Wednesday, November 23, 2022
Wednesday, November 16, 2022
The 1916 Movie "Where Are My Children?"
The Turner Classic Movies (TCM) cable-television channel recently broadcast the 1916 silent movie titled Where Are My Children? This must be the first movie ever made about the subject of abortion. The movie opposes abortion but advocates contraceptives as a good alternative.
YouTube provides the entire movie:
The Embryo Project Encyclopedia provides an informative article about the movie. In particular, the following passage summarizes the story:
The movie was written, produced and directed by a woman, Lois Weber.
YouTube provides the entire movie:
The Embryo Project Encyclopedia provides an informative article about the movie. In particular, the following passage summarizes the story:
In the first scene, Richard Walton is introduced as a district attorney who wants children. He is involved with an obscenity law suit, in which a physician has been distributing illegal contraception information to poor families. The physician advocates for birth control literature to promote the claim that wealthier families should have more children, as those children would have supposedly superior traits. Walton argues the case against the physician because the literature was considered obscene and inappropriate, violating the Comstock Act. The scene concludes with the court's decision to jail the physician for distributing illegal materials.
In the next scene, Walton returns home and sees his neighbor's three children playing outside. The film suggests that the sight saddens Walton, as he wants children, but the scene also implies that Walton wants children as a means to pass down his and his wife's supposedly superior physical and social traits. The film depicts Walton and his wife as an example of an ideal eugenic relationship because both are white and are upper class and thus have supposedly superior traits. His wife is depicted as a selfish woman because she does not want children, as they would disrupt her social life. In the following scene, Walton's sister-in-law visits the couple with her healthy child. The film introduces the child as the product of a eugenic relationship, from white, upper class parents. Despite her sister's visits with a healthy child, Walton's wife reinforces her sentiments about not wanting to have children by always engaging in social parties with her friends.
In those scenes, the film shows unwanted children from aborted pregnancies as angels in the sky with messages from Weber and her co-writers who advocate against the practice of abortion. The scenes are depicted with clouds, fanfare, and golden gates slowly opening, revealing unwanted children. The unwanted children appear throughout the film to indicate that a woman is pregnant and plans to get an abortion.
The next scene shows Walton's wife after she becomes pregnant. When Walton's wife is aware of her pregnancy, the presence of an unwanted child flies down from the sky and appears faintly besides her. Based on her socialite friends' suggestions, she visits the physician Herman Malfit to abort the unintended pregnancy.
In the middle part of the film, two visitors surprise the Waltons: Mrs. Walton's younger brother and the daughter of the Waltons' maid's. The brother seduces the maid's daughter and becomes pregnant. In the meantime, Walton's wife is busy socializing with her friends, and she becomes pregnant again but schedules another abortion. At the same time, her brother finds out about the maid's daughter's pregnancy and convinces her to abort the pregnancy. With the help of Walton's wife, who recommends the physician Malfit, the maid's daughter aborts her unwanted pregnancy. However, unlike in the case of Walton wife's, Malfit errs during the abortion procedure, and the maid's daughter dies from the complications. Before she dies, she confesses to her mother, the Waltons' maid, about her pregnancy.
In the next scene, Walton hears about the death of his maid's daughter and is angered by the news of the abortion. He physically confronts his wife's younger brother, who tells him who performed the abortion. In response, Walton brings Malfit to trial for performing an illegal abortion. In response, Malfit asks Walton's wife to persuade her husband to stop pursuing the case. He threatens to expose her abortions to her husband if she does not comply. Walton's wife tries to dissuade Walton, but he refuses to stop the trial. Throughout the trial, Walton's wife is shown socializing with her friends. At the trial, Malfit is not allowed to present evidence for his case, and he is sentenced to fifteen years in prison.
The film depicts Malfit as angered by his sentence, and in a fit of rage he shows his schedule book to Walton telling him to look at his own household. Walton looks into Malfit's papers and realizes that he has no children because his wife aborted her multiple pregnancies. Walton comes home after the case and finds his wife engaged in a social party with her friends. He yells at her friends, declaring that he should bring them all to trial for being murderesses and demands that everyone leaves. When her friends leave the house, Walton confronts his wife, asking her, "Where are my children?"
In the next scene, Walton is shown looking sadly at his neighbor's children, and as the film progresses, he eventually forgives his wife. The scene implies that Walton understands that his marriage is not a eugenic marriage, one where they would be able to pass down his and his wife's supposedly superior physical and social traits, and that he would never be able to raise a good family. Walton's wife, with a guilty conscience, prays for children. However, the film implies that because she had aborted her previous pregnancies, she could no longer become pregnant. The end of the film shows the couple sitting in front of a fireplace. In the scene, three imaginary unwanted children play in front of Walton. The scene then changes, showing that the unwanted children have grown and embrace Walton imaginatively. The film ends with the couple sitting alone in front of the fireplace with Walton's wife immersed in her guilty conscience.
The movie was written, produced and directed by a woman, Lois Weber.
Monday, November 14, 2022
Advice for Looking Prettier in the 1960s - 11
The following video -- done by adorable Jessica Vill -- is not about beauty tips, but I have watched it a hundred times, and so I am taking this opportunity to post it again.
Saturday, November 12, 2022
Black-Face Characters in Videos of "Puttin' On the Ritz"
In 2017, I published a blog article titled "Going Steady" versus "Going Slumming". Part of that article discussed Irving Berlin's 1927 song "Puttin' On the Ritz", which was featured in the 1930 movie Puttin' On the Ritz.
