This blog discusses the movie Dirty Dancing, which was released in 1987 and starred Jennifer Grey and Patrick Swayze. The articles discuss:
* literary aspects, such as characterization, motivation, interactions;
* the music and dances;
* the production of the movie;
* critical reactions.
During the movie Dirty Dancing, Johnny Castle's attitude toward Baby Houseman evolves from his sarcasm that she is a "Miss Fix-It" to his appreciation that she is a person who is "willing to stand up for other people no matter what it costs her".
In this post here, I will analyze Johnny's initial, sarcastic put-down that she is a "Miss Fix-It". He gives her that nickname in the scene where Baby gives the abortion movie to Penny Johnson. Watch the below video beginning at 1:07.
Johnny Castle
Yeah it takes a real saint to ask Daddy.
Penny Johnson
Thanks, Baby, but I can't use it.
Johnny Castle
What? What's the matter with you? You should take the money. Billy Kostecki (Addressing Baby)
I can only get her an appointment for Thursday.
They do their act at the Sheldrake on Thursday night. If they cancel, they lose this season's salary and next year's gig.
Baby Houseman
What's the Sheldrake? Billy Kostecki
It's another hotel where they do their mambo act.
Baby Houseman
Can't someone else fill in?
Johnny Castle
No, Miss Fix-It. Somebody else can't fill in. ....
======
There are two problems in arranging an abortion for Penny.
1) The abortion costs $250 that Penny does not have.
2) The abortion will conflict in time with the Sheldrake performance.
Baby has just fixed the first problem and now suggests a fix for the second problem.
Johnny is resentful because Baby has the resources, practicality and initiative to fix problems that he himself has not been able to fix.
Penny and Billy, however, immediately recognize Baby's practical fix, which is that someone else could fill in for Penny at the Sheldrake. Johnny is compelled to go along with Baby's proposed fix -- and furthermore to train Baby as Penny's substitute.
=====
Johnny's resentment about Baby's practicality began already earlier in the story. When Johnny, Baby and Billy are going to the kitchen to help Penny, Baby asks Billy a practical question: what is Johnny going to do about Penny's pregnancy?:
Baby Houseman
So, what's wrong? What's the matter with her?
Billy Kosetecki
She's knocked up, Baby. Johnny Castle
Billy!
Baby Houseman (Addressing Billy) What's he [Johnny] going to do about it?
Johnny Castle
What's he gonna do about it? Oh, it's mine, right? Right away you think it's mine.
Here Johnny is changing the subject. He has no idea of what he might do about Penny's pregnancy, so he changes the subject to blaming Baby for implying mistakenly that he caused the pregnancy.
======
Baby is a practical person. When she sees a problem that she might be able to solve -- or at least help to solve -- she takes practical steps to do so. If she can get some money from her father, she does so. If she thinks someone else might fill in for Penny, she suggests the idea.
Baby intends to obtain a higher education to learn how to study big social problems and to develop and administer solutions.
Baby is following the example of her father, who obtained a higher education in medicine to become a doctor who provides practical help to people with health problems.
In contrast, Johnny is an entertainer. He does not aspire to solve significant problems of other people.
The Houseman family conformed to the social conventions that worked well during the 1950s and early 1960s. The men attended universities and the developed professional careers. The women married and managed households that raised children to follow those conventions. Such families prospered.
Other characters in the movie followed the same conventions, although sometimes less than perfectly. Neil Kellerman attended a School of Hotel Management and was trying to find a suitable marriage partner. Robbie Gould attended Yale Medical School and dumped a girlfriend who turned out to be not suitable as a marriage partner.
The movie's major characters who failed to follow the social conventions were Johnny Castle and Penny Johnson, who were struggling to make their livings as professional dancers. Neither of them had obtained a higher education as their basis for developing their careers. Neither of them -- while already in their mid-twenties -- were orienting themselves toward marriage and children.
Johnny and Penny are artists who are struggling professionally and personally. Their economic futures seem bleak. Johnny might have to go back to painting and plastering houses. Penny suffered a close call with an unmarried pregnancy. Johnny and Penny feel intellectually inadequate and lack social self-confidence
Johnny resented the success that the Houseman family enjoyed by conforming to the social conventions. The Housemans either obtained higher educations or devoted themselves to becoming supportive wives and mothers. The Housemans prospered by fixing problems.
Because Jake Houseman had become a doctor, he earned enough money to give $250 to his daughter for some unexplained reason. Because Baby was a trusted daughter of such a prosperous father, she could use his wealth as a resource to fix problems.
======
As the story continues, Johnny does not decide that he should follow the Houseman family's example, but he does come to respect the family's capabilities and conduct.
On the other hand, the Houseman family -- especially Jake -- comes to respect the capabilities and conduct of the struggling artists -- Johnny and Penny.
======
From the movie's beginning, Billy respects the Houseman family. Billy sees Max Kellerman praise and honor the family when the family arrives at the resort.
Billy never treats Baby disrespectfully -- as the artists Johnny and Penny treat her. Billy supports all of Baby's intentions, suggestions and efforts.
Billy is an intermediary between the story's conventional families and struggling artists. He is employed to help the resort's guest families and to help also the resort's artists. Billy too is a practical fixer of problems, and so he appreciates Baby's being a practical fixer of problems.
In this post I will write about a series of romantic relationships, in which the movie and stage musical differ.
1) Billy Kostecki and Elizabeth
2) Jake and Marjorie Houseman
3) Neil Kellerman and Baby Houseman
4) Johnny Castle and Baby Houseman
Other relationships -- involving Lisa Houseman, Penny Johnson, Robbie Gould, Lisa Houseman and Vivian Pressman -- are essentially similar in the movie and musical.
======
Billy Kostecki and Elizabeth
In my previous article about the musical's race aspect, I pointed out that Billy frequently sings with a Negro female co-worker. I perceived that he looks at her longingly, but I did not notice his saying anything romantic to her. According to the musical's program, the character is called Elizabeth.
In an earlier post titled The Resort Hotel's Employees, I reported -- based on Eleanor Bergstein's commentary in a DVD -- that the an early draft of the movie's story was supposed to include a scene showing that Negroes were allowed to use the resort's swimming pool along with Caucasians.
When the producers were selecting a resort as a location for the movie, they looked for a resort with a swimming pool, because the movie was supposed to show that the swimming pool was racially integrated. The author Eleanor Bergstein in her running commentary mentioned that the Jewish-owned resorts racially integrated their swimming pools before the other resorts did so, so apparently her original script included a reference to that fact.
However, the producers could not find an available resort with a swimming pool (we do see guests swimming in a lake). Therefore none of the movie’s dialogue refers to the racial integration of the swimming pool, although the dialogue refers several times to the Civil Rights movement that was developing in the South in the early 1960s. We can suppose that the African-Americans in the planned swimming-pool scene would have been the orchestra members, who were idle during the days.
Based on the stage musical, I now speculate further that the swimming pool scene was supposed to introduce a subplot about a romantic relationship between Caucasian Billy and Negro Elizabeth.
(In 1963 the polite words were Caucasian and Negro, and so I use them here.)
