Dirty Dancing Analysis: November 2017

Wednesday, November 29, 2017

Possible Hijack Collaborator - Richard Case Nagell - After August 6, 1963

This article concludes a series.

The first article was Lee Harvey Oswald's Activities During the Housemans' Vacation.

The second article was The Oswalds' Plan to Hijack an Airplane.

The third article was Possible Hijack Collaborator - Jack Leslie Bowen.

The fourth article was Possible Hijack Collaborator - Richard Case Nagell - Through August 6, 1963

======

From about August 9 to September 10, 1963, Lee Harvey Oswald planned to hijack an airplane in order to fly himself, his wife Marina and his daughter June to Cuba. Marina tried to talk him out of the plan but reluctantly agreed to go along with him.

At one point during this period, Lee told Marina that some other man -- Lee did not name the man to Marina -- had offered to help Lee take over the airplane. Lee considered the man's offer but ultimately rejected it. Lee explained to Marina that, "your accomplice is your enemy for life".

======

I think that such an offer was made to Oswald by Richard Case Nagell, a financially troubled former US Army counter-intelligence officer.

In the summer of 1962, Nagell had been fired from his job working as an investigator for the California state government. Nagell's wife left him, taking along their two children, and demanded child support. Therefore Nagell tried to earn money by selling secrets first to the Cuban intelligence service, then to the Soviet intelligence service, and third to the CIA. Nagell did not realize that his Cuban contact and his CIA contact actually were FBI agents, who were interested mostly in learning from him about his interactions with his Soviet contact.

The Soviet contact instructed Nagell to collect information about the Oswalds. Nagell visited Dallas in October 1962 and in April 1963 to collect such information. Nagell claims that he and Oswald met secretly in Mexico City at the end of July 1963. (This trip of Oswald to Mexico City is unknown; it is not Oswald's famous trip at the end of September 1963.) On August 6, Nagell returned from Mexico City to Los Angeles.

On August 5 and 8, two airplanes were hijacked to Cuba. In the following days, Oswald in New Orleans began to develop his plan to hijack an airliner to Cuba.

=====

On August 10, the Houseman family arrived at Kellerman's Mountain House.

=====

Nagell's activities during August and September 1963 are mysterious. He never told his full story in a coherent manner. He did not want to admit that he had been trying to sell secrets to Cuba and to the Soviet Union or that he had been deceived and manipulated by the FBI. He was a liar and fabricator, and he often was confused, paranoid and irrational.

However, his claim that the Soviet intelligence service had tasked him to collect information about the Oswalds is plausible. Nagell's collection effort eventually might have led him to meet personally with Oswald in August and September. Nagell might have secretly tape-recorded Oswald involved in a discussion with two Cuban immigrants about assassinating President Kennedy. Nagell might have tried to sell that tape recording to the FBI. That is the essence of what happened with Nagell, in my opinion.

Furthermore, I speculate that Oswald discussed his hijack plan with Nagell and that Nagell played along but ultimately argued against that plan.

However, during August and September 1963, Oswald was not thinking about assassinating President Kennedy. If Nagell indeed recorded Oswald participating in such a conversation, Oswald was merely playing along with the two Cubans who were driving the conversation. During August and September, Oswald was preoccupied with his desire to emigrate to Cuba.

Years later, Nagell's incoherent, self-serving story was blown out of proportion. Nagell has received more credit than he has deserved because (I believe) the FBI has covered up his story and has persecuted him in order to discredit and silence him.

=====

In Los Angeles during August, Nagell continued (he claimed) to spy on two Cuban immigrants -- "Angel" and "Leopoldo" -- who were planning to assassinate President Kennedy. Through some unknown series of events, Nagell met with Oswald during August 23-27 in New Orleans, where Nagell secretly tape-recorded a conversation that included himself, Oswald, Angel and another person (logically, Leopoldo). In this tape-recorded conversation, the four men discussed assassinating President Kennedy.

If Angel and Leopoldo really existed and if this conversation really happened, then I speculate that Oswald was merely playing along with the assassination talk, primarily in order to somehow get money to buy airplane tickets.

Nagell's motivation for arranging and tape-recording such a conversation would have been to sell incriminating information about Angel and Leopoldo to his various intelligence-service contacts.

Nagell has claimed that on August 27 Nagell tried to warn the CIA that Angel was trying to recruit Oswald for a plot to assassinate President Kennedy. What really happened (I think) was that Nagell tried to sell his tape-recording to his CIA contact (i.e. to the FBI employee, "Bob", pretending to be Nagell's CIA contact). However, Nagell did not get the price he demanded, so he kept the tape-recording for a potential future sale.

=====

During the last days of August when Nagell was meeting with Oswald in New Orleans, Nagell began persuading Oswald to give up his plan to hijack an airliner. Nagell initially played along with Oswalds plan by offering to help in the hijacking. After he gained Oswald's confidence, however, Nagell began persuading him to return to Mexico City a second time in order to apply for a visas at the Cuban and Soviet embassies.

=====

Years later, Nagell wrote a memorandum that summarized some of his adventures as follows:

During the period 1962-1963, and prior thereto, as a civilian, I may have performed intelligence services for a foreign nation, after being deceived by signing a contract and by other reasons into thinking that I was functioning for the CIA.

I arrived at this conclusion in September 1963, after conducting investigations of certain persons, among whom were ... Lee H. Oswald, later accused as the lone assassin of President John F. Kennedy.

In other words, during September 1963 figured out that "Bob" was not really a CIA officer. However, Nagell did not figure out that "Bob" was an FBI officer. Rather, Nagell guessed incorrectly that "Bob" was a Cuban or Soviet intelligence officer.

Nagell explained his situation to New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison, who in turn wrote a memorandum summarizing Nagell's situation as follows:

In late August or early September of 1963 for reasons he [Nagell] would not spell out, it became apparent that an exceedingly large – he emphasized the word "large" – operation, pointing toward the assassination of President Kennedy, was under way.

At just about the time of this discovery, for reasons he would not explain, the individual who had given him the assignment was moved to another part of the country, and Nagell suddenly found himself without a direct contact.

Nagell writes that after he failed in his efforts to contact the CIA and FBI, he tried to "neutralize" the assassination plot.