In my article, I deplored the stupidity of our society's bossy cultural censors, who have largely removed the Colored aspect from this song. As a consequence, today's dopey young people might be familiar with the song, but have no idea that it expresses an appreciation of Colored culture. On the contrary, they think the song is about rich Caucasians who dance well.
(In 1927-1930, the polite words were "Colored" and "Caucasian", and so I use those two words in this blog article.)
=======
A few days ago, a reader of my 2017 blog article wrote the following comment:
It sure is true that I do not get to decide "what is offensive for minorities". If I did get to decide, then our society's cultural censors would not be able to prevent people from watching old videos that depict the Colored aspect of the song "Puttin' On the Ritz".
If I did get to decide, then this song still would be perceived to be an appreciation of Colored culture in Harlem in the 1920s. The song would not have been changed into a celebration of rich White people who dance well.
======
Those old, culturally correct videos are condemned by our current society's cultural censors because they show Caucasians wearing Black-face make-up. We all are supposed to assume that all such portrayals were racist.
For example, we all are supposed to assume that the artists -- the producers, directors, actors, etc. -- who made the 1930 movie Puttin' On the Ritz were maliciously expressing racist mockery of Colored people in this scene:
On the contrary, those artists -- and the movie audiences -- perceived this scene to be an appreciation of Colored culture -- in particular, of its poetry, music, dancing and fashions.
The movie producers can be criticized for not hiring Colored people to perform that movie scene. However, that decision does not mean that the producers intended the scene to be a mockery of Colored people.
======
In the late 1930s and early 1940s, the actors Mickey Rooney and Judy Garland made several movies that featured Black-face scenes. Here are just a couple examples.
In those years, the artists and audiences did not (for the most part) perceive such scenes to be mockery of Colored people.
The common story of such movies was that that Mickey and Judy were organizing their friends to put on a money-making show that would include a variety of song-and-dance performances. One such performance was a performance in which Mickey's and Judy's friends would wear Black-face make-up and then perform like Colored people.
The idea here was that Colored people sang and dance amazingly well. However, Mickey and Judy did not personally have any Colored friends, and so Black-face was the only way to include such a performance in the show.
The movie audience would have been astonished to see that Mickey and Judy actually had a lot of Colored friends whom they could invite to participate in the show. A movie that portrayed a lot of such Colored friends would have been blatantly unrealistic. A movie story in which Mickey and Judy asked their Caucasian friends to wear Black-face make-up and then sing and dance like Colored people was much more realistic.
Mickey Rooney and Judy Garland -- and all the producers, directors and other actors -- did not intend for their movie audiences to perceive such performances as mockery of Colored people. On the contrary, such performances were intended to show the movie audiences how well Colored people sang and danced. At that time, such movie scenes were important cultural progress toward a more racially-integrated society.
=======
If you approve of cultural censors making such old movies and videos disappear, then you are just making yourselves ignorant.
In my article, I deplored the stupidity of our society's bossy cultural censors, who have largely removed the Colored aspect from this song. As a consequence, today's dopey young people might be familiar with the song, but have no idea that it expresses an appreciation of Colored culture. On the contrary, they think the song is about rich Caucasians who dance well.
(In 1927-1930, the polite words were "Colored" and "Caucasian", and so I use those two words in this blog article.)
=======
A few days ago, a reader of my 2017 blog article wrote the following comment:
.... You don’t get to decide what is offensive for minorities. Also, being happy that racist videos are available on YouTube actually makes you trash.
It sure is true that I do not get to decide "what is offensive for minorities". If I did get to decide, then our society's cultural censors would not be able to prevent people from watching old videos that depict the Colored aspect of the song "Puttin' On the Ritz".
If I did get to decide, then this song still would be perceived to be an appreciation of Colored culture in Harlem in the 1920s. The song would not have been changed into a celebration of rich White people who dance well.
======
Those old, culturally correct videos are condemned by our current society's cultural censors because they show Caucasians wearing Black-face make-up. We all are supposed to assume that all such portrayals were racist.
For example, we all are supposed to assume that the artists -- the producers, directors, actors, etc. -- who made the 1930 movie Puttin' On the Ritz were maliciously expressing racist mockery of Colored people in this scene:
On the contrary, those artists -- and the movie audiences -- perceived this scene to be an appreciation of Colored culture -- in particular, of its poetry, music, dancing and fashions.
The movie producers can be criticized for not hiring Colored people to perform that movie scene. However, that decision does not mean that the producers intended the scene to be a mockery of Colored people.
======
In the late 1930s and early 1940s, the actors Mickey Rooney and Judy Garland made several movies that featured Black-face scenes. Here are just a couple examples.
In those years, the artists and audiences did not (for the most part) perceive such scenes to be mockery of Colored people.
The common story of such movies was that that Mickey and Judy were organizing their friends to put on a money-making show that would include a variety of song-and-dance performances. One such performance was a performance in which Mickey's and Judy's friends would wear Black-face make-up and then perform like Colored people.
The idea here was that Colored people sang and dance amazingly well. However, Mickey and Judy did not personally have any Colored friends, and so Black-face was the only way to include such a performance in the show.
The movie audience would have been astonished to see that Mickey and Judy actually had a lot of Colored friends whom they could invite to participate in the show. A movie that portrayed a lot of such Colored friends would have been blatantly unrealistic. A movie story in which Mickey and Judy asked their Caucasian friends to wear Black-face make-up and then sing and dance like Colored people was much more realistic.
Mickey Rooney and Judy Garland -- and all the producers, directors and other actors -- did not intend for their movie audiences to perceive such performances as mockery of Colored people. On the contrary, such performances were intended to show the movie audiences how well Colored people sang and danced. At that time, such movie scenes were important cultural progress toward a more racially-integrated society.
