'Dirty Dancing': It still moves
August 25, 1997
Web posted at: 11:11 p.m. EDT (0311 GMT)
From Reviewer Carol Buckland
(CNN) -- I was past (lo-o-o-ong past) the age of consent when
"Dirty Dancing" made its big screen bow in 1987. Maybe it
was a nostalgia trip, but the flick got to me. I sighed a
lot, swooned a little, and for a few crazy days, considered
taking dance lessons.
I've rewatched "Dirty Dancing" with pleasure, oh, maybe a
half-dozen times on TV and tape during the last decade. Yet
I found myself approaching its 10th anniversary rerelease --
and the idea of returning to the local "weenie-plex" theater
to see it -- with a sense of trepidation.
Would it still reach me? Or would I find myself wondering (a
tad disgustedly) what in heaven's name I'd ever seen in it?
As far as I'm concerned, "Dirty Dancing's" still got the
buzz. The interesting thing is, the nature of that "buzz"
seems to have changed.
Or maybe what's changed is me.
For those who might not be clued in: "Dirty Dancing" is the
story of Francis "Baby" Houseman, a nice Jewish girl who
loses her virginity to a hunky, blue-collar dance instructor
named Johnny Castle and gains some critical perspective on
the world during a family vacation at a Catskill resort in
the summer of 1963.
I cherish "Dirty Dancing" for the fact that it is a Hollywood
rarity: A coming-of-age flick told from the girl's point of
view. I think the time period in which it is set works to
its advantage, too. The USA -- like "Dirty Dancing's"
heroine, Baby -- was on the cusp in the summer of 1963. It
was still an innocent, idealistic place in many ways.
Performance still strong
My respect for Jennifer Grey's performance as Baby has grown
over the years. She's naive without being stupid, vulnerable
without being a wimp, and achingly believable as her
character begins to explore the power (and the potential
dangers) of her sexuality.
While Patrick Swayze's Johnny still stirs the old hormones,
the limits of his acting talents are more acutely obvious to
me than they used to me. Grey is so open; Swayze -- except
when he's dancing -- is very opaque. Of course, being stuck
with howlingly awful lines such as the climactic zinger "No
one puts Baby in a corner!" doesn't help the cause much.
Funny thing, though. As appealing as the Baby-Johnny pairing
is, the two relationships that struck me most while sitting
through this 10th anniversary rerelease are those between
Baby and her father, Dr. Jake Houseman (the terrific Jerry
Orbach), and between Johnny and his ex-girlfriend/dance
partner, Penny (Cynthia Rhodes).
The former intrigues because it captures the complex and
contradictory emotions felt by both dads and daughters when
"little girls" start to become women. The latter seems fresh
and poignant because it involves an intense yet essentially
platonic male-female friendship.
I still have mixed feelings about the ending of the movie,
not so much because it's "happy" but because it's so
blatantly Hollywood. A production that seemed remarkably
real suddenly degenerates into toe-tapping fantasy. Yeah,
it's good show biz. It also smacks of a commercial sellout.
The soundtrack -- which has sold more than 10 million copies
-- is still supreme.
The notion of doing a "Dirty Dancing II" has been kicking
around for years. I, personally, hope this is one box office
smash that remains sequel-less. The success of the original
was a sweet surprise. It was a $6 million chick flick -- no
stars, no special effects -- that grossed $170 million
worldwide. The magic can't be recaptured. Trying to mimic
it -- to invoke it by profit-driven calculation -- would be
ruinous.
"Dirty Dancing" isn't a great or classic film. And no, it
isn't going to give movie audiences the cinematic time of
their lives. But it is something special and I was glad to
see it at the movies again.