... When I signed papers in 1962 acknowledging I was employed by the Central Intelligence Agency, I did so in good faith and with a clear conscience, and I did not know or even suspect I was working for other interests.

Later, when I became cognizant of my actual employer, I made every reasonable effort to correct the situation. I initiated a number of approaches to both the CIA and the FBI in Mexico and in five different locales within the United States.

When these agencies demonstrated they considered me just another crank, or, in the case of the FBI specifically, when its agents seemed more bent on trying me into a violation of the law than helping me, I took other steps to neutralized the capacity in which I was acting. ...

Nagell therefore met with Oswald on about September 10 to discourage him from further collaboration we Angel and Leopoldo. Nagell later described this meeting as follows:

In September 1963, "Laredo" [Nagell] (a code name unknown to Oswald) met with Oswald at Jackson Squire in New Orleans, where both were photographed. Photos of two of Oswald's associates, whom I specially call "Leopoldo" and "Angel," were displayed to Oswald.

Oswald was informed [by Nagell] that neither Leopoldo nor Angel were agents of Cuban G-2 (as the Dirección General de Intelligencia was then called), a story they had strapped on Oswald the previous month. He was informed that the two were in fact counter-revolutionaries known to be connected with a violence-prone faction of a CIA-financed group operating in Mexico City (and elsewhere), that in 1962 both of them had participated in a bomb-throwing incident directed against an employee of the Cuban Embassy there, that both were well-known to Cuban and Mexican authorities and, of course, to the CIA.

He [Oswald] was informed [by Nagell], in so many words, that he was being "used" by fascist elements in an attempt to disrupt the Cuban revolution to ruin chances for a contemplated rapprochement between Cuba and the United States, probably to incite the U.S. government to initiate severe retaliatory measures against Cuba (in the form of an invasion), etc.

He [Oswald] was asked [by Nagell] some subtle questions relating to his discussions with Leopoldo and Angel, about his pending move to Baltimore, Md., why he was going there without his wife and child, etc. Despite evidence to contrary, he denied that there had been any serious discussion to kill President Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, or anybody else.

In mid-September, Nagell finally heard again from "Bob," who was now considered by Nagell to be a KGB agent, not a CIA agent. It seems that "Bob" officially informed Nagell that he preparations had been completed for some new task that Nagell was supposed to do.

In Sept.1963 I was informed by an American, known to me as an agent of the same foreign government, that arrangements for my participation in the aforementioned [undefined criminal] act were completed. At this time I refused the aforesaid proposal.

Because Nagell now believed that "Bob" really was a Cuban or Soviet agent, Nagell refused to cooperate further with him.

=====

Now Nagell tried again to sell his secrets directly with the FBI. Sometime during the days September 13-17 he sent the FBI a letter that he later described as follows:

... In the aforesaid letter [sent during September 13-17], I advised [FBI Director] Mr. Hoover of a conspiracy (although I did not use the word "conspiracy") involving Lee Harvey Oswald "to murder the Chief Executive of the United States, (President) John F. Kennedy." I indicated that the attempt would take place "during the latter part of September (1963), probably on the 26th, 27th, 28th, or 29th," presumably at Washington, D.C.

I furnished a complete and accurate physical description of Mr. Oswald, listing his true name, two of his aliases, his residence address, and other pertinent facts about him. I disclosed sufficient data about the conspiracy (citing an overt act which constituted a violation of federal law) to warrant an immediate investigation if not an arrest of Mr. Oswald.

I revealed something about myself which incriminated me on another matter. I stated "by the time you receive this letter, I shall have departed the USA for good." ...

I think that if Nagell really did send such a letter to the FBI, then at least part of his motivation was to sell his tape-recording of Oswald, Angel and Leopoldo discussing plans to assassinate President Kennedy.

The FBI has denied all knowledge of Nagell's letter, and Nagell himself did not keep a copy. It's certainly possible that Nagell never sent such a letter at all, but I believe that he did send the letter and that the FBI eventually destroyed it.

=====

On September 17 -- about the same day when Nagell sent his letter to the FBI -- Oswald went to a Mexican consulate in New Orleans and obtained a visa to visit Mexico, where he intended to visit the Cuban Embassy and obtain a visa to travel from Mexico to Cuba. So, Oswald had been convinced -- perhaps by Nagell -- to give up the hijack plan for good.

=====

Three days later, on September 20, Nagell walked into a bank, shot two bullets into the banks' ceiling, walked outside, and waited for the police to arrive to arrest him. Later he explained that he did so in order to obtain psychiatric treatment.

Even though it was obvious that Nagell had not really attempted to rob the bank, he was sentenced to ten years in prison. That punishment caused reasonable suspicions that the US Government was trying to silence Nagell.

======

A superb account of Nagell's activities has been written by Dave Reitzes. If you read all of it, you will see that Nagell became insane by the end of his life.

Below is a video of Dick Russell talking about his book The Man Who Knew Too Much.

Tuesday, November 28, 2017

Possible Hijack Collaborator - Richard Case Nagell -- Through August 6, 1963

This article is the fourth in a series.

The first article was Lee Harvey Oswald's Activities During the Housemans' Vacation.

The second article was The Oswalds' Plan to Hijack an Airplane.

The third article was Possible Hijack Collaborator - Jack Leslie Bowen.

======

From about August 9 to September 10, 1963, Lee Harvey Oswald planned to hijack an airplane in order to fly himself, his wife Marina and his daughter June to Cuba. Marina tried to talk him out of the plan but reluctantly agreed to go along with him.

At one point during this period, Lee told Marina that some other man -- Lee did not name the man to Marina -- had offered to help Lee take over the airplane. Lee considered the man's offer but ultimately rejected it. Lee explained to Marina that, "your accomplice is your enemy for life".

======

I think that some other man did offer to help Lee hijack an airplane. Furthermore, I think that two different men might have offered separately. In this article here, I will explain that such an offer might have been made by a man named Richard Case Nagell.

Nagell's life is told in a book titled The Man Who Knew Too Much, by Dick Russell.

Richard Case Nagell

Although Russell interviewed and studied Nagell over the course of several years, Nagell's life remains mysterious. Nagell refused to tell his full story to Russell.