=======
If you approve of cultural censors making such old movies and videos disappear, then you are just making yourselves ignorant.
Sunday, October 16, 2022
Tuesday, October 11, 2022
Wednesday, October 5, 2022
Tuesday, September 27, 2022
The 2022 Tour Schedule of "Dirty Dancing in Concert"
Relive the timeless love story of Baby and Johnny with Dirty Dancing in Concert, celebrating the film's 35th anniversary on a full-size cinema screen with a band and singers live on stage. With a soundtrack that defined a generation, Dirty Dancing in Concert promises to bring a new thrilling experience to the 80s classic! Dirty Dancing in Concert launches a 36 city tour across the US and Canada in October. Fans can sign up for the presale now at Dirtydancinginconcert.com.
Audiences attending Dirty Dancing in Concert will experience the hit film in a unique and unforgettable way. A complete screening of the digitally remastered film will play as a band and singers perform the songs live, in sync with the film. Stay for the encore party and continue to sing and dance along with the band to your favorite Dirty Dancing songs.
===============
Audiences attending Dirty Dancing in Concert will experience the hit film in a unique and unforgettable way. A complete screening of the digitally remastered film will play as a band and singers perform the songs live, in sync with the film. Stay for the encore party and continue to sing and dance along with the band to your favorite Dirty Dancing songs.
===============
2022 Tour Schedule
===============
Oct 21 -- Glace Bay, NS -- Savoy Theatre
Oct 23 -- Halifax, NS -- Dalhousie Arts Center
Oct 24 -- Saint John, NB -- Imperial Theater
Oct 25 -- Charlottetown, PEI -- Confederation Center
Oct 27 -- Portland, ME -- Merrill Auditorium
Oct 28 -- Boston, MA -- Shubert Theatre Boston
Oct 29 -- Philadelphia, PA -- Academy of Music
Nov 1 -- London, ON, CA -- Budweiser Gardens
Nov 2 -- Hamilton, ON, CA -- First Ontario Concert Hall
Nov 4 -- Detroit, MI -- Fisher Theatre
Nov 5 -- Columbus, OH -- Palace Theatre
Nov 6 -- South Bend, IN -- Morris Performing Arts Center
Nov 7 -- Indianapolis, IN -- Clowes Memorial Hall
Nov 9 -- Louisville, KY -- Kentucky Center - Whitney Hall
Nov 10 -- Akron, OH -- E.J. Thomas Hall
Nov 11 -- Rosemont, IL -- Rosemont Theater
Nov 12 -- Milwaukee, WI -- Riverside Theater
Nov 13 -- Rockford, IL -- Coronado Performing Arts Center
Nov 15 -- Atlanta, GA -- Cobb Energy Performing Arts Centre
Nov 16 -- Birmingham, AL -- BJCC Concert Hall
Nov 17 -- Pensacola, FL -- Saenger Theatre
Nov 18 -- Jacksonville, FL -- Jacksonville Center for the Performing Arts - Moran Theater
Nov 19 -- Tampa, FL -- David A. Straz Center - Carol Morsani Hall
Nov 20 -- Fort Lauderdale, FL -- Lillian S. Wells Hall at The Parker
Nov 22 -- Sarasota, FL -- Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall
Nov 23 -- West Palm Beach, FL -- Kravis Center - Dreyfoos Hall
Nov 25 -- Raleigh, NC -- Duke Energy Center - Fletcher Opera Theater
Nov 26 -- Charlotte, NC -- Ovens Auditorium
Nov 27 -- Greensboro, NC -- Steven Tanger Center for the Performing Arts
Nov 29 -- Tysons, VA -- Capital One Hall
Nov 30 -- Norfolk, VA -- Chrysler Hall
Dec 1 -- Richmond, VA -- Altria Theater
Dec 2 -- Augusta, GA -- Bell Auditorium
Dec 3 -- North Charleston, SC -- North Charleston Performing Arts Center
Dec 4 -- Savannah, GA -- Savannah Civic Center - Johnny Mercer Theatre
===============
Oct 21 -- Glace Bay, NS -- Savoy Theatre
Oct 23 -- Halifax, NS -- Dalhousie Arts Center
Oct 24 -- Saint John, NB -- Imperial Theater
Oct 25 -- Charlottetown, PEI -- Confederation Center
Oct 27 -- Portland, ME -- Merrill Auditorium
Oct 28 -- Boston, MA -- Shubert Theatre Boston
Oct 29 -- Philadelphia, PA -- Academy of Music
Nov 1 -- London, ON, CA -- Budweiser Gardens
Nov 2 -- Hamilton, ON, CA -- First Ontario Concert Hall
Nov 4 -- Detroit, MI -- Fisher Theatre
Nov 5 -- Columbus, OH -- Palace Theatre
Nov 6 -- South Bend, IN -- Morris Performing Arts Center
Nov 7 -- Indianapolis, IN -- Clowes Memorial Hall
Nov 9 -- Louisville, KY -- Kentucky Center - Whitney Hall
Nov 10 -- Akron, OH -- E.J. Thomas Hall
Nov 11 -- Rosemont, IL -- Rosemont Theater
Nov 12 -- Milwaukee, WI -- Riverside Theater
Nov 13 -- Rockford, IL -- Coronado Performing Arts Center
Nov 15 -- Atlanta, GA -- Cobb Energy Performing Arts Centre
Nov 16 -- Birmingham, AL -- BJCC Concert Hall
Nov 17 -- Pensacola, FL -- Saenger Theatre
Nov 18 -- Jacksonville, FL -- Jacksonville Center for the Performing Arts - Moran Theater
Nov 19 -- Tampa, FL -- David A. Straz Center - Carol Morsani Hall
Nov 20 -- Fort Lauderdale, FL -- Lillian S. Wells Hall at The Parker
Nov 22 -- Sarasota, FL -- Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall
Nov 23 -- West Palm Beach, FL -- Kravis Center - Dreyfoos Hall
Nov 25 -- Raleigh, NC -- Duke Energy Center - Fletcher Opera Theater
Nov 26 -- Charlotte, NC -- Ovens Auditorium
Nov 27 -- Greensboro, NC -- Steven Tanger Center for the Performing Arts
Nov 29 -- Tysons, VA -- Capital One Hall
Nov 30 -- Norfolk, VA -- Chrysler Hall
Dec 1 -- Richmond, VA -- Altria Theater
Dec 2 -- Augusta, GA -- Bell Auditorium
Dec 3 -- North Charleston, SC -- North Charleston Performing Arts Center
Dec 4 -- Savannah, GA -- Savannah Civic Center - Johnny Mercer Theatre
Friday, September 23, 2022
Monday, September 19, 2022
My Other Idea for a Sequel
=======
On July 11, I published a post titled The Movie "Blow-Up" and Baby's White Jeans. That movie was released in the USA in December 1966, and it begins with the main character riding in a car and playing on his radio the song "Did You Ever Have to Make Up Your Mind?". That song, performed by The Lovin' Spoonful, was on their record album that had been released in April 1966.
