff. But when did you see Bellamy when he wasn't?

Thanks

This is an interesting little film that deserves to be better known. Two dancers from an ailing dance-troupe presided over by an elderly dance mistress ( the wonderful Maria Ouspenskaya) strike out on their own; Bubbles (lucille Ball) who rapidly becomes a burlesque queen, and Judy (Maureen O`Hara) who aspires to be a ballerina; Bubbles gets the struggling Judy a job at the burlesque theatre but working as a stooge, where her art is nightly ridiculed by the audience (male and vouyeristic). Things are further complicated by a dance director (Ralph Bellamy) who attracts both women. Both female characters are strong, determined and independent and director Dorothy Arzner does a fair job of presenting what is, for 1940 a fairly feminist viewpoint -these are career girls out to succeed in their chosen field and the question of sex and commerce versus art and aesthetics is still relevant today. Hollywood has always had an unfortunate tendancy to be a bit "precious" in portraying the arts on screen and Bellamy`s "modern ballet" sequence is a bit limp compared with the much more fun burlesque. The tour-de-force performance by Lucille Ball steals the show, even with O`Hara in top billing! This is a film that is entertaining, thoughtful in the issues it raises and well worth repeated viewing; with some witty dialogue,its not a musical as such but if you like them you`ll like this; "The Red Shoes" it ain`t, but a good film about dance that deserves your attention.Picture quality and sound are first rate, extras are a comedy short and a cartoon. Why no region 2 release?

Wonderful film. Great service from the seller. expensive blue ray. but worth it.

Fine