My own explanation for Nagell's refusal is that he did not want to admit that he had tried to sell secret information to the Cuban and Soviet governments. In that regard, my following explanation differs from Russell's book.

======

Nagell was born in 1930. He enlisted in the US Army in 1948 and served in the infantry in the Korean War. After he was wounded a third time, he was sent to language school to learn Japanese and then was stationed in Japan. (Later he taught himself also Russian and Spanish.) He served as a counter-intelligence officer and reached the rank of captain.

In 1954 he suffered a brain injury in a helicopter accident, which seems to have affected his conduct. In 1958 he married a Japanese woman and therefore lost the security clearance he needed to continue working as a counter-intelligence officer. Rather than return to the infantry, Nagell quit the Army in 1959.

From then until June 1962 he worked as an investigator for the California state government. Then he was fired for misconduct. His Japanese wife left him and took along their two children. Nagell, although unemployed, was required to pay child support.

=====

Because of his financial problems, Nagell decided to earn money by selling secrets to the Cuban intelligence service. In August 1962, he traveled to Mexico City, where he paid a young man $20 to deliver an envelope to the Cuban embassy. The young man delivered the envelope instead to the US embassy, where eventually an FBI officer read the enclosed letter, which offered to sell secrets. During the following months, an FBI Spanish-speaking officer pretended to be a Cuban intelligence officer and deceptively manipulated Nagell.

The Cuban intelligence officer (i.e. FBI officer) instructed Nagell to sell secrets also to the Soviet intelligence service and to inform the Cuban spy (i.e. the FBI officer) about his interactions with the Soviets. In this arrangement, Nagell was earning money secretly from Cuban intelligence (i.e. from the FBI) and from Soviet intelligence.

To earn more money, Nagell decided to sell secrets likewise to the Soviet intelligence service.

To earn even more money, Nagell decided to sell secrets likewise to the CIA. Because Nagell already was being controlled by the FBI, however, the CIA transferred Nagell's offer to the FBI, which then assigned another FBI officer named "Bob" to pretend that he was a CIA officer paying for Nagell's secrets.

The best secrets that Nagell had to sell to the Cuban intelligence officer (i.e. to the FBI) and to the CIA (i.e. to the FBI) was details about his interactions with the Soviet intelligence service. The FBI was well informed about Nagell's antics and in particular about the sneaky business he was doing with Soviet intelligence.

One of the tasks that Nagell received from the Soviet intelligence officer was to find out what the Oswalds were doing in the USA. To accomplish that task, Nagell traveled to Dallas, Texas, in October 1962, and observed Marina Oswald. In these circumstances, Nagell began to become somewhat knowledgeable about Marina and Lee Oswald.

=====

After doing this task in Dallas in October 1962, Nagell proceeded to Miami, where he got a job working as a bodyguard for Rolando Masferrer, a Cuban gangster who was extorting money and smuggling guns among Cuban exiles. Apparently, Nagell got this job because he was told to do so by his Cuban intelligence officer (i.e. the Spanish-speaking FBI officer).

In this stressful situation, Nagell suffered a nervous breakdown and voluntarily committed himself to a hospital mental ward in St. Petersburg, Florida, where he stayed from December 20, 1962, to January 22, 1963.

After Nagell was released from this mental ward, Nagell decided to earn more money by selling secrets to the FBI. He did not understand that he already had been providing his secrets to the FBI since the summer of 1962. The money that Nagell had been earning from his Cuban intelligence officer and from his CIA officer was all coming from the FBI. Therefore, the FBI ignored Nagell's new offer to sell secrets directly to the FBI.

In the last days of January 1962, this comedy of errors became even more complicated when Nagell involved himself with two Cuban immigrants -- "Angel" and "Leopoldo" -- who were scheming to assassinate President Kennedy. On his own initiative (it seems to me), Nagell began reporting about those two would-be assassins to his various intelligence controllers. Of course, Angel and Leopoldo might be imaginary beings fabricated by Nagell in order to earn more money. Even if Angel and Leopoldo were real, the FBI had good reason to doubt Nagell's secret reports about them. (In general, everyone should understand that Nagell fabricated many of his stories.)

=====

Meanwhile, Nagell continued to do tasks for the Soviet intelligence service -- and informing his CIA officer (really a FBI officer) about those interactions. As instructed by the Soviet intelligence service, Nagell traveled from Miami back to Dallas in early February 1963 in order to collect more information about the Oswalds.

At that time, Lee Oswald was working as a photography processor at the Jaggar-Chiles-Stoval company during the days and taking typing classes during the evenings. At home, Oswald was spending time studying maps and bus schedules. He recently had rented a post-office box under the name A. J. Hidell. Perhaps (or perhaps not) Nagell was able to observe that Oswald was sneaking around and learning to spy.

In any case, Nagell proceeded from Dallas to Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, where he met with and reported to his Soviet intelligence officer in February. Of course, Nagell subsequently would have informed also his CIA officer (i.e. FBI officer) about his meeting with his Soviet intelligence officer.

In April 1963, Nagell returned to Dallas to collect more information about the Oswalds for the Soviet intelligence officer. Because the FBI wanted Nagell to please his Soviet intelligence officer, the FBI (through the phony CIA officer) provided credentials that enabled Nagell to visit government offices in Dallas and San Antonio to obtain official information and documents about Marina's immigration status.

=====

From Dallas, Nagell proceeded to Los Angeles, where he investigated Vaughn Snipes (aka Vaugn Marlowe), an executive officer of the Los Angeles chapter of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. Nagell remained in Los Angeles into the second half of July 1963. While there, Nagell reported also that the two (imaginary?) assassins Angel and Leopoldo seemed to be associated with Snipes/Marlowe.

=====

In the second half of July, while Nagell was in Los Angeles, Oswald became unemployed in New Orleans.

According to stories he told to Russell, Nagell was instructed (by whom?) to travel in late July to Mexico City, where he met personally for the first time with Oswald. This was not Oswald's famous trip to Mexico City in September 1963. Rather, this was a still unknown trip by Oswald in July 1963.

Nagell refused to tell Russell any details about his supposed meeting with Oswald in Mexico City.