If there was some relationship between Billy and Elizabeth, then perhaps Elizabeth was involved somehow in Billy helping Penny getting an abortion. Below is my list of speculations.
* Elizabeth herself or a close relative or friend had had an abortion.
* Elizabeth remarked that Negroes were disadvantaged in getting legal abortions.
* Elizabeth helped cover for Billy or Penny while they were gone from work for an entire day.
The Billy-Elizabeth subplot was eliminated, however, as clutter around the time that the producers failed to find a resort with a swimming pool.
Years later, when Bergstein had the opportunity to retell her story as a musical, she restored Elizabeth into the story. Elizabeth sings with Billy, and he seems to be attracted to her, but their relationship is not elaborated further in the musical.
=======
Jake and Marjorie Houseman
Marjorie Houseman is much more prominent in the musical than in the movie.
They have a long conversation while they are playing golf. Unfortunately, I did not grasp that conversation's essence. I perceived that there was some tension between them. They seemed to be making biting remarks at each other.
(I did not take notes or record sound while I was watching the musical. I do not have access to the musical's script. Although the musical's sound system was superb, my hearing is becoming worse, and I could not understand every word. My account of the dialogue is based only on my memory and might be mistaken in some details.)
My perception might be based on the ABC original movie, in which they are approaching a divorce.
After Penny recovers from her abortion in the musical, she is so grateful to the entire Houseman family that she takes the initiative to give private dance lessons to Marjorie. During such a lesson, Penny mentions that Jake had treated her after her an abortion. Penny assumes that Marjorie knew about this, but Marjorie knew nothing until Penny mentioned it.
Marjorie is angry that Jake has kept this secret from her, and so she goes and confronts Jake about it.
Afterwards Marjorie confronts Baby. This scene in the musical is similar to a scene that was filmed for the movie but was deleted (8:17 to 9:02 in the following video).
In both the movie and the musical, Marjorie insinuates that Baby's actions have been wrecking the Houseman family. This insinuation makes much more sense when we understand that Marjorie fears that her marriage might be breaking apart.
Since all the marriage problems have been removed from the movie, Marjorie's insinuation is puzzling. How exactly has Baby been "wrecking everyone else's lives"? As far as the movie audience can see, Baby has only disappointed her father by lying to him about the borrowed money. Even in regard to Jake, Baby has not wrecked anything.
In the musical, however, Baby has caused a serious argument between Marjorie and Baby, because Penny unwittingly revealed to Marjorie the secret of Jake's involvement in the abortion. Since Marjorie and Jake have been having marriage problems, this revelation might be the straw that breaks the camel's back of the marriage. In that regard, Baby might have wrecked her parents' marriage.
The scene deleted from the movie was a superb, and it was acted superbly by the actress Kelly Bishop, who played the character Marjorie. Since the marriage problems had been eliminated from the movie, however, Marjorie's insinuation that Baby was wrecking everyone else's lives no longer made sense. That might be why this superb scene was deleted.
The marriage trouble between Jake and Marjorie was removed from the movie but later was restored to the stage musical and to the ABC original movie.
In the first part of Dirty Dancing, the relationship between Baby Houseman and Neil Kellerman is friendly, even affectionate.
In the movie's last part, Neil becomes a rather negative character. Therefore, people who have watched the entire movie develop a false memory that he was a negative character in the first part too. People persist in this mistake even as they watch the movie many times.
Early in the movie, Baby and Neil dance and chat together in the ballroom. A couple days ago, I re-watched that scene three times, looking for indications that Baby felt uncomfortable with Neil. I was surprised to find that she obviously is enjoying her time with him in the ballroom. This realization has caused me to reconsider Baby's and Neil's relationship.
Now I recognize that Baby was using Neil as her practice boyfriend, also known as a starter boyfriend, without his knowing his status.
[....]
Baby decided to use Neil as a practice boyfriend because she is not sure how to be feminine naturally. She wants to see how an interested man talks and acts with her, and she wants to experiment with her responses. For her, this is fun, and she is happy to remain in an elementary flirting stage for a long time.
She strings Neil along slowly. As the week passes, she gradually allows him more freedom to kiss and embrace her. Eventually she even allows him to touch a breast briefly through her clothes during a night's final embrace.
Baby likes Neil as a friend. He has many admirable qualities. After Neil and Johnny argue about the pachanga dance, she advises Johnny to discuss the issue with Neil again. She knows that Neil is a reasonable and accommodating person.
Baby thinks that Neil learned useful lessons about female-male interactions from herself too. She expects that he eventually will become a good husband for some other woman.
That interpretation of mine has been confirmed by my watching the stage musical. In particular, the musical includes an important conversation among Baby, Neil and Johnny in the scene right after the "Love Is Strange" dance. Neil enters the dance room and begins talking about the talent show, the pechanga, and so forth.
During this conversation, they talk about politics. Baby admires Neil for his political activism, for his intention to travel to Mississippi to help promote civil rights for Negroes. Johnny scoffs, saying that he himself never has voted even once in his life. Baby is appalled by Johnny's lack of even interest.
Then, however, Neil reveals that he will not travel to Mississippi after all, because he as a manager should not be gone from the hotel for a couple of weeks. Now Baby is somewhat disappointed with Neil for subordinating his political activism to his professional career.
This conversation is important in the story, because it gives Baby a reason to shift her romantic affection from Neil completely to Johnny. Although Johnny is not interested in politics, Neil's interest is more talk than action.
In general, I perceived throughout the musical scattered indications that Baby was affectionate and respectful toward Neil. These indications are related to the scattered mentions that Neil intends to travel to Mississippi.
In contrast, the movie mentions Neil's intention only once, when Neil and Baby are dancing in the ballroom during her first night at the resort. In that single context, the mention seems to be merely an empty boast to impress idealistic Baby.
The musical's continuing mentions of Neil's intended Mississippi trip support Baby's affection and admiration toward Neil during the story. Her disappointment in him occurs near the story's end and occurs suddenly.
======
Johnny Castle and Baby Houseman
In the stage musical that I saw, Baby dances more poorly and improves more slowly than in the movie.
The musical's program reports that the actress, Kaleigh Courts, has attended the Houston Ballet Academy and has performed as a member of the Houston Ballet, so the actress can dance superbly. She purposely dances poorly in the musical.
She continues to dance poorly through the "Hungry Eyes" and "Hey, Baby" scenes. Only when she accomplishes the lift move in the lake does she seem to show improvement. Her dancing at the Sheldrake is likewise worse in the musical than in the movie. Her dancing during and after the "Love Is Strange" scene is about the same in the musical as in the movie.
Johnny's apparent affection for Baby corresponds to her dancing skill. In other words, his affection develops slower in the musical than in the movie. I didn't notice this difference in any dialogue. Rather, his coolness -- his iciness -- toward her is indicated by his body movements and voice tone.
Maybe other actors playing Johnny and Baby in other companies play their relationship differently. Maybe other actresses playing Baby dance better and maybe other actors playing Johnny speak more warmly. For the purpose of my article here, I must assume that the performance that I happened to see is the Baby-Johnny relationship that the stage musical is supposed to portray.