The song reached Number 2 on the American Billboard charts in June 1966, and so the movie audience recognized immediately that the movie's story was taking place in 1966.
The song is about a man who has fallen in love with two sisters but now must choose only one of them.
Here are the lyrics:
Here is a video of the song with photographs from the television show Petticoat Junction, about three sisters, which was broadcast from 1963 to 1970. I used to watch that show all the time.
Anyway, I suggest a Dirty Dancing sequel in which Johnny Castle falls in love with Lisa Houseman in New York City in about 1966. For Johnny, Lisa is a better romantic match than Baby is. Lisa is more artsy, romantic and fun-loving. Also, Lisa is a couple years closer in age to Johnny. Baby is too serious, brainy and young for Johnny.
=======
Aside from the drama of Johnny choosing Lisa over Baby, my proposed sequel would provide an opportunity to feature dance styles that are different from ballroom dancing.
In 1964 -- the year when the Beatles arrived in America -- the Judy Garland television show featured a sensational dance led by choreographer-dancer Bobby Banas.
(This video's title includes the year 1963. The song "Nitty Gritty" was released in 1963, but this Judy Garland television show was broadcast in 1964.)
Here are a few more YouTube videos featuring Bobby Banas.
Anyway, my proposed movie would involve Johnny (and Penny and Lisa) with Bobby Banas (or some other similar choreographer-dancer) in New York City in the time-frame of 1964-1967. The movie would portray the music, performance dancing and entertainment business in New York City in that time-frame.
An interview with Bobby Banas
On July 11, I published a post titled The Movie "Blow-Up" and Baby's White Jeans. That movie was released in the USA in December 1966, and it begins with the main character riding in a car and playing on his radio the song "Did You Ever Have to Make Up Your Mind?". That song, performed by The Lovin' Spoonful, was on their record album that had been released in April 1966.
 |
The song reached Number 2 on the American Billboard charts in June 1966, and so the movie audience recognized immediately that the movie's story was taking place in 1966.
The song is about a man who has fallen in love with two sisters but now must choose only one of them.
Here are the lyrics:
Did you ever have to make up your mind?
Pick up on one and leave the other one behind?
It's not often easy, and not often kind
Did you ever have to make up your mind?
Did you ever have to finally decide?
Say "yes" to one and let the other one ride?
There's so many changes, and tears you must hide!
Did you ever have to finally decide?
Sometimes there's one with deep blue eyes, cute as a bunny,
With hair down to here, and plenty of money.
And just when you think she's that one in the world
Your heart gets stolen by some mousy little girl!
Sometimes you really dig a girl the moment you kiss her,
And then you get distracted by her older sister.
When in walks her father and takes you in line
And says "Better go home, son, and make up your mind".
Here is a video of the song with photographs from the television show Petticoat Junction, about three sisters, which was broadcast from 1963 to 1970. I used to watch that show all the time.
Anyway, I suggest a Dirty Dancing sequel in which Johnny Castle falls in love with Lisa Houseman in New York City in about 1966. For Johnny, Lisa is a better romantic match than Baby is. Lisa is more artsy, romantic and fun-loving. Also, Lisa is a couple years closer in age to Johnny. Baby is too serious, brainy and young for Johnny.
=======
Aside from the drama of Johnny choosing Lisa over Baby, my proposed sequel would provide an opportunity to feature dance styles that are different from ballroom dancing.
In 1964 -- the year when the Beatles arrived in America -- the Judy Garland television show featured a sensational dance led by choreographer-dancer Bobby Banas.
(This video's title includes the year 1963. The song "Nitty Gritty" was released in 1963, but this Judy Garland television show was broadcast in 1964.)
Here are a few more YouTube videos featuring Bobby Banas.
Anyway, my proposed movie would involve Johnny (and Penny and Lisa) with Bobby Banas (or some other similar choreographer-dancer) in New York City in the time-frame of 1964-1967. The movie would portray the music, performance dancing and entertainment business in New York City in that time-frame.
An interview with Bobby Banas
Saturday, September 17, 2022
Jews on Film -- Dirty Dancing
Daniel Zana and Harry Ottensoser discuss films of all types to investigate what truly makes a film Jewish. Covering everything from Fiddler on the Roof to Uncut Gems, they finish each episode by ranking the film’s production, content, and themes on a scale of 1 to 5 Jewish stars. Listen each week to find out!