On July 26, someone signed the register of the Atomic Energy Museum in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, with the words "Lee H. Oswald, USSR, Dallas Road, Dallas, Texas". Perhaps that was done to plant false information about Oswald's whereabouts on a day when he actually was in Mexico City.

Russell, in his book about Nagell, provides several other indications that Oswald was in Mexico City at about the end of July. Because those indications are complicated to explain, I will not detail them here in this article, which already is too long. (See The Man Who Knew Too Much, pages 369-379.)

Nagell returned from Mexico City to Los Angeles on August 6, 1963.

======

That was four days before the Houseman family traveled to Kellerman's Mountain House.

======

My speculation that Nagell offered in late August 1963 to help Oswald hijack an airplane will conclude in a future article.

Monday, November 27, 2017

Home-Made Dirty Dancing - 9

Making a Backdrop for the Stage Musical

Space-Time Portals in the Movie "Dirty Dancing"

My previous article Dirty Dancing and Diegesis included an idea about portals that I am presenting here separately and in my own words. Peter Ayers, the author of the original article, pointed out two of the movie's moments that depicted portals by means of a smaller frame within the screen's larger frame.

=======

The first such moment is when Baby Houseman enters the bunkhouse where the "dirty dancing" party is taking place.

Baby passing through the bunkhouse's space-time portal

The movie audience sees two frames.

* The larger, outer frame is the entire screen.

* The smaller, inner frame is the doors' opening.

The smaller-inner frame is a portal through which Baby travels suddenly through space-time to another world that is vastly different from her normal world.

=======

The second such moment is when Johnny Castle leaps off the talent show's stage toward the ballroom's audience and also toward the movie theater's audience.

Johnny passing through the ballroom's space-time portal

Again the movie audience sees two frames.

* The larger, outer frame is the entire screen.

* The smaller, inner frame is the stage's opening.

The smaller-inner frame outlines a portal through which Johnny leaps suddenly through space-time from 1963 into 1987 (or later), when the movie audience is watching the story.

Because Johnny and Baby are performing their final dance as they are passing through ballroom's space-time portal, their 1963 dance can be accompanied logically by a 1987 song.

=======

I myself will add a third such moment -- when Baby is looking out her family car's window as she narrates from the future about being present in the year 1963.

Baby narrating through her car's space-time portal.

Yet again, the movie audience sees two frames:

* The larger, outer frame is the entire screen.

* The smaller, inner frame is the car's open window.

The smaller-inner frame outlines the portal through which the Baby narrates from the future, from 1987, backwards through space-time into this story that is taking place in 1963

=======

In the Bible, at Genesis 28:10-19, there is a description of Jacob's Ladder, the means by which angels and human beings are able to travel between mortal Earth and eternal Heaven through a time-space portal. The following paintings depict Jacob's Ladder. (Click on an image to enlarge it.)

=======

Dante's epic poem Divine Comedy describes another portal by which angels and human beings are able to travel between mortal Earth and the eternal Afterlife through a space-time portal. The following paintings depict this Afterlife portal.

=======

Below is a video about ten space-time portals on Earth.

========

Below is a video summarizing recent scientific research about space-time portals.

=======

The following video explains how to find, enter and use space-time portals.

=======

The following video shows how to make a space-time portal on a personal computer.

"Dirty Dancing" and Diegesis

The website Shag Pile has published an article titled Dirty Dancing and Diegeis and written by Peter Ayers.

Ayers had not seen the movie Dirty Dancing until shortly before he participated recently in a Secret Cinema festival. He was puzzled that a movie about events in 1963 featured a 1987 song -- "The Time of My Life". The article includes the following passages.

.... What I hadn't realised before, and what puzzled me hugely, is this: The film is set in 1963. Dirty Dancing was released in 1987, as was the number-one smash-hit power-ballad ...

Up until the end of their story, the characters have been firmly rooted in their world of 1963, so surely there's no way they can be hearing what we're hearing [the 1987 song]. But if so, how come they're dancing in time with the beat and joining in with the words? What on earth is going on? ...

I was perplexed. This deliberate anachronism bothered me. Why had they messed up the end of the film like this? Was it deliberate? The questions kept resurfacing for the following days, so I had a read, had a think, and came up with the theory you're about to read.

Setting the Scene

The movie begins with slow-motion, black-and-white footage of people dancing to "Be My Baby". The effect is a nostalgic, like looking through an old photo album, or hearing a familiar old song on the radio -- which is what it turns out to be, as a radio announcer cues up the next track, and the action cuts to the interior of a car. An opening voice-over sets up the plot: 'Baby' is off with her family to a holiday camp in the Catskills - and for sexual awakening amongst the pines...

Diegesis

This opening sequence sets up an important concept that will come into play down the line: the difference between diegetic and non-diegetic sound. Brief definitions:

Diegetic sound comes from within the movie world.

Non-Diegetic sound is overlaid on the movie world.
In the opening scene, we hear diegetic sound from the car radio:

We then hear non-diegetic commentary on the story from the unseen narrator.

This sets up the relationship between audience and action that will continue throughout the movie. We're looking into the past through the magic mirror of the cinema screen, and this separation between now and then, here and there is made clear in the use of music.

Diegetic

Characters living within the world of the film hear only era-appropriate diegetic music: for example, when Baby approaches the Staff Quarters from a distance we hear faint music: as she gets closer the music gets louder but remains muffled by double doors, filmed square on to form a 'wall' at the back of the screen. We're hearing what she's hearing.

Then -- boom; the conveniently-wide-format-doors crash open revealing the room beyond the back wall of the cinema, the music fills our ears, Baby walks through the portal, the camera walks through behind her, and we are both engulfed. ...

Non-Diegetic

Non-diegetic music plays in the world outside the story of the film during a couple of montage sequences. On these occasions, the action is compressed, and music smooths what might otherwise feel uncomfortably choppy editing.

Whilst thematically and emotionally appropriate, these non-diegetic pieces are resoundingly magnificent '80s power ballads. Songs like "Hungry Eyes" work to reinforce our separation from the time and space of the action, and remind us that we are looking back at the past as older, wiser individuals. ...

The Grand Finale

So, with that digested, back to the end of the film. Can we use our digression about diegesis to clarify anything?