In the musical, the relationship develops more slowly, and so their decision to becomes sexual is more sudden and seems to be prompted by their mutual experience of seeing Penny in mortal danger after her abortion.
In the movie, they became gradually more affectionate while they are practicing for their Sheldrake performance. In the musical, they become suddenly more affection after they have become sexual, which they have done because they were upset about Penny.
Even after Baby has become sexual with Johnny, she still feels affectionate towards Neil. Only after Neil reveals that he will not travel to Mississippi after all, does Baby shift all her romantic attention to Johnny.
======
I think that the musical's portrayal of the relationship among Baby, Neil and Johnny is closer to Bergstein's original concept than the movie is.
In the movie, Neil seems to be merely a tiresome creep, and so it is obvious that Baby should disdain him and prefer the exciting artist Johnny. Furthermore, the movie's Jewish subtext suggests that Baby feels pressured by her family to marry a Jewish man, like Neil.
In the musical, Baby continually admires Neil because of his political activism, which is symbolized continually by his intention to travel to Mississippi. In contrast, Baby is appalled that Johnny is so politically uninterested that he has never even voted. Therefore, Baby's dilemma about whether to select Neil or Johnny as her ultimate romantic interest is more conflicted. Her dilemma is resolved only when Neil reveals that he will not travel to Mississippi after all.
The removal of most of the racial aspect from the movie prevented the movie audience from understanding why Baby might admire Neil. The movie audience perceived Neil to be merely a tiresome creep.
The character Neil was played brilliantly as a tiresome creep by the actor Lonny Price, who furthermore is a rather short man. Perhaps the character Neil turned out to be more despised by the movie audience than Bergstein intended because of the decision to cast Price in the role and because of Price's brilliant performance of the role.
If my speculation that the musical's portrayal of the Baby-Neil-Johnny triangle is closer than the movie to Bergstein's original concept, then I judge her original concept to be the better story. In the musical, Baby is more conflicted about whether she should pursue a romantic relationship with a man like Neil or a man like Johnny.
=======
Most people love the movie Dirty Dancing so much that they reject reflexively other presentations of the story. This rejection happened especially in regard to the ABC original movie. (I have published twoposts praising the ABC version and intend to publish two more.)
However, the movie is somewhat different from Bergstein's original story. The movie was addressed to an audience in the 1980s and had to be kept to a standard length and had to kept rather simple. Therefore, much of Bergstein's story was not included in the movie.
The other presentations -- the stage musical and the ABC original movie -- were for audiences in the 21st century. Those audiences are already very familiar with the movie's story and they live in a more multi-ethnic society. The story can be told more briskly, making time for the racial aspect and the Housemans' marriage trouble to be restored into Bergstein's story. The later presentations are closer than the movie to Bergstein's original concept of the story.
The stage musical has provided new insights into the roles of Billy, Jake, Marjorie, Neil and Johnny -- and therefore into the role of Baby.
Baby and Johnny are lying next to each other on their backs in bed, relaxing after some sexual activity. Johnny says:
You want to hear something crazy?
Last night, I dreamt we were walking along, and we met your father. He said, "Come on," and he put his arm around me. Just like he did with Robbie.
Baby does not respond.
Johnny telling Baby about his dream
as they listen to the song "In the Still of the Night"
=====
That happened on the night of Saturday, August 31. The talent show will be on the following day, Sunday, September 1.
Johnny had his dream during the previous night from Friday to Saturday, August 30-31. The dream might have been prompted by the events that had happened on Friday, which I have summarized as follows:
Friday, August 30
At breakfast, Jake tells his family they are going home the next day (Saturday). Because Lisa wants to perform in the talent show (Sunday), Jake relents to stay. After Jake has re-examined Penny in her cabin and left, Baby and Johnny enter the cabin. Penny asks how their performance went on the previous night, and Baby says she didn't do the lift. After Baby leaves the cabin, Penny tells Johnny to stay away from Baby.
The Houseman family is inside a room because it is raining.
Baby returns to Johnny's cabin and they have fun and talk in bed.
That night, Baby and Lisa are in their hotel bedroom, and Lisa says she intends to "go all the way" with Robbie. Baby advises Lisa to wait and do it "with someone that you sort of love".
Baby slept in her hotel room with Lisa that night.
During the night between Friday and Saturday, Johnny has his dream. If Baby had spent that night in Johnny's cabin, he would have told her about his dream on Saturday morning.
(Maybe Vivian Pressman slept in Johnny's cabin that night. Vivian sure planned to sleep in Johnny's cabin during the following night.)
Then during Saturday the following events happen.
Saturday, August 31
Baby and Johnny do the "Love is Strange" dance in a practice room. Neil insists that Johnny teach the employees to dance the pachanga for the talent show. Baby advises Johnny to discuss the dance choice with Neil again. Johnny says he might have to go back to a house-painting job.
The radio announces:
It's almost over. The Labor Day weekend is here. Soon it's back to the old books and back to work. What a terrible thought!
Johnny gets mad because Baby won't tell her father about their relationship. Johnny leaves, but Baby finds him in Penny's cabin. Baby and Johnny go out onto the cabin's porch and begin to make peace with each other. Johnny fights with Robbie.
Various people are preparing for the Sunday talent show. Vivian invites Johnny to meet her later that evening. While playing cards, Moe offers Johnny money to give Vivian a dance lesson. Johnny refuses the money. Lisa goes to Robbie's cabin and finds him having sexual intercourse with Vivian. Baby goes to Johnny's cabin and has fun with him in bed again.
Then Johnny tells Baby about his dream that happened on the previous night.
======
Let's think some more about Friday.
Friday morning at breakfast, Jake announced to his family that they all would leave on Saturday. Then he relented and agreed to stay through Sunday.
Later on that Friday afternoon, Baby went to Johnny's cabin and had fun with him in bed. While there, Baby surely told Johnny that her father knew she and Johnny were had become intimate. Her father had learned from Lisa that Baby had been away from their hotel room during the entire Thursday-Friday night. Her father was angry and had decided to separate Baby and Johnny by the family's leaving a day early.
Furthermore, Baby was worried that her father would watch her -- or arrange for someone else to watch her -- until the family departed on Sunday.
Because Baby thought she was being watched, she slept in her hotel room during the Friday-Saturday night.
This was the situation when Johnny went to sleep on Friday night and had his dream.
======
Although Johnny spends considerable time with Baby during Saturday, he does not tell her during the day about his dream.
After the "Love Is Strange" dance, Johnny becomes angry at Neil about the talent show. Then Johnny becomes angry at Baby because she is not telling her father about them. The latter angry moment would have been a fit occasion to tell Baby about his dream, but he does not do so.
Johnny continues to be angry. He fights with Robbie.
He is stressed by preparing for the talent show.
He does not relax until he is in bed at night, and then he tells Baby about the dream he had seen during the previous night.
=====
So, Johnny's dream indicates that he wants Jake to become his buddy -- a day after Johnny has had sex with Jake's 17-year-old daughter right after Jake ordered her to stay away from Johnny.