In this week's episode, Daniel and Harry are joined by Seattle based writer and podcaster Emily Alhadeff to discuss the 1987 classic Dirty Dancing, starring Jennifer Grey and Patrick Swayze. Listen along as they uncover the film's concealed - but undeniable - Jewishness, consider the history of Jewish independence and assimilation in the United States, and are convinced once and for all why no one puts baby in a corner. As always, they end the episode by ranking the film’s Jewishness.
Monday, September 5, 2022
My Idea for a Prequel
I don't like the idea of a Dirty Dancing sequel where Baby Houseman and Johnny Castle get together again. That couple has no future. Their four-day romance happened only because of an odd situation where Baby had to substitute-dance for Penny Johnson, who had a schedule conflict between a dance performance and an abortion.
The only situation that might bring them back together for a long time would be if Baby got pregnant from that romance. If that happened, though, then she would get an abortion for sure. Baby is going to attend college for at least the next four years.
The romantic story of Baby and Johnny has been told in the movie Dirty Dancing. You can tell that basic story many times more. The story already has been re-told in the ABC re-make and in the stage musical and can be re-told more times. In comparison, the Pride and Prejudice story has been told in about a dozen movies and television series.
=======
I suggest a Dirty Dancing prequel, which would tell what happened at the Kellerman hotel in the weeks before the Houseman family arrived there. A prequel would tell:
During those weeks, Max Kellerman could have his heart attack, and Jake Houseman could come to the hotel to provide medical treatment. Marjorie Houseman could accompany Jake on that trip. Perhaps they could have some phone conversations with their daughters Lisa and Baby.
=======
Here are some political and cultural events during those weeks:
June 1
Lesley Gore's song "It's My Party" reaches #1.
June 10
President Kennedy signs an equal-pay-for-equal-work law for men and women.
June 11
Federal troops compel the University of Alabama to accept Negro students.
June 11
A Buddhist monk burns himself to death in a political protest in Saigon.
June 12
The only situation that might bring them back together for a long time would be if Baby got pregnant from that romance. If that happened, though, then she would get an abortion for sure. Baby is going to attend college for at least the next four years.
The romantic story of Baby and Johnny has been told in the movie Dirty Dancing. You can tell that basic story many times more. The story already has been re-told in the ABC re-make and in the stage musical and can be re-told more times. In comparison, the Pride and Prejudice story has been told in about a dozen movies and television series.
=======
I suggest a Dirty Dancing prequel, which would tell what happened at the Kellerman hotel in the weeks before the Houseman family arrived there. A prequel would tell:
* the history of the relationship between Johnny and Penny
* the arrangement of their performances at the Sheldrake Hotel
* the sexual affair between Penny and Robbie Gould
* Johnny's sexual liaisons with Vivian Pressman and other women
* New aspects of Billy Kostecki, Neil Kellerman, Tito Suarez, the magician, the Schumachers, Johnny's entertainment crew, etc.
During those weeks, Max Kellerman could have his heart attack, and Jake Houseman could come to the hotel to provide medical treatment. Marjorie Houseman could accompany Jake on that trip. Perhaps they could have some phone conversations with their daughters Lisa and Baby.
=======
Here are some political and cultural events during those weeks:
June 1
Lesley Gore's song "It's My Party" reaches #1.
June 10
President Kennedy signs an equal-pay-for-equal-work law for men and women.
June 11
Federal troops compel the University of Alabama to accept Negro students.
June 11
A Buddhist monk burns himself to death in a political protest in Saigon.
June 12
The movie Cleopatra premiers.
June 12
Negro leader Medgar Evers assassinated.
June 15
The Sound of Music closes on Broadway after 1,443 performances.
June 16
The Soviet Union sends a female cosmonaut into orbit.
June 12
Negro leader Medgar Evers assassinated.
June 15
The Sound of Music closes on Broadway after 1,443 performances.
June 16
The Soviet Union sends a female cosmonaut into orbit.
June 26
President Kennedy gives his "Ich bin ein Berliner" speech in West Berlin.
August 3
Allan Sherman releases his song "Hello Mudda, Hello Fadda".
August 13
Another Buddhist monk burns himself to death in Saigon.
August 3
Allan Sherman releases his song "Hello Mudda, Hello Fadda".
August 13
Another Buddhist monk burns himself to death in Saigon.
Friday, September 2, 2022
MAGA Republicans Resisting the Red Yawn
 |
| Click on the image to enlarge it. |
 |
| Click on the image to enlarge it |
Thursday, September 1, 2022
My Idea for a New Sequel
Eleanor Bergstein's movie Let It Be Me, released in 1995, was (I speculate) intended to be a sequel to the 1987 movie Dirty Dancing. Very few people have watched Let It Be Me, because it was not shown in movie theaters or provided in a DVD. It's my understanding that the producer maliciously caused the movie to disappear because he quarreled with Eleanor Bergstein, who wrote and directed it.
You can watch Let It Be Me on YouTube. The visual and audio qualities are poor, but otherwise I think the movie is excellent. I suggest that Let It Be Me be re-done as the new sequel to Dirty Dancing.
In 2017, published a blog article titled Eleanor Bergstein's Third Movie, "Let It Be Me". There I summarized the plot as follows:
When the story begins, Emily and Gabriel have been acquainted for seven months. They love each other and live together and are planning their wedding.