Let's briefly rewind to the beginning of the film:

At first, when 'Be My Baby' plays, we are led to believe we are hearing non-diegetic music. ... Then the radio announcer crashes in, revealing that yes, we are hearing diegetic music from the car radio in the next scene. This blending of diegetic-and non-diegetic music is trans-diegetic -- we are moved from an external viewpoint looking back at the past to an internal one inhabiting the past.

The technique draws us smoothly out of our time and transitions into the time-frame of the film.

Once again, back to the ending. ...

[The song "Time of My Life"] fades up ... and the walls between past and present that have been reinforced throughout the film collapse.

The people within the story -- the happy couple, fellow dancers, and patrons -- hear the same trans-diegetic music as the cinema-going audience, as proven by Mr. Kellerman's incredulous "You have sheet music of this stuff?".

At the opening of the film, the viewer was pulled into the past:

As the film closes, the cast is pulled into the present.

The result? Their victory becomes our victory! We share the resolution of the film with them, and enjoy their barrier-shattering unification in an inclusive way.

The breakdown of boundaries is underlined by Johnny jumping off the stage into the audience. (Note that as he jumps, the film shifts into slow motion, but the music continues at normal, non-diegetic speed.) This leap is a literal representation of all the boundaries that have been broken: between performers and patrons, working class and upper-middle class, gentiles and jews, bad boys and good girls, and vitally, breaking the boundary between fiction and our reality.

The leap doesn't just propel him into his audience -- he leaps towards the viewer, through the fourth wall and into the space of the cinema-going audience ...

At the very end of the film, the action freezes (in the past) and we are left with the slowly fading music -- their story is over, ours goes on. ...

You should read Ayers' whole article, illustrated with photographs and videos, there.

==============

See also my articles:

Is Dirty Dancing a Musical?

Recorded-Music Technology and the Musical Genre

Space-Time Portals in the Movie Dirty Dancing

‘Dirty Dancing’ and the Limits of Nostalgia

The FlavorWire website has published an article titled Dirty Dancing and the Limits of Nostalgia, written by Jason Bailey.

Jason Bailey

Jason Bailey is a graduate of the Cultural Reporting and Criticism program at New York University’s Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute.

His first book, Pulp Fiction:The Complete Story of Quentin Tarantino’s Masterpiece, was published last fall by Voyageur Press. His writing has also appeared at The Atlantic, Slate, Salon, and The Village Voice, among others.

He lives in New York with his wife Rebekah, his daughter Lucy, and their two cats.

The article includes the following passages:

.... By most reasonable standards, Dirty Dancing is a terrible movie: a dopey, cliché-ridden, anachronistic, woefully predictable across-the-tracks romance. ...

One of the oddest elements of Dirty Dancing is the weird way it scrubs all traces of ethnicity out of the story; the Jewish faith of the Housemans and most of the guests at Kellerman’s is never mentioned in any way, nor is the goyishness of Baby’s eventual beau Johnny. By my count, the film features a) Kellerman himself using the word “schlep”; b) Baby’s dad (Jerry Orbach) sneering, “I don’t want you to have anything to do with those people again”; and c) Johnny informing Baby, “I know these people. They’re rich and they’re mean.” That’s it! ...

Of course, this forbidden love cannot be — especially after Johnny becomes the prime suspect in a series of wallet thefts (actual subplot!), and his alibi is an overnight rendezvous with Baby. She owns up to get him out of trouble, and after a teary lakeside confrontation with dear ol’ dad (its staging oddly reminiscent of Michael and Fredo’s last scene in Godfather II), she discovers Johnny is getting fired anyway ...

Her character arc had previously been dramatized by the transition from boxy virgin cardigans to crop tops; now she’s gone from Peace Corps-bound idealist to tough, cynical broad. After one more encounter with dad in which he won’t just come out and say he didn’t knock up Penny, Johnny hits the road, certain to never, ever return ...

And then Johnny (shocker of shockers) returns, marches up to the Houseman table, and utters the immortal corner line. (Question: Is it possible Baby chose that seat herself? Or perhaps it was an assigned seating situation? Point is, Johnny’s sure quick to jump to conclusions about her parents’ nefarious intentions w/r/t table settings.) ...

But can we talk about the music? The song our heroes perform to is eventual Oscar winner “(I’ve Had) The Time of My Life”; earlier, they rehearse to “Hungry Eyes.” Both songs, with their drum machines, synth tracks, and utter soullessness, could not sound more like 1987 if they included lyrics about Baby Jessica and Black Monday. ... But hey, you can’t blame them for farming out the music for the climax; it’s not like there were any good songs from that period to choose from. ...

People liked the music and liked the ending, and that Patrick Swayze, he sure can dance! And because it was one of the first real mega-hits of the VHS era (the first title to move over a million tapes, in fact), it was viewed again and again, its clichés turning into comfort food.

This is a phenomenon that’s not uncommon when it comes to movie lovers of a certain age and a number of inexplicably idolized titles of the period. In I Lost it at the Video Store, Tom Roston’s forthcoming oral history of the video store era as told by the filmmakers it impacted, Joe Swanberg pretty much sums it up: “Unfortunately, what happens to my generation is, we don’t just watch Breakfast Club two times while it’s in movie theaters. We watch Breakfast Club 69 times between the age of 12 and 25, and we convince ourselves The Breakfast Club is a genius movie. You have this wrapped up nostalgia and regurgitation and over-consumption of mediocre shit.”

Dirty Dancing has its virtues — the chemistry of the leads, the sensuality of their two-scenes, the vintage tracks — and it’s penetrated popular culture to such a degree that it’s an enjoyable enough watch, even for a cynic like me. But it’s a movie best seen through the hazy amber filter of ‘80s nostalgia, and if you’re watching it without those rose-colored glasses on, God help you.

You should read the entire article there.

I'll never be sorry ---- Neither will I

The website Bright Wall / Dark Room has published an article titled I Carried a Watermelon by Amanda McCleod.

McCleod's article includes the following passages:

.... The resort functions as a kind of platonic ideal for how one should spend an all-American summer, which fits perfectly, since Frances “Baby” Houseman belongs to a model all-American family: Dad is a physician, mom is a looker with a good golf swing, and sister Lisa is equal parts bratty and beautiful. Frances, the kid sister on the verge of college, with dreams of someday joining the Peace Corps, first appears to us dressed down in white keds and one of her father’s old shirts. ...