Johnny barely knows Jake, who now has a valid reason for despising him. Baby is trying to prevent Johnny and her father from coming within eyesight of each other.
Johnny has sex with Vivian Pressman. Does Johnny dream about her husband Moe putting his arm around him?
Johnny has sex with lots of women. Does he dream about their husbands, boyfriends and fathers?
The entire Houseman family will leave on Sunday night or Monday morning. Then Baby and Jake will be gone from Johnny's life forever.
Why does Johnny care so much about Jake liking him during those couple of remaining days?
=====
Let's look at Johnny's dream story again.
You want to hear something crazy?
Last night, I dreamt we were walking along, and we met your father. He said, "Come on," and he put his arm around me. Just like he did with Robbie.
What really irks Johnny is that he feels socially inferior to Robbie. This feeling makes Johnny so angry that during the day following his dream he beats Robbie up.
=====
Johnny's beating Robbie up was Johnny's second encounter with Robbie during that day.
After the "Love Is Strange" dance and Johnny's argument with Neil, Baby and Johnny are walking outside and talking. Johnny says he might have to go back to painting houses.
Then Baby and Johnny notice Jake, Robbie and Lisa walking and talking about the Domino Theory. Baby makes Johnny duck down with her so they won't be seen by her father.
After Jake, Robbie and Lisa walk away, Johnny gets mad at Baby because she is not telling her father that Johnny is "her guy". Johnny is extra mad because he has just seen Jake walking and talking with Robbie.
A short time later that same day, Johnny beats up Robbie.
=====
I suspect that the dream was inserted into the Dirty Dancing story by Patrick Swayze. Eleanor Bergstein's original script portrayed Johnny as a confident, unapologetic and bold character -- similar to her character Ben Lewin in her previous movie It's My Turn.
All the insecure and neurotic characteristics of Johnny Castle were added by Swayze.
When Swayze wrote Johnny's monologue about the dream, Swayze did not even bother himself to write a response for Baby to speak. The scene is a moment for just Swayze to shine as an actor and to make his character Johnny more emotionally complex.
======
Right before Johnny told Baby about his dream, he put on a record of the song "In the Still of the Night". The song plays while he is telling he about his dream.
The song's first two stanzas:
In the still of the night
I held you,
Held you tight,
Because I love,
Love you so.
I promise I'll never let you go --
In the still of the night.
Since Johnny chose this particular song to play while he told Baby about his dream, he apparently is fantasizing somewhat that he might become engaged with Baby and eventually join the Houseman family. Then Jake might put his arm around Johnny as his future son-in-law.
If Johnny joins the Houseman family, however, he might become Robbie's brother-in-law. Earlier that day, Johnny had seen Jake, Robbie and Lisa walking together. Obviously, Robbie and Lisa had reconciled.
Furthermore, Baby surely had told Johnny that Lisa intended to have sex with Robbie that same night. As far as Baby and Johnny knew, Lisa and Robbie were having sex right while Johnny was telling Baby about his dream.
If Lisa and Robbie were becoming an intimate couple and if Johnny was fantasizing about becoming engaged with Baby, then there was a real possibility that Johnny might become Robbie's brother-in-law.
In that sense, Johnny might have felt that his dream was prophetic -- that Jake eventually would embrace both Johnny and Robbie as his sons-in-law.
When Dr. Jake Houseman came to treat Penny Johnson in her cabin, Johnny Castle indicated that he was "responsible for this girl" (beginning at 0:55 in the following video clip).
OK. Yes, I know that hurts. We're gonna take care of that.
Who's responsible for this girl?
Johnny Castle
I am. Please, is she ...?
Billy Kostecki
Doc, thanks a lot. Johnny Castle
Dr. Houseman, I don't know how to thank you, to tell you ...
=====
Jake had seen Penny working at the hotel. He knew that she was an adult who worked for her living. When he came into her cabin, he saw that she was conscious and able to speak.
Why, then, did Jake immediately ask who was "responsible" for Penny? There were at least two reasons:
1) Since the hotel employed her, the hotel might have some rules about the provision of medical treatment to its employees.
2) Since Penny might lose consciousness soon, someone might have to approve, on Penny's behalf, Jake's decisions or recommendations.
As an experienced doctor, Jake knew that he was in a situation that might involve his own potential liability if Penny's condition turned worse after he began treateding her.
=====
However, there was another consideration that motivated Jake to ask his question. While his daughter Baby was bringing him to the cabin, she surely informed him that Penny was suffering the consequences of an illegal abortion. Given that information, Jake began to suspect whether Baby had asked him for $250 for that purpose.
Jake did not voice his suspicion to Baby right away. Rather, he waited to learn the situation in the cabin. If he learned who was responsible for Penny's abortion, then he might get a good clue about what Baby did with the $250 he gave her.
======
Johnny identified himself as the responsible person in two senses.
1) Johnny, as the chief of the Entertainment Staff, was the official supervisor of Penny. For example, when Neil Kellerman, in the previous week, had wondered about Penny's absence from the dance in the gazebo, Neil had asked Johnny about Penny's whereabouts and had admonished Johnny to discipline her.
2) Johnny, as Penny's friend, had pressured Penny to get an abortion. Johnny had urged Penny to accept Baby's $250, and Johnny's cousin Billy Kostecki had arranged the abortion.
From the second sense, Jake deduced correctly that Johnny was involved -- was "responsible" -- in Penny's getting an abortion.
Neither Jake nor Johnny meant to communicate here about who had made Penny pregnant. Jake simply jumped to that conclusion because he -- like many others -- assumed that Johnny and Penny were a romantic couple.
Jake probably assumed also that Baby had been manipulated by Johnny and Penny to ask him for the money. Jake still had no idea that Baby alone had initiated her request for the money.
=======
As Jake and Baby left the cabin together, Jake voiced his conclusion that Baby gave his $250 to Johnny and Penny for the abortion.
Jake Houseman
Was that what my money paid for?
Baby Houseman
I'm sorry. I never meant to lie to you. Jake Houseman
You're not the person I thought you were, Baby. I'm not sure who you are. I don't want you to have anything to do with those people again.
Baby Houseman
But can’t I just explain? Jake Houseman
Nothing! You're to have nothing to do with them ever again! I won't tell your mother about this. Right now I'm going to bed. And take that stuff off your face before your mother sees you!
Baby intended to explain:
* Robbie had made Penny pregnant
* Robbie refused to help Penny pay for an abortion
* Penny did not have enough money to pay for an abortion.
* Penny could get an abortion quickly if she got the money.
That explanation would have been truthful, even if it had not satisfied Jake.
======
Right after her father's prohibition, Baby went directly to Johnny's cabin in order to carry out her plan to seduce him. Baby was acting recklessly in regard to her father. She figured that her father eventually might find out that she was having sex with Johnny. No matter, she went and had sex with him.
Baby's private time with Johnny perhaps also gave her the opportunity to get their story straight in case Jake asked more questions.
======
Neither Johnny nor Baby ever corrected Jake's mistaken assumption that Penny had become pregnant from Johnny. Baby easily could have corrected her father about that when she talked with him later -- in her "I'm sorry I lied" monologue.