The character Emily is 29 years old (the actress Jennifer Beale was about 31 years old when the movie was made in 1994). Emily is keeping a secret from Gabriel. Twelve years previously, when she was 17 years old, she got pregnant from a high-school classmate named Bud (last name not mentioned). Emily and Bud were dancing partners in some program that is not explained in the dialogue. When Emily learned she was pregnant, she was not able to contact Bud, who was touring with a dance troupe. Therefore Emily had an abortion, and she had no contact with Bud for the following 12 years.
About a third of the way into the movie's story, Emily and Bud happen to meet again. Bud owns a dance studio where Emily's fiancé Gabriel, an incompetent dancer, has been taking dance lessons to prepare for the post-wedding party of Gabriel and Emily. Emily visits the studio to join Gabriel in his dance lessons, and there she meets Bud. Although 12 years have passed, Emily and Bud recognize each other immediately. They explain to Gabriel that they had known each other and danced together in high school.
When they meet each other again in Bud's dance studio, he still does not know about Emily's pregnancy and abortion. Emily does not tell Bud until much later in the story.
The character named Bud -- the owner of the dance school in Manhattan -- corresponds to Johnny Castle. (In real life, the actor Patrick Swayze was called Buddy by his close friends.)
In a new sequel, Johnny Castle could be made into Bud easily, but Baby Houseman could not be made into Emily so easily. To do the latter, the Let It Be Me plot would have to be changed fundamentally.
=======
In a new sequel, the actress Jennifer Grey could play an older character named Marguerite. Furthermore, this character might be changed easily into an old Baby Houseman.
In my 2017, I summarized the Marguerite subplot as follows:
Let It Be Me includes a subplot involving a couple of older characters, played by Patrick Stewart and Leslie Caron. Stewart plays his role superbly, delightfully. Caron -- a French actress who became famous as a young woman for dancing opposite Gene Kelly in An American in Paris -- plays the role of an old woman who dances poorly.
Patrick Stewart and Leslie Caron dancing
in a scene in the 1995 movie Let It Be Me.
Unfortunately, Bergstein used this subplot to inject her liberal political concerns into the movie. In this subplot there are many snide comments about rich people and there is a long line of starving poor people receiving free soup from a charitable organization. I suppose that some people in test audiences would have been annoyed by Bergstein's gratuitous liberal propaganda.
At the movie's end, this older couple marries, and the post-wedding party assembles all the characters again in the dance studio. Although Bud and Corrine have broken up and Gabriel and Emily have broken up, the two couples dance again and begin their reconciliations. Thus the movie ends nicely.
A new sequel like this would have a major anachronism. Johnny Castle (Buddy) would have aged perhaps only three years after the Dirty Dancing story, but Baby Houseman would have aged about three decades. If that anachronism is unacceptable, then that female character could remain Marguerite (i.e. not Baby Houseman), but the role would be played by the now 72-year-old actress Grey.
========
In a future blog article, I will tell some other sequel ideas of mine.
Wednesday, August 31, 2022
More Reader Comments About "Robbie Gould's Philosophy"
In December 2008 I published a blog article titled Robbie Gould's Philosophy. In April 2017, I published a blog article titled Reader Comments about "Robbie Gould's Philosophy".
Since I published the latter blog article, a couple more comments have been written, and so I will discuss them here.
=======
In my 2008 article, I wrote that Robbie had brought the novel The Fountainhead into the restaurant to give to Lisa (not to Baby) to read. Robbie hoped the novel might persuade Lisa to have sex with him. I described Robbie's reasoning as follows:
When I wrote that blog article in 2008, I had not actually read the novel myself. Rather, I just based the above passage on summaries of the novel that I had read.
=======
On March 20, 2020, commenter HBinswaner wrote:
For the sake of brevity, I removed two parts -- [ ... ] -- where HBinswaner provided more evidence for his argument. You can read his entire comment at the above link. I appreciate his strong argument that Roark did not rape Dominique.
However, plenty of readers get the impression that he forced himself on her. She accepted it -- and even enjoyed it.
That is the impression that Robbie wanted Lisa to get from her own reading of the novel. Sure, Lisa might agree with HBinswaner that the incident was not forcible at all, but that is not what Robbie hoped Lisa would think.
=======
On August 4, 2020, commenter grbfrog wrote:
Thank you, grbfrog, for writing such an interesting comment!
=========
I still intend to finish my series called "The Development of Lisa's Political Rebellion", which begins with this Part 1. That series includes much discussion of Ayn Rand's novel The Fountainhead.
Since I published the latter blog article, a couple more comments have been written, and so I will discuss them here.
=======
In my 2008 article, I wrote that Robbie had brought the novel The Fountainhead into the restaurant to give to Lisa (not to Baby) to read. Robbie hoped the novel might persuade Lisa to have sex with him. I described Robbie's reasoning as follows:
Apparently, Robbie had brought the novel into the dining room with the intention of giving it not to Baby, but rather to Lisa, whom he expected to serve as a waiter at the imminent meal. He and Lisa had quarreled the previous night when he had become sexually aggressive at the golf course. Lisa had refused to submit to him, and he had refused to apologize. Robbie had not given up in his efforts to seduce Lisa, however, and he intended to lend Lisa The Fountainhead as his next step.
If Lisa would only read The Fountainhead, then Lisa would understand and appreciate Robbie better. The novel was written by a famous female author with a female perspective that Lisa should share. Lisa should understand that Robbie Gould was similar to the novel’s hero Howard Roark. Robbie Gould was working now only as a waiter, but Howard Roark had worked for a long time only as a stone cutter in a quarry. Eventually, however, Robbie Gould would become the world’s greatest medical genius, just as Howard Roark became the world’s greatest architectural genius. And Lisa should identify with novel’s beautiful and intelligent heroine, Dominique Francon:
Lisa Houseman should adore the genius Robbie Gould just as Dominque Francon adored the genius Howard Roark.