Baby was the protagonist I had always needed but could never find: a relatable female character with pluck and self-conviction who manages to not only better the lives of those around her, but to woo all-around cool guy Johnny Castle. She was clumsy, naive, and decidedly teenage-ish, but never let any of that impede upon her genuine good nature. She was, much like me, all heart and no cool.

Like Baby, I was once a sheltered young girl. I grew up in the shadow of the church, wearing strict school uniforms and attending weekly mass until I graduated high school. ... I was a gawky, shy, impossibly awkward kid, before finally “blossoming” — rather lacklusterly — into a classic textbook version of a goody two shoes. ...

But let’s face it, being “good” is rarely “cool” and being cool is just about all that matters to teenagers ... I didn’t really learn to deeply enjoy anything until I stopped worrying about trying to be cool.

Baby resonates so deeply with me because she initially presents with the gentle naivety of a young girl, only to eventually reveal an underlying, immovable moral fiber. ... The thing that strikes me about Dirty Dancing is that the catalyst for Baby’s transformation is never entirely centered on romance. Despite her attraction to the seemingly unattainable Johnny, there’s no one moment in the film that leads us to believe Baby takes all the risks she does simply to impress him. Her actions seem as much for her as they are for him, or anybody else. The twist — if you can call it one — is that Baby’s nerve and apparent fearlessness are ultimately what pull Johnny into her orbit. ... Baby becomes Johnny’s love interest simply by being her unbridled, earnest self.

Throughout the film we witness a girl ... assuming a position of increased agency and dominance both in her own life and on the dance floor. Baby is continually uncovering as much about the world as she is about her own potential. ....

In one scene we see Baby boldly confronting her sister’s sleazy suiter, Robbie, while wearing a long sleeve striped shirt. In the scene that follows she’s cut the sleeves off that shirt, in an attempt to better fit in at the secret staff dance party. Show a little skin, stand up straighter, look aloof, and the rest is a bluff waiting to be called. ....

Contrast this to Swayze’s Johnny Castle, who feels continually put down by his superiors, his job, his status in life as the son of a unionized house painter. At first, Johnny is unable to reconcile his worldview with Baby’s seemingly naive and tireless optimism, dismissing the integrity Baby shows. He initially writes Baby off, until her commitment to their dance routine is forcibly asserted in a moment of heated frustration, as Baby retorts “I’m doing all this to save your ass, what I really want to do is drop you on it!”. ...

Besides being enormously entertaining and achingly romantic to watch, the dance scenes also serve to underscore the larger themes of communication, trust, and courage that drive the film’s plot. Dancing, not unlike the many transitions of one’s adolescence, forces an unavoidable honesty, an openness from which you cannot hide or recoil. As Johnny puts it: “It’s a feeling, a heartbeat.” ...

Dirty Dancing’s summer of new romances, self-discovery, sneaking out, and deceiving parents eventually draws to a close with a talent-show grand finale ... Sure, there’s probably a symbolic correlation between Baby finally being able to do the lift and her own personal self-actualization. Gravity-defying dance moves and catchy songs distract, however, from an earlier, tender moment that always stood out to me even more. Shortly after Johnny’s initial dismissal from the camp, a quiet farewell between Baby and Johnny illustrates the equals they’ve come to discover in one another, and echoes a sentiment we all hope to hear at the close of summer:

“I’ll never be sorry.”

“Neither will I.”

You should read the entire article there.

=======

The website Bright Wall / Dark Room describes itself as follows:

There are lots of sites about movies. Bright Wall/Dark Room is a different lens on film: no reviews, no hot takes, no hype, no movie news, no clickbait, no compromise, no “content,” no ads.

Bright Wall/Dark Room is an online magazine devoted to looking at what happens when we bring our whole selves to the movies. It’s about the relationship between films and individual human beings, between cinema and the business of being alive. Whether we’re watching in a theater or a living room, we’re each just a brain in a body looking at a bright wall in a dark room. BW/DR is where we go to talk about what happened there.

BW/DR is also a gathering place for writers and readers who want to look more humanly at film. ... We publish work by filmmakers and cinephiles and film studies students, but also by comedians and novelists and painters and poets.

We seek out thoughtful analysis and wholehearted engagement. ... The goal is to engage with all that movies are, in fresh and interesting ways: with warmth and affection, with thought and care, with our brains and our hearts. ...

Heroism in "Dirty Dancing"

The Quail Bell Magazine website has published an article titled Heroism in Dirty Dancing -- I've Had the Best Time of My Life, written by Daniel Wikey. His Linkedin page describes his education as follows:

Daniel Wikey

University of California at Berkeley
Bachelor’s Degree, Anthropology and Religious Studies
Highest Distinction -- 2012

Emphasizing in cultural anthropology, folklore, and mythology, with additional coursework in French language classes and in ancient Christianity.

My honors thesis ("Man as Magician, Man as Machine: Narrative, Wonder, and Politics in Twentieth-Century Lie Detection") delved into the crossover between comic books, the lie detector, and séance culture in the early 20th century.

Activities and Societies: Berkeley Student Food Collective, Cooking Club, Dundes Folklore Archive Research Program

Wikey's article includes the following passages.

... If one looks deeper, one sees that it [the story] follows almost precisely the ten-step heroic initiation process. Main character Baby’s heroic journey from girl to womanhood, and therefore the main parts of this paper as well, can be divided into three sections dealing with separation, liminality, and reintegration. By comparing Baby’s tale with Greek myth, we learn that, far from simply being a movie about achieving one’s dreams, Dirty Dancing is a primal tale of an arduous and difficult journey from sexual ignorance to enlightenment, filled with symbols representing Baby’s metamorphosis into a sexually awakened adult. ...

During a late night walk, Baby is invited to a private party for the resort staff (the hero’s “call to adventure”), asked before entering: “Can you keep a secret? Your parents would kill you.” Baby must cross a bridge to get to the house where the party is being held; the first of the numerous images throughout the film that symbolize her transition from one stage of life to another.