Baby avoided talking with her father about who Penny was having sex with because Baby did not want any such conversation to get around to the question of who she herself was having sex with.
Baby Houseman
By the way, Daddy, Johnny did not have sex with Penny. She got pregnant from Robbie.
Jake Houseman
Thanks for correcting me about that, Baby. By the way, did Johnny have sex with you?
Baby avoided any such conversation with her father about the situation. She limited her conversation to her lying about why she asked for the money. She avoided talking about who was having sex with whom.
The Urban Dictionary defines the expression Walk of Shame:
The walk from another person(s) house, apartment, condo, dorm, van, bar, park bench or other; to your place of residence wearing the same clothes you had on the night before.
Typically used when someone leaves the home of a sexual escapade (quite possibly with someone you met the night before) in the morning; hair sticking out in all directions, lines on your face, and missing at least one article of clothing. ...
Baby is wearing her party dress and carrying, in her hand, a pair of high-heel shoes.
Baby's walk of shame was seen by one other person -- by Vivian Pressman, who was beginning her own walk of shame.
Vivian Pressman sees Baby's walk of shame.
Vivian herself is beginning her own walk of shame.
=====
On the previous evening Baby was seen wearing the clothes in the below image.
Baby's clothes on the evening
before her walk of shame.
The that same previous evening, Vivian was seen wearing the clothes in the below image.
Vivian's clothes on the evening
before her walk of shame.
Later that evening, Baby and Vivian changed into party dresses, but the reason is not revealed in the movie. In the morning, Baby and Vivian are wearing their party dresses as they begin their walks of shame.
=====
On Friday, August 30 -- two days before Baby's walk of shame -- Baby father, Jake Houseman, declared at breakfast that the family would leave the resort early. Although Jake changed his mind already during breakfast, Baby was afraid that he would catch her socializing with the dancers and therefore decide again to leave the resort early. Therefore, Baby was very careful about being seen by her father socializing with the dancers.
On Sunday, September 1, Baby no longer worried much about being seen -- even is she was doing a walk of shame from Johnny Castle's cabin in the morning. Later that morning, she even admitted to her parents that she had spent the night in his cabin.
By Sunday, the family already was committed to stay through the talent show that evening. Baby and Johnny would perform their dance in the talent show, no matter what.
However, Baby did not foresee that Johnny would be fired during the day because of a stolen wallet.
While Marjorie and Jake Houseman are watching Baby Houseman and Johnny Castle doing their final dance, Marjorie remarks to Jake:
I think she gets it from me!
In the following video clip, Marjorie's remark occurs at 1:20.
Marjorie seems to imply that Baby inherited her apparent dancing talent from Marjorie. The movie audience has not seen, however, any evidence that Marjorie herself has any dancing talent. Marjorie has been seen in four dancing situations:
-----
1) Marjorie is participating in a class for beginning dancers conducted by Penny Johnson.
The Houseman family taking a class for beginning dancers.
-----
2) During their first evening at the resort, Marjorie and Jake are dancing to orchestra music. Marjorie's dancing is not remarkable.
Marjorie's unremarkable dancing with Jake in the ballroom
-----
3) During a later evening, some guests are dancing in the gazebo. Marjorie and Jake are not dancing, because they are waiting for an "a waltz" -- a simple and slow dance.
Marjorie: "We're waiting for a waltz"
-----
4) On the last evening, after Baby and Johnny have performed their dance, Marjorie is seen dancing with Neil Kellerman. Marjorie's dancing is a simple boogie -- not remarkable.
Marjorie boogie-dancing with Neil
======
Marjorie's remark makes a bad impression that she is ditzy and vain. At that point she has seen Baby performing her dance for only one minute, but that short time has sufficed to see that Baby is performing rather well. Marjorie's apparent conclusion that Baby's performance is due to Marjorie herself seems absurd.
It's possible that Eleanor Bergstein intended to make Marjorie look ditzy and vain. The Houseman family seems to comprise two contrasting groups:
1) Lisa and Marjorie are ditzy and vain.
2) Baby and Jake are thoughtful and modest.
However, Marjorie's remark is said during the movie's happy ending. I think that Bergstein intended the remark to make a better impression about Marjorie, but Bergstein's intention went awry.
======
Important context for Marjorie's remark was deleted from the movie. A few hours before the talent show, Marjorie and Baby had a serious conversation in which Marjorie compared herself to Baby. The conversation was filmed, but the scene was deleted when the film was edited. In the following video, the deleted conversation can be seen between 8:17 and 9:02.
Baby Houseman
Ma, please, you don't understand.
Marjorie Houseman
No, Baby, you don't.
I know about this. I really know.
When I was your age, I was in love with someone else before your father. And when it ended, it hurt so bad I thought I'd die of it, but I didn't.
And I didn't wreck everyone else's lives in the process either.
Here, Marjorie compares her own seventeen-year-old self with seventeen-year-old Baby. Marjorie too suffered a painful break-up with a boyfriend.
Marjorie's remark she she didn't wreck everyone else's lives either is ambiguous. This remark might mean
* Marjorie did not wreck lives, but Baby is doing so.
... or else it might mean ...
* Marjorie did not wreck lives, and Baby likewise is not wrecking lives.
I think that the second meaning is the correct interpretation. Marjorie is reassuring Baby that Baby will get through this personal crisis and that the Houseman family too will survive this family crisis. However, Marjorie also is suggesting to Baby that Baby's crisis is affecting -- albeit not wrecking -- the family.
Marjorie is helping Baby to understand her crisis with a proper perspective.
=====
My key point here is that in this deleted scene Marjorie compared herself to Baby. Although the scene has been deleted, we should use it as important context for Marjorie's remark, just a few hours later, that I think she gets it from me!
In that sentence, Marjorie's word it does not refer mainly to Baby's dance skill, but rather to Baby's emotional strength.
Marjorie and Jake both are aware that Baby is suffering from her breakup with Johnny. Although Johnny has disrupted the talent show and has taken Baby up onto the stage, the breakup continues.
Johnny's speech gives Marjorie and Jake a new perspective on Baby's recent actions. Baby has not been "wrecking everyone else's lives". Rather, Baby has been standing up for other people and has been teaching Johnny to be a better person.
Then, despite the emotional pain that Baby has suffered -- and still is suffering -- from her breakup, Baby focuses on dancing well and keeps a smile on her face. Baby makes the whole Houseman family proud of her.
Baby privately has stood up for and taught other people, and now she publicly is displaying grit and courage. In that regard, Marjorie sees her own young self in Baby and feels proud that she has raised Baby to become such an admirable young adult.
That is why Marjorie -- a mother proud of her daughter -- exclaims I think she gets it from me!
On May 24, 2017, ABC broadcast the ABC original movie event (notice that expression on the poster) titled Dirty Dancing.
ABC does not call the movie a remake, which is the word used by most people who discuss the movie. Here in this blog article, I will use the expression ABC original movie (not remake).
If you have not seen the ABC original movie, then watching this video, made by Clevver News, summarizes it well.
Having watched the ABC original movie three times, I like it. I encourage people to watch the ABC original movie with an open mind. I encourage people who already have watched it -- even if they hated it -- to watch it again.