Lisa Houseman should submit to and then forgive Robbie Gould’s sexual aggression just as Dominique Francon had done submitted to and forgiven Howard Roark’s rape.
Lisa Houseman should feel flattered that Robbie Gould would adore her nude body, just as Howard Roark had designed a huge monument to Dominique Francon’s nude body.
Lisa Houseman should be willing to wait patiently until Robbie Gould was ready to marry her, just as Dominque Francon had waited – even through two marriages to other, mediocre men – until Howard Roark was ready to marry.
We don’t know whether Lisa actually read The Fountainhead. It’s a long (750 pages) and high-minded novel. Perhaps she just started and then asked Robbie to tell her the story. Robbie certainly pointed out the sexy parts – the scene where Dominique was raped and the scene where the married Dominique had sex with the wealthy man who then was so pleased that he paid Dominique’s husband to agree to a divorce so that Dominique could marry the wealthy man and the scene where Dominique left the wealthy man and reunited with Howard Roark, who had raped her many years ago.
When I wrote that blog article in 2008, I had not actually read the novel myself. Rather, I just based the above passage on summaries of the novel that I had read.
=======
On March 20, 2020, commenter HBinswaner wrote:
My credentials: Ph.D. in philosophy, personal friend of Ayn Rand (see Wikipedia).
Your post gets The Fountainhead completely wrong, wrong about the characters' motivation and their ideas.
First, THERE WAS NO RAPE. Dominique wanted Roark -- she even invented pretexts to get him inside her bedroom, as Roark was aware.
Roark was in love with her. >> "We never need to say anything to each other when we're together. This is for the time when we won't be together. I love you, Dominique. As selfishly as the fact that I exist."
That nude statue of Dominique by Steven Mallory? Dominique posed for it! And in one scene she poses for it while Roark is watching her.
Your article simply invents things:
"The hero did not marry until he achieved extraordinary professional success, because marriage impeded his professional efforts in the meantime. Lisa did not understand that the heroine was supposed to satisfy herself with a couple of marriages to other, mediocre men in the meantime. The hero had time to satisfy his own sexual desires only with an occasional rape in the meantime."
1. It was she who wouldn't marry him, not the other way around. 2. Dominique married the worst people she could find because she wanted to kill her desire for greatness -- convinced that great men die of slow torture, 3. Roark was very hurt by her 2 marriages.
[ ... ]
And that part about Roark satisfying his sexual desires by an occasional rape? The novel suggests that he never even touched another woman.
Dominique's basic motivation? Fear for Roark's fate.
[ ... ]
The philosophy of The Fountainhead is stated very clearly in the novel. E.g., Roark's courtroom speech:
"The issue has been perverted.... As poles of good and evil, [man] was offered two conceptions: egotism and altruism. Egotism was held to mean the sacrifice of others to self. Altruism — the sacrifice of self to others. This ... left him nothing but a choice of pain: his own pain borne for the sake of others or pain inflicted upon others for the sake of self. When it was added that man must find joy in self-immolation, the trap was closed. Man was forced to accept masochism as his ideal — under the threat that sadism was his only alternative. This was the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on mankind....The choice is not self-sacrifice or domination. The choice is independence or dependence."
For the sake of brevity, I removed two parts -- [ ... ] -- where HBinswaner provided more evidence for his argument. You can read his entire comment at the above link. I appreciate his strong argument that Roark did not rape Dominique.
However, plenty of readers get the impression that he forced himself on her. She accepted it -- and even enjoyed it.
That is the impression that Robbie wanted Lisa to get from her own reading of the novel. Sure, Lisa might agree with HBinswaner that the incident was not forcible at all, but that is not what Robbie hoped Lisa would think.
=======
On August 4, 2020, commenter grbfrog wrote:
I just finished The Fountainhead today after 20 years of being on my "to do" list so I could better understand the reference. I'm glad I read it. And my appreciation for the artistry of Dirty Dancing grows.
The criticism of Robbie's character is straightforward. I did find the suggestion that in that era all men fancied themselves to be Howard Roark interesting. I wasn't alive then so I don't know that cultural context.
But to me, Robbie doesn't fancy himself Howard Roark but rather Peter Keating. Peter Keating's struggles came from his incomplete self awareness; he strove for success as measured by others but was only vaguely aware of his actions and motivations, much of it being driven by his mother. However, I think Robbie has learned from this and embraces being Peter Keating unashamedly for the power, money, and women it will bring. And despite still being in college, he's already achieved much, such as his Alfa Romeo, being encouraged to date rich well connected daughters, and very nearly a fat check from a stranger, Baby's dad.
It is an interesting idea that Robbie was carrying the book to convince Lisa, but I feel strongly that this isn't the case.
One, Lisa would've never read it.
Two, it would not be the most effective way to get her in bed.
And three, Robbie doesn't care that much about it anyway; I think he would put Lisa squarely into the "some people don't [matter]" category.
He respects Baby for her intellect, but to Robbie, Lisa is just a cheap thrill and a possible networking connection with her dad, not worth the effort if it doesn't come easy. And this is shown that as Lisa struggles with her decision whether to sleep with him, he's already with someone else, not concerned about Lisa's decision one way or the other.
But I do not think The Fountainhead's criticism is only directed at Robbie. Much of The Fountainhead focuses on criticizing altruistic acts by the rich, and as uncomfortable as it may be, this criticism finds Baby in its aim. Well intentioned as she is, Baby has led a life of comfort and privilege, preparing to study economics of under developed countries to help those facing hardships she has never faced.