Upon reaching the party, she discovers that the dancing that goes on behind the scenes is much more intimate and passionate than the polite dancing she has been accustomed to. At first hesitant to join in, not comfortable dancing in such a manner — refusing her hero’s call — she is persuaded to dance with the group by an attractive dance instructor named Johnny. Like the followers of Dionysus, revelers who undergo enthusiasmos and ritual madness to rejoice in a way that is exciting but slightly raunchy, the dirty dancers Baby encounters are celebrating their sexuality and even their humanity and being alive, breaking the so-called “rules” and allowing themselves to let their inhibitions go.

Though in many heroic epics heroes had otherworldly aid in completing their quests (Odysseus had Athena, Gilgamesh had Siduri), Johnny’s filling of the “supernatural aid” position for Baby differs from such examples in myth.

Though Athena helped Odysseus disguise himself to his wife’s disrespectful suitors and ultimately succeed in reclaiming his kingly power, she never establishes a personal relationship with him. She is a god and he is a mortal — Homer chooses to keep her omniscient and him strictly dependent, relying on her for help.
Johnny, on the other hand, will become a friend (and much more) to Baby, distinguished not by his position as a religious entity but by his higher understanding of dance technique. Although Johnny may not be an actual god or mythical figure, to Baby, he might as well be. Johnny is her ultimate man. Besides being physically god-like in appearance, he is respectful and kind, causing Baby to become all the more enamored with him.

With the connection growing quickly between Johnny and Baby, Baby becomes more and more willing to prove herself to him to gain his favor, wanting to show him that she is ready — ready externally for his dance tutelage, and internally for a quietly hoped for romantic relationship. .... She proves herself [to] Johnny, who asks Baby to fill in for Penny at their next scheduled dance gig — crossing the enumerated “first threshold” and being well on her way to becoming a dancer.

Perhaps the most important sequences in the film are the tests and trials Baby must undergo on her way from girl to both dancer and woman. The obvious events that fall under this heading are of course the intensive dancing lessons Johnny teaches frantically to Baby to be sure they are ready for the performance in time.

One move in particular proves difficult for Baby to accomplish — a lift. Though it sounds simple enough, the balance and coordination required for Baby to stay in the air without tipping over is challenging. Johnny comes up with the idea to practice it in the lake nearby, another image of Baby’s transition — the lifting of Baby from under the water’s surface mirroring the baptism process performed on actual babies that symbolize their initiation into the parent’s religion. Baby comes close to holding the position, but she falls and splashes into the lake, showing that though she is close to achieving womanhood and dancing glory, she is not quite through with her learning process.

This is the second instance of water imagery in Dirty Dancing — the first being the long and narrow bridge crossed by Baby to reach the dirty dancers at their party. ...

While crossing the bridge to the dirty dancers’ party early in the film, she wears a loose-fitting dress that goes past her knees and shows nothing below her neck. But in this stage, in a training scene with Johnny, she wears a white T-shirt rolled up at the sleeves and cut off at the midriff (showing her belly button) as well as tight jean shorts, showing off her womanly figure. It is fitting that she wear differing garments while dancing;

Baby mirrors the Dionysian revelers in ancient Greece that dress in celebratory wear to worship Dionysus. Adolescent girls at Demeter’s Brauron sanctuary in ancient Greece, like Baby, also left childhood clothing behind — quite literally in their case, leaving their girlish garments at Brauron before returning to their homes changed; initiated into womanhood.

All heroes must voyage to the underworld and come to terms with their own mortality; although in Baby’s case she does not physically travel to the land of death, she experiences how death could potentially affect her — namely, how being a woman means that one has to come into contact with death and return to survive. Penny returns from the abortion weak and trembling, seemingly on the verge of death. ...

Baby’s somber realization that with maturity comes responsibility is an important growing experience. Though she says “I’m scared…of who I am,” having accepted and understanding life’s burdens, she is now truly ready for the final stages of her quest.

Many heroes’ quests are importantly altered by a temptress that can either lead them to stray from their journey’s path (Calypso, holding Odysseus on her island) or boost them to victory (Circe advising Odysseus on his return voyage home). Baby’s story, however differs from these myths in that it is told without a seducer or seductress.

The closest correspondence one can find in the movie happens to Johnny .... when lonely housewife Vivian Pressman sets her sights on Johnny. ... Though she is both beautiful and beguiling, he continues to reject her. Like Gilgamesh, whose turning down of Ishtar’s advances results in punishment (the sending of a great bull from heaven), Johnny’s refusal results with a penalty as well. The temptress Vivian goes to his superiors at Kellerman’s and accuses him of stealing. ...

Baby’s ultimate boon [is] her reaching of womanhood. ...After making love, Johnny asks Baby her real name. “Frances,” she says. “Frances,” he echoes back, “that’s a real grown-up name.” No longer needing the immature label of her childhood nickname, Frances has completed her transition into womanhood.

The final part of the movie is devoted to Baby’s symbolic “reintegration,” proving to her parents and other characters in the film that she has achieved adulthood. ... By appearing with Johnny in front of her family and friends, she not only reveals her relationship with Johnny to the world but also asserts her independence by “dirty dancing” — showing that she has become a woman.

Her father doesn’t take it all too well at first. Earlier in the movie, when he sees her beginning to wear makeup, betraying her Baby-like image, he says “Take that stuff off your face before your mother sees you.” Her father must now realize that he is not the only man in his daughter’s life from now on, and must come to terms with the fact that his daughter is a sexual being like himself.

Like examples in Greek or Arthurian myth in which the hero’s redemption with their father results in the father’s death and the hero’s aggression of their new-found power, Baby’s maturation, to look at it in a Freudian aspect, “kills” her father by showing him that she has become a sexually awakened woman. This makes it impossible for him to be with her, as she is his daughter, and will never be interested in him. ...

Baby does not die or become immortal to achieve apotheosis, but she does achieve a god-like status by being lifted into the air by Johnny during the movie’s final dance. He slowly lifts her up, a spotlight illuminating her head, as the music swells .... showing the triumph she has achieved from making it through the liminality of her journey’s trials — gaining knowledge of what is means to be mature — before becoming the adult she is now. She is literally looked up upon by the audience — having made it through her journey, she is raised into the sky, symbolically representing her now semi-divine status from achieving her transformation. ...