-----
The ABC original movie has received little praise. The website Rotten Tomatoes reports favorable reviews from only 20% of the professional reviewers and from 12% of ordinary reviewers. I will provide excerpts from four negative reviews.
The Dirty Dancing phenomenon was never really about the story — or the music — or even the dancing. It was about the way those things came together at a particular moment in time for a particular audience in a gritty movie featuring two engaging stars.
That kind of lightning in a bottle can’t be recreated, a point ABC takes a wearying three hours to make on Wednesday night with its new, chemistry-free version of that beloved film. Most of the signature scenes are reproduced — watermelons are carried, a dance lift in a lake is attempted — but the emotional investment that made the 1987 movie an unexpected worldwide phenomenon is nowhere to be felt. ...
The music is also handled differently. Rather than having a soundtrack, the remake often has actors singing the numbers as they would on Broadway. But the device generally feels forced and isn’t used often enough to give this treatment the feel of a full-fledged musical. It’s more like “a movie in which actors occasionally burst into song for no reason.” A real musical deploys its songs organically; here they tend to interrupt rather than enhance.
The hope for this “Dirty Dancing” is presumably that it will both charm the original fans and appeal to viewers who today are the age that those fans were in 1987. But no young person in 2017 wants to hear another word about the 1960s. And the moviegoers who loved Dirty Dancing in the Reagan administration will recognize this new version for the sterile imitation that it is. ...
Remaking one of the most popular and beloved movies in the history of cinema feels almost disrespectful on many levels. Going into the TV movie remake of Dirty Dancing with a clear and open mind, I figured that if at least the dancing was good, then there was something to enjoy. However, the updated version doesn’t even meet the lowest of expectations and blows past mediocre to land at downright terrible. The film is slow and dull, the lead actors have absolutely no chemistry, and the musical aspect doesn’t add anything to the film beyond being time-consuming.
The Dirty Dancing remake follows the same general storyline of the original film. It’s still set in the 1960s, Baby Houseman (Abigail Breslin) still ends up falling for Johnny Castle (Colt Prattes), and she still fights the expectations set by her father (Bruce Greenwood). However, it modifies some of the narrative and, to put it simply, makes it much more palatable and suitable for a younger audience. This Disney-washing, if you will, takes away some of the more serious and important aspects of the original film and makes it feel like more of a saccharine version of it. The remake also expands on several characters’ backstory, like that of Baby’s mother (Debra Messing) and father. This version of the film gives them marital problems and allows Baby’s sister, Lisa (Sarah Hyland), to develop outside of the story of simply falling for a jerk.
It’s important for any remake to set itself apart from the original film it’s based on, but Dirty Dancing only allows for so many changes and mostly follows the original narrative verbatim. The additional aspects–the singing, the expansion of some character dynamics, its attempts at being really cute – don’t add anything to the film at all. The TV movie is long, clocking in at two hours and ten minutes, and there are several instances where it becomes boring to watch. ....
-----
Here are excerpts from a third negative review, written by television critic Sonia Saraiya for Variety:
Dirty Dancing on ABC is a sappy, passionless, schlocky remake of the original, without even the iota of imagination necessary to expand upon the 1987 film. Nearly every element of the film that caught worldwide audiences’ imaginations has been sanded down into an advertisement-ready imagining of the swinging ‘60s.
What stands out most, surprisingly, is the smallest of details — the cast doesn’t sweat, even while they are dancing in the hot summer, or while they are making love in the middle of the humid night. There’s nothing dirty about this. And there’s barely even dancing: The production attached “Hamilton” choreographer Andy Blankenbuehler, but it’s unclear what they did with his talents, because dance sequences do not take up much of the film’s run-time, and what is seen is sadly below par. The average ABC viewer can see better on an off-week of Dancing With the Stars.
This is not to specifically ding lead Abigail Breslin, who is quite winning during the scenes where Baby is called upon to express emotions. But Dirty Dancing is a dance movie, and Breslin, while competent, is not a dazzling performer. Opposite her, Colt Prattes, who plays Johnny, is a better dancer but a far worse actor.
The two have all the chemistry of mannequins, which makes their already improbable love story completely incomprehensible. And then to make matters worse, they start singing — a bizarre departure from the mise-en-scene in a story that puts realism at the forefront. In the original film, when Swayze and Grey lipsync to “(I’ve Had) The Time of My Life” or “Love Is Strange,” there’s an impromptu enthusiasm to the scenes — just two kids singing along to their favorite songs. In the remake, those rareified moments of intimacy become another opportunity to showboat for the camera. ...
----------
Here are excerpts from a fourth negative review, written by film-maker Scout Tafoya for Roger Ebert.
.... Every room is a little too big and every actor is a little too far away from the camera, as in a multi-camera sitcom. [Director Wayne] Blair has no eye for the dancing, which is his most lethal failing. He has no sense of how to film bodies, the space needed to ensure we see the impressive physicality of each performer, no sense of how to communicate the sensual thrill of two people touching. Blair may well be trying to shoot around the lackluster choreography, which also fails the performers at every turn. The dancers may as well be rogue parade floats accidentally smacking into each other. The music direction is similarly ghastly. Slick, soulless covers of 60s and 80s pop and ballads stumble around like reanimated corpses on the soundtrack.
That's all bad enough, but the final 15 minutes detonate a nuclear bomb of misbegotten ambition in the viewer's brain. It dares you to reconsider your opinion of every poorly staged number and overacted monologue. Prattes' constipated Johnny Castle storms the dance hall for his closing performance, walks over to the table where Baby and her family sit, and delivers the now iconic line that lodged "Dirty Dancing" into popular cinematic imagination. His somnambulant read of "Nobody puts Baby in a corner" spurts from his lips like a mouthful of water he'd forgotten to swallow. A film which had been held together with hope and a prayer until this point, finally falls apart. ....
=========
Now I will provide my own, positive opinion of the ABC original movie. My basic arguments:
* Some stories become so implanted in our culture that they flourish with a multitude of variations and embellishments. Our culture is full of people who love the story and want to retell it. Younger generations of producers, directors, actors, musicians and designers will want to apply their own artistic talents to present the story to younger generations of audiences. We should welcome, appreciate and celebrate these creative efforts -- not denounce, mock and stifle them.
* You can enjoy a lot of fun, surprises and laughs by watching new presentations. For example, in the ABC original movie, the the actor who plays Johnny is much smaller than Patrick Swayze and the actress who plays Baby is much heavier than Jennifer Grey, and so the audience feels amused in anticipating and watching the lift movement in the final dance. It's funny!
* New presentations will fill in gaps in the original story, clarify fuzzy elements, add new characters and subplots, enlarge minor characters, challenge established assumptions and interpretations -- and thus enrich the original story.
* New presentations might attract other social groups to become fans of the story. For example, the ABC original movie adds an African-American character and enlarges the roles of the older characters.
* Some elements of new presentations might be improvements. For example, ABC's Neil Kellerman is a different, more realistic and thought-provoking character.