This is consistent with the movie's gentle criticism of Baby at the beginning; even her name is meant to suggest her naivete. Had her summer at Kellerman's never happened, she may have followed that path, feeling self righteous for her work "helping" those less fortunate but not actually contributing much to the world, then settling down and marrying someone of her social class. Baby herself spells this out as the intended plan during her "but you let me down too" soliloquy to her dad.
However, it is her relationship to Johnny that forces her to be a little more like Howard Roark, fighting for a cause no matter what it costs, and it is hard for her. In the end, she leaves those around her better people because of her willingness to fight for what she believed in, perhaps making more a difference than she would've in the Peace Corp., paralleling The Fountainhead theme.
I would even suggest Jake, Baby's dad, is subtly targeted by The Fountainhead reference. He either gets fooled or enjoys playing the game with the smooth guy Robbie (Peter Keating). And his willingness to give money to Robbie after dating Lisa has shades of Guy Francon encouraging Peter Keating to marry Dominique because he doesn't know what to do with her.
I am not equating Lisa with Dominique; two characters could not be more different. However, Lisa's dad is unable to relate to Lisa like he does with Baby. Bribing a rich successful guy like Robbie to take care of her so he doesn't have to learn to understand her is similar to Guy Francon and his hoped for solution with his daughter and Peter Keating.
I am glad I read the book; I didn't think it was possible to appreciate Dirty Dancing even more, but it has happened. Thank you for creating this blog to share opinions and insights to further understand the greatness of Dirty Dancing!
Thank you, grbfrog, for writing such an interesting comment!
=========
I still intend to finish my series called "The Development of Lisa's Political Rebellion", which begins with this Part 1. That series includes much discussion of Ayn Rand's novel The Fountainhead.
Monday, August 29, 2022
Sunday, August 28, 2022
Tuesday, August 23, 2022
Jennifer Grey's Autobiography -- Part 24
Out of the Corner, by Jennifer Grey
Continued from Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, Part 10, Part 11, Part 12, Part 13, Part 14, Part 15, Part 16, Part 17, Part 18, Part 19, Part 20, Part 21, Part 22 and Part 23
==========
Chapter 22, titled "Unbridled", tells about events into 2021, when she and her husband Clark Gregg divorced.
==========
Grey's book is not much about the movie Dirty Dancing. Rather, the book mainly tells about growing up in a family of actors, about her effort to become a successful actress, about her romantic experiences with men, about her addictions to intoxicating substances, about her physical and mental disorders and about her joy in being a married mother. That movie did play an important part in her life, but now that she is in her sixties and looks back, that movie was only a minor part.
In her book's final chapter, she shares some of the wisdom that she acquired during her 60+ years. She ponders particular problems of being a woman.
I came from a long line of women who became mothers and wives at the expense or the career they'd wanted. The story my mother's mother told was "I didn't get to be a pianist." And my mom knew she didn't want to be like her depressed mother, so she was going to do it all differently, but then gave up her career to be a mother and a wife to my Father.
There was something imprinted on me by my foremothers that I was resolved to outfox. I thought I'd be able to override the system. I decided I'd be like my dad and not my mom and would somehow not fall prey to her undesirable epigenetics, and yet, there I was. A domestic goddess/mother superior. There'd never been a woman in my family lineage who got out from under that destiny I didn't know how to get from under, either, and began to doubt it could be done.
Women have an uncanny ability to adapt to please others, to refrain from privileging themselves out of fear of what might ensue. It takes a certain fortitude to tolerate the risk involved in stressing an established relationship to see if it can handle accommodating some much-needed change.
And if in time we become angry or depressed or just feel like we're somehow slowly withering on the vine from adapting so much to the lives of others, we are promptly shamed, either from within or from without. To give voice to our desire to free ourselves from our habituated reflexive over-adaptability to others might render us unlovable to our mates or bad mothers, right? That's what we think. So we disappear into servicing and raising our young, muting our dissatisfaction, because it feels shameful to be ungrateful when you're being taken care of. ...
I'm struck by how many married women I intimately, especially mothers of small children, are right now feeling hopelessly stuck in their lives. They don't dare let themselves consider what they might wish for or what they would want their lives to look like if they could make a change. ...
And I have become willing to tell the truth in the second half of my life like I never had before. There's an exhilarating relief in my willingness to face my fear of the unknown. I've relinquished the dollhouse as destination, as container of the dream, and it's really all the unknown all the time now. ...
... when I look in the mirror today — a softer, wiser, albeit perhaps not quite as sharp version of myself, due to the natural aging process -- can I just hold on to myself, my inherent value, and accept myself even now?
Even in the face of these turbulent times: When I feel tossed about, struggling to get my bearings in this changeable landscape, where change is the only constant? The inevitable impermanence of everything. Career peaks and valleys, other people's opinions of me, marital status, financial ebbs and flows, body image, aging. With every new chapter, we are faced with fresh challenges to our sense of identity and self. Every phase. As far as I can tell, every age is rife with struggle as well as with incomparable delight, and every end is pregnant With a new beginning.
Although Jennifer Grey played the movie role of Baby Houseman, those two lives are different. Houseman would attend college and study some subject like international relations. Maybe she would spend a couple years in the Peace Corps. Then she would develop a life-long professional career in academics or government. Houseman would not become addicted to intoxicating substances.
Perhaps Houseman, like Grey, would marry late in life, become the mother of one child, and eventually divorce her husband. In that regard, the two women's lives might become similar, in their forties.
=======
The book does not say anything about any sequel to the movie Dirty Dancing.
======
I enjoyed reading the book. I recommend it to anyone who loves the movie.
Readers of the book have rated it on the Amazon website as follows:
This is the end of my series of blog articles about Grey's autobiography.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