The subject of adolescents and their journey to maturity fascinates human society, for it is a transition every functioning adult has made, and every child will have to make. Baby herself ends the film having learned more about her own nature, about both good things that come with maturity (romance, responsibility) and the bad (the downsides of romance and responsibility).

People enjoy watching her trouble-filled journey into adulthood. ... Through her accomplishing of her task, each viewer leaves with the feeling that they, too, can gain knowledge and reach a more mature understanding of their own lives.

=====

The Wikipedia article about liminality includes the following passages:

In anthropology, liminality (from the Latin word līmen, meaning "a threshold") is the quality of ambiguity or disorientation that occurs in the middle stage of rituals, when participants no longer hold their pre-ritual status but have not yet begun the transition to the status they will hold when the ritual is complete. During a ritual's liminal stage, participants "stand at the threshold" between their previous way of structuring their identity, time, or community, and a new way, which the ritual establishes. ...

Arnold van Gennep, who coined the term liminality ... explores and develops the concept of liminality in the context of rituals in small-scale societies. ... He placed a particular emphasis on rites of passage, and claimed that "such rituals marking, helping, or celebrating individual or collective passages through the cycle of life or of nature exist in every culture, and share a specific three-fold sequential structure".

This three-fold structure, as established by van Gennep, is made up of the following components:

* Preliminal rites (or rites of separation): This stage involves a metaphorical "death", as the initiate is forced to leave something behind by breaking with previous practices and routines.

* Liminal rites (or transition rites): ... The rite "must follow a strictly prescribed sequence, where everybody knows what to do and how" [and] everything must be done "under the authority of a master of ceremonies". ... This middle stage "implies an actual passing through the threshold that marks the boundary between two phases, and the term 'liminality' was introduced in order to characterize this passage."

* Postliminal rites (or rites of incorporation): During this stage, the initiand is re-incorporated into society with a new identity, as a "new" being. ...
Van Gennep considered rites of initiation to be the most typical rite. ... In such rites of passage, the experience is highly structured. The first phase (the rite of separation) requires the child to go through a separation from his family; this involves his/her "death" as a child, as childhood is effectively left behind. In the second stage, initiands (between childhood and adulthood) must pass a "test" to prove they are ready for adulthood. If they succeed, the third stage (incorporation) involves a celebration of the "new birth" of the adult and a welcoming of that being back into society. ...

=====

Quail Bell Magazine provides the following mission statement:

Quail Bell Magazine is a place for real and unreal stories. Our readers are curious, creative, and compassionate fairy punks who are citizens of the world. All members of The Quail Bell Crew respect and embrace all cultures, excluding only the sexist, racist, homophobic, and otherwise unkind and uncompromising. ...

Quail Bell Magazine encourages original thought, open dialogue and community-building through content that explores the relationship between The Real and The Unreal. We value the arts, history, folklore, and other oddities often not mentioned in mainstream magazines. ...

======

See my series of articles about Baby Houseman's Heroic Journey.

Sunday, November 26, 2017

How Ship Life is Like Dirty Dancing

The blog I've Got a Lovely Bunch of Coconuts -- Thoughts from a Landlocked Sailor is written by McKenzie Ames, who describes her blog as follows:

I am just a girl who misses the saltwater in her hair… wait is that dirty? Crap. I always try to sound so elegant and profound and it just ends up warranting some prepubescent chuckle.

I lived on a cruise ship for three years and am adjusting to land life again. I have changed. I am sorting through these changes here for my friends, family and the world to read. Slowly realizing there is nothing in the world like ship life… and that’s ok.

One of her blog's articles is titled How Ship Life is Like Dirty Dancing. The article includes the following passages and illustrations (click to enlarge):

... As I was watching [the movie], I kept noticing sharp similarities between the world at Kellerman’s and the cruise ship bubble. I have watched The Love Boat and documentaries claiming to “expose what the cruise ship companies don’t want you to know!” and honestly, they don’t capture the real nature of ship life. Nothing really does. But Dirty Dancing comes close. Let’s explore:

An obvious caste system

There is a hierarchy at Kellerman’s much like on the ship. It’s not just guests and crew, but a hierarchy within the crew. Poor, wrong-side-of-the-tracks Johnny Castle falls to the bottom. ...

Simple dance classes full of geriatrics

.... As someone who has been forced to film these lessons, it always makes me laugh to watch professionally trained dancers teach the waltz to someone wearing flip-flops and socks.

Awful, awful, awful dad jokes

.... there’s no shortage of the most groan-worthy jokes you’ve ever heard. Some are so bad that don’t even deserve to be called “Dad jokes.”

Special entertainment

.... If you’re a lover of magic, ventriloquism, juggling or any combination of those horrible things, you’re in luck. ....

Those poor young people

There is always one or two early 20-somethings who got dragged on an Alaskan cruise with their grandparents and are doing all they can to get you to sneak them into crew bar. ...

Doesn't this look just like every 18-year-old's dream?

Being left stranded

We all remember that first hot scene where Johnny shows Baby how to grind on the dance floor. ... As Kiki put it, “he humps and dumps.” To which I responded, “Just like a ship guy!” ...

Remember how Robby, the creep, knocked up poor Penny the dancer and refused to help her or acknowledge that they were ever together? Hate to tell you, but that happens, too.

Shitty places to live

... Crew have crap cabins, except for the bridge folk. ... Johnny may have an expansive cabin with way more room than any ship worker could ever imagine, but he has no windows. ...

The worst end-of-season / voyage shows

At Kellerman’s it was a guest talent show. On ships (at least mine anyway) it was a crew talent show followed by what we call “walk-downs.” Any way you look at it, it’s overly sentimental, cheesy as hell and something the staff seriously dreads.

Zero tolerance for fraternization

Johnny slept with Baby so they fired him. Pretty standard. I never knew anyone who got caught with a guest and lived to tell the tale. Doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. A lot.

... I saved the best for last – CREW AREA!

Y’all watch this and tell me it doesn’t conjure up old memories of the crew bar. Granted there would be less soul music and more reggaetone, but it’s pretty accurate. They even got the token black couple. Ok, ok, the diversity is the only difference here. ....