=========
In order to open your mind about the ABC movie, I suggest that you replace the expression remake in your thinking with the word original movie. To help you do so, I will use the following expressions in this article:
* The ABC original movie.
* The Gottlieb original movie. (This is the 1987 movie that was produced by Linda Gottlieb and that starred Jennifer Grey and Patrick Swayze.)
* The San Pietro original movie. (This is a 2014 movie made by an Italian amateur theater club at the Communale San Pietro.)
* The Uskup original movie. (This is a 2012 movie made by a Umskup drama club in the Czech Republic.)
These four movies differ so much that each deserves to be called "original". Each can be enjoyed in its own circumstances and on its level.
If you were a tourist who happened to come across those live performances in Italy or the Czech Republic, you would have enjoyed watching them. You would have smiled and laughed the entire time. You would not have judged them harshly. They were just young foreigners having fun and putting their own spin on the story -- changing it into an Italian story or a Czech story, with their own cultural references and jokes.
Likewise, the new generations of Americans who made the ABC original movie have adapted the story to their own attitudes and sensibilities. By casting a grungy actor and a chubby actress into the lead roles, they have provocatively outraged the older generations that devoutly venerate the now ancient movie, which has become a sacred cow.
A grungy Johnny and a chubby Baby
in a "Dirty Dancing" for new generations.
Many girls and young women now identify primarily with the Baby Houseman played by Abigail Breslin, an actress they have watched for many years.
======
The website IMDb lists 48 Tarzan movies, from 1918 through 2005. Each one can be appreciated on its own merits, as an original movie. We don't consider the last 47 of these Tarzan movies to be "remakes" of the first Tarzan movie that was made in 1918.
The Tarzan movies continue to be made for various reasons. They are exotic, exciting and funny. They feature an extraordinarily handsome male character. They can raise various cultural, political and environmental issues. The basic story is so well known that the audience keeps it in mind while watching new, alternate, spun-off stories.
======
In an earlier article in my blog, I wrote about the two Footloose movies -- released in 1984 and 2011. Each is a good movie, and each can be appreciated independently.
Of course, the Tarzan movies and the Footloose movies are based on written works that existed before the movies, whereas the Dirty Dancing movies are not based no a prior written work. However, very few people have read the Tarzan novel or the Footloose article. In the mind of the public that has not read the Tarzan novel, all the Tarzan movies are based on abstract story that has become a part of our culture.
Likewise, the Dirty Dancing story is so well known that the story -- as an abstraction -- has become a part of our culture.
======
Consider the story of The Wizard of Oz. Because of the 1939 movie, the story has become so well known that other works can be based quite loosely on the abstract story -- for example, Broadway musical The Wiz and the television series The Tin Man.
======
The Dirty Dancing story has been made into a stage musical (which I have not studied or seen). Somehow, moving the story from a movie onto a theater stage is "really fun". As an example of that open-minded attitude, here is an excerpt from a theater review written by Jane Horwitz for the Washington Post.
.... So, is this highly commercial, “live” re-creation of a beloved film an example of great and artful theatrical innovation? Nope, it is not. But is it really fun? Yup. ....
The characters talk a bit more about civil rights, Vietnam, and class conflict onstage. Musically, choruses of “We Shall Overcome” and “This Land Is Your Land” emphasize, somewhat awkwardly, growing political and social unrest. ....
You know the story: The Houseman family arrives for three weeks of fun in the Catskills at Kellerman’s resort. .... Baby jumps at the chance to learn Penny’s part for a steamy number with Johnny.
All these crises whiz by amid the strains of, among others, “The Time of My Life,” “Do You Love Me?,” “Cry to Me,” and the comical “Lisa’s Hula” for the hotel talent show. Audiences hear some master recordings from the film’s soundtrack, and other numbers performed live. A couple of terrific singers shine: Doug Carpenter, who plays Johnny’s cousin Billy Kostecki, belts a gorgeous “In the Still of the Night,” and Jennlee Shallow movingly solos on “You Don’t Own Me” and “We Shall Overcome.” ....
A few weaker links in the acting department dampen the fizz at times, but most such moments go by too fast to cause damage. ....
If it's "really fun" for a theater company to change the story so that the characters sing some of the songs and so that new songs are added, then it might be "really fun" if ABC exercises similar creativity.
========
In ancient Greece there were annual festivals that featured drama competitions. A mythical story -- for example the Oedipus Rex story -- would be chosen for the year's competition. The entire population already knew the mythical story from famous legends and poems. Various drama clubs were sponsored by wealthy patrons, and each club prepared a play and then performed it at the festival. A prize was presented for the year's best play.
Although each play was about the same mythical story, each play presented unique scripts, songs, characters and plot details. Watching the variety of plays was an enriching experience. The mythical story was elaborated. Some minor characters became major characters. Background details and subplots were added. New poetry and songs became popular. Citizens who attended such a festival and watched a dozen different plays about, for example, Oedipus Rex enriched their understanding of that mythical story.
Even if an Oedipus Rex play already had been performed many years previously, the various new plays performed at this year's festival were not considered to be "re-makes". Rather, each new play was appreciated as an original play.
========
The ABC original movie enriches the abstract "Dirty Dancing" story that has become a part of our culture.
Even if you watched the ABC original movie and hated it, the new idea has been planted into your mind that Jake as a young man used to work as a waiter at the Kellerman resort hotel and that he met Marjorie there. You never will get that idea out of your subconscious mind.
Similarly, people who watched the stage play know now that the song "We Shall Overcome" was sung at the Kellerman resort hotel during the Kellermans' vacation.
As the abstract story is told variously in separate dramas, new details are added -- for example, young Jake the waiter and the song "We Shall Overcome". This elaboration is similar to the drama-festival elaboration of the Oedipus Rex story in Greece's culture.
=======
This essay is the first in a series of four articles.
After Jake Houseman was informed about Penny Johnson's abortion, he was disappointed in Baby.
Jake Houseman is disappointed in his daughter Baby.
Jake Houseman
Was that what my money paid for?
Baby Houseman
I'm sorry. I never meant to lie.
Jake Houseman
You're not the person I thought you were. I'm not sure who you are.
I don't want you to have anything to do with those people. Nothing! You're to have nothing to do with them ever again!
I won't tell your mother about this. Right now I'm going to bed. And take that stuff off your face before your mother sees you!
Jake Houseman continues to be disappointed
in his daughter Baby
=======
Jake was disappointed to learn that his intelligent daughter suddenly has become involved with troublesome, uneducated losers who have unexpected, illegitimate pregnancies that they abort with successful but unsuspecting people's money. Jake already foresees that Baby's detour might lead her to a bad end.
The Disappointed Father's Perspective
(Click the image to enlarge it.)
For Jake Houseman, his daughter's tricking him into paying for an illegal abortion was amazingly foolish. If the abortion were investigated, he might suffer serious consequences for his personal reputation, medical career and legal status. His daughter's recklessness made him essentially speechless. He could only sputter: "You're not the person I thought you were. I'm not sure who you are." He could not articulate a thoughtful, explanatory rebuke.
=========
Carl E. Pickhardt is the author of 15 parenting books, including The Connected Father and When Your Child Has a Strong-Willed Personality. The magazine Psychology Today has published one of his articles, titled Adolescence, parental disappointment and parental guilt. The article provides insights into Jake Houseman's feeling of disappointment. The relevant passages follow:
.... The greatest impact of parental disappointment and parental guilt often arises after adolescence ends and young adulthood begins.
Disappointment is the outcome of parental investment. ....
Parenting is a process of investment. Parents not only invest their care, energy, and resources in their child, they also invest their assumptions, ambitions, hopes, even dreams about how this person will turn out when grown up. The more investment parents make, the more invested they feel, the more firmly wed to expecting, even deserving, a cherished outcome they can be.
For example, an extreme investment in an only or otherwise specially prized child can lead parents to an extreme expectation of return. It's like they're saying, "We worked so hard and sacrificed so much for her, the least she can do is give some of what we hoped for back!" They were treating her like she was supposed to fulfill whatever promise they thought she showed and owed. ....
.... What happens when parents, whose dream for their adolescent included launching a career and remaining single until it was established, gets pregnant, gets married, and gives up the profession they were wishing she'd pursue?
"Of course, we're disappointed," declared the parents in counseling. "This is not what we planned for our child! And we told her so."
"And how did she respond?" I asked.
They replied, "She acted really hurt, like we had let her down, when the reverse was true! And she hasn't talked much to us since."
Then I suggested that if they wanted a close and loving relationship with their adult daughter they needed to ask themselves whether their daughter was supposed to fit their expectations or whether their expectations were supposed to fit their daughter?
Their answer to this question makes a profound difference. If they believe she should live up to their expectations and is not, they will feel disappointed, and communicating that disappointment to her will to some degree alienate the adult relationship. If, however, they believe that for the sake of acceptance of a daughter they love they must adjust their expectations to fit the individual path and lifestyle she has independently chosen, then they will affirm that relationship.
It can be hard for parents to remember that when a grown son or daughter disappoints them, it is not his or her doing but their own. They chose to hold a set of expectations that do not fit the choices he or she is making. ....
=======
The Vice website has published an article by essayist John Saward titled Your Dad is Disappointed. The article describes the mentality of the male author's own disappointed father. Much of the article would apply also to the disappointed father of a daughter. The article includes the following passages.
He wants to know where you’re going. The undefined, metaphoric where: Where is your life going? But also the literal where: Why are you taking this bridge? Why are you in this lane? Why is your seat reclined so much? He wouldn’t be going this way. He wants you to know that. ...
He is drawn to absolutes, comforted by their rigid structure. He measures life in growth and decay. Things are built from nothing, pieced together, and when they don’t work any longer they are torn down and forgotten.
He watches documentaries on underwater tunnels connecting two countries and decisive military campaigns and epidemics that decimate populations and foliage. Things that are giant and unstoppable, efficient, nothing wasted, every bullet accounted for, winners and losers and conclusions.
Abstractions are excuses, equivocations, bullshit. You are stalling. You either have a job or you don’t have a job, and if you don’t have one you should get one, a real one, one with benefits, one during the daytime.
He has vendettas against time, against signs of entropy. Against the squirrels that eat from his bird feeder, the concept of pitch counts, global warming, text messaging, the price of windshield-wiper blades, Republicans. Against the guy who changed his oil, and the memory of his father, who knew how to change his own oil. ...
Fathers see things tattooed deep within, all that is wrong with you: your ambivalence about your future, your feelings of inadequacy, the dread that lurks in every empty moment. And they see the good in you, things that are subtle, because they are always searching, always trying to find the reason, the impulse, why you are the way you are. ...
Your relationship is marked by conversations you’ve had in moments of isolation. Backyards, garages, drives home. Many, many drives home. ... You talk about lots of things, but really they are about the same thing: .... He is trying to be a father ....
But he is really asking you: What are you doing? Where are you going? ... He is always trying to help you. So you sit there, together, in the red light of the dashboard, not knowing what to say, waiting to get out and go inside.
=======
A daughter who feels that her father is disappointed in her might suffer long-lasting consequences.
Another Psychology Today article was written by Peggy Drexler, an assistant professor of psychology and the author of a book titled Our Fathers, Ourselves: Daughters, Fathers and the Changing American Family. Her Psychology article is titled Daughters and Dad's Approval, and it includes the following passages:
Though gender relationships have changed dramatically in modern times, the father-daughter bond remains surprisingly traditional.There is, of course, the force of history here. It has always been the father's job to protect the daughter until she is ready to be handed off to the protection of another man. ....
No matter how successful their careers, how happy their marriages, or how fulfilling their lives, women told me that their happiness passed through a filter of their fathers' reactions. Many told me that they tried to remove the filter and -- much to their surprise -- failed. ....
Part of this need takes form early in life-when a father is a girl's portal to the world of men. I call fathers a girl's GPS -- gender positioning system. It's how women begin to orient themselves in a confusing and (especially of late) fluid landscape of gender expectations.
Absent that GPS, many women find themselves adrift. Mallory, a 34-year-old chiropractor who described a cold and disinterested father, still has trouble dealing with the attention she gets from men. She said, "I don't feel I know how to flirt very well or engage with men very well." Would that be different if her relationship with her father had been different? She thinks so. ....
=======
The book Between Fathers and Daughters, by Dr. Linda Nielsen, was reviewed in Verily Mag by Alysse Elhage, in an article titled The Surprising Ways Your Father Impacts Who You'll Marry. The book-review article includes the following passages:
.... Linda Nielsen, Ph.D., professor of education and adolescent psychology at Wake Forest University, has been studying father-daughter relationships for more than a decade and even teaches a college course on the topic. She says that a present, involved father builds up his daughter’s self-confidence by consistently encouraging her and teaching her that she does not need a man to make her valuable.
“If a young woman gets that affirmation and approval from her dad, she is not going to be desperate to get it anywhere else because she already has it in him,” Dr. Nielsen told me. “Fathers teach us as women that we can be happy on our own without a man — that we are enough by ourselves.”
Studies show that girls with present and affectionate fathers are less likely to develop eating disorders, experience behavioral problems, and become depressed. Of course, not all fathers are affectionate, and some are overly critical, which also robs their daughters of the fatherly affirmation they need. ...
Not only do we look to our fathers as our most important male role model, but we also learn how to interact with men from them. According to Dr. Nielsen, it is dads — more so than moms — who “have the greater impact on the daughters’ ability to trust, enjoy, and relate well to the males in her life.” A girl who has been fathered well, she wrote in a recent article, “is the most likely to have relationships with men that are emotionally intimate and fulfilling,” and “to have more satisfying, more long-lasting marriages.” ....
When I asked Dr. Nielsen why young women who had weak relationships with their fathers often make poor dating choices, she compared father-hunger and dating to going shopping on an empty stomach. “A hungry person makes the worst shopper. You come home with junk food,” she says. “Likewise, a father-hungry young woman will go to the dating supermarket and often come home with the worst men.” Starved for father-love, we too often cling to men who give us the male attention we desire, but, without the example of a strong male character, we fail to be as discerning as we should be.
