Classical Hollywood - Critical Analysis of 'Pillow Talk' (1959) & 'Dance, Girl, Dance' (1940)

010 Element 2500 Critical Analysis Essay 

By F.W.C

In this essay, I will critically analyze several key scenes from 'Pillow Talk' (1959, dir. Michael Gordon, US) and 'Dance, Girl, Dance' (1940, dir. Dorothy Arzner & Roy Del Ruth, US) to identify and examine moments of ambiguity that challenge the heteronormativity prevalent in classical Hollywood cinema. By delving into the performances, writing, and retrospective awareness of queer elements within these films, I aim to demonstrate how certain characters embody sub-textual queer elements. Drawing on the theoretical insights of Butler (1990), Dyer (1977), Glitre (2006), and Klinger (1994), I will argue that these cinematic moments disrupt the conventional heterosexual narrative; contributing to a richer and more nuanced understanding of classical Hollywood film.

According to Rick Altman, 'film genres [play a] role in a complex cultural system permitting viewers to consider and resolve (albeit fictively) contradictions that are not fully mastered by the society in which they live' (1999, p.26). Suggesting that we contextualize film through familiar identifiers and dynamics that provide a framework for interpretation under the current social rhetoric, and in moments of ambiguity allow for social leeway in accepting the contradictions to the societal norm. 

It can be contended that, while not constituting a genre in itself, the Hollywood film conforms to a genre-like structure, establishing a formulaic pattern observed across conventional Hollywood productions. According to Jackie Byars, a characteristic element of the classical Hollywood film is that it typically features two plot lines, with one of them aiming towards the formation of a heterosexual couple (1991, p.108). By framing the construction of a heterosexual couple as a pivotal element, it could be argued that this subplot serves as a signifier that plays the same role as genre in accordance with Rick Altman's ideas on the function of genre.

Queer ambiguity is a contextualized and integral element within this function, that serves as a fictitious method in which queer elements can be explored in a way suitable for the social norm of the age. According to Richard Dyer ‘How gays are represented is always part and parcel of the sexual ideology’ (Homosexuality and Film Noir, 1977. p. 18-21) implying that queer representation is primarily seen through the heteronormative point of view, which therefore requires elements of genre to be contextualised.

Both 'Pillow Talk' (1959) and 'Dance, Girl, Dance' (1940) share common elements of the classical Hollywood structure, incorporating the formation of a heterosexual coupling into the narrative as a subplot by the end of the films' stories.

Directed by Michael Gordon, 'Pillow Talk' is a romantic comedy featuring Doris Day as Jan Morrow, a career-focused interior designer, and Rock Hudson as Brad Allen, a playboy songwriter. The narrative revolves around their comedic rivalry and eventual romantic coupling, adhering to tropes and plots commonly found in what Tamar Jeffers McDonald refers to as 'The sex comedy.' According to McDonald, 'The sex comedy pits woman against man in an elemental battle of wits, in which the goal of both is sex. Only the timing and legitimacy of this differs from gender to gender, with women wanting sex after, and men before or without, marriage' (2018).

On the other hand, 'Dance, Girl, Dance', co-directed by Dorothy Arzner and Roy Del Ruth, unfolds the narrative of two professional dancers: Judy O'Brien, portrayed by Maureen O'Hara, and Bubbles/Tiger Lily White, portrayed by Lucille Ball. Both characters immerse themselves in the challenging world of dance entertainment. Their distinct styles and artistic ambitions often lead to clashes as they navigate their respective paths. In contrast to the romantic sex comedy of 'Pillow Talk', 'Dance, Girl, Dance' takes on a more serious dramatic tone, with the romantic subplot taking a back seat to the girl’s dancing ambitions.

In examining moments of queer ambiguity in the film 'Pillow Talk', it is crucial to recognize the performance of Rock Hudson. Unbeknownst to the audience during the filming, Hudson, as disclosed in the documentary ‘Rock Hudson: All That Heaven Allowed’ (2023, directed by Stephen Kijak, US), was a gay man. This revelation adds a layer of complexity to his portrayal of Brad Allen, prompting an argument that his performance inherently carries queer subtext influenced by this personal aspect.

A pivotal scene occurs during the midsection of the film (1:02:20), where Brad, unbeknownst to Jan, attempts to insinuate that the southern gentleman she has been seeing might be gay. In this sequence, he subtly hints at various behavioural traits that could be interpreted as indicative of homosexuality, such as demonstrating devotion to their mothers, a love for cooking, and engaging in gossip.

While it is plausible that these lines were intentionally scripted, a noteworthy consideration arises from the fact that Rock Hudson—a gay man—is the one proposing these traits as markers of queerness. This strongly implies that elements from his personal life may have influenced his portrayal during this specific scene.

In this context, there are other scenes involving Brad Allen that contribute to the queer ambiguity in their delivery. For instance, one of Brad’s friends, Jonathan Forbes, expresses concern about Brad's playboy lifestyle by suggesting, 'You ought to quit all this chasing around. Get married?' to which Brad responds slyly with 'Why?' In a moment that once again exudes queer subtext, rooted in Hudson's own queerness.

In her book 'The Hollywood Romantic Comedy: States of the Union, 1934-65', Kathrina Glitre explores the representation of relationships in Hollywood during the 1950s. She suggests; 'In the popular imagination, America in the fifties was a suburban dream of middle-class togetherness: Mom in her ultra-modern kitchen, Dad relaxing with his pipe and newspaper after a hard day’s work.' (2006). This portrayal reflects the prevailing notion that marriage, and by extension, the typical family structure, was considered an inevitable and standard aspect of the era. Therefore, it can be argued that, by extension, the representation of such relationships became a hallmark of Hollywood romance during this era.

Deviation from the typical structure, even within a heteronormative context, can be interpreted as containing queer subtext. For instance, Brad Allen’s playboy lifestyle may be viewed as a rejection of the standard heterosexual family model, prompting us to consider queer solutions to his unstated problems. His reluctance to settle down might indicate queer identities outside the norm, such as polyamory, bisexuality, or even asexuality. While the film never explicitly states these aspects, the subtext of his rejection of heteronormativity leaves room for interpretation.

'Dance, Girl, Dance' is often cited as a resurgence film of the feminist movement in the early 1970s, showcasing one of the rare examples of female empowerment during the 1940s. In contrast to Rock Hudson’s portrayal in 'Pillow Talk', which carried homosexual undertones, 'Dance, Girl, Dance' derives its queer subtext from one of its directors, Dorothy Arzner. Arzner, a self-identified lesbian (as accredited by Q Voice News, 2018), who was in a long-term relationship with Marion Morgan, who played a role in inspiring many of Arzner’s creative directions. This influence contributes to the film's subtle queer lesbian undertones.

Many of the scenes that imply queer undertones did so through symbolic signifiers. As Judith Butler explores in her work 'Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity,' contends that '... acts, gestures, enactments... are performative in the sense that the essence or identity that they otherwise purport to express are fabrications manufactured and sustained through corporeal signs and other discursive means' (1990, p. 2497). This implies that queer identities are intricately linked to performative acts, which, in turn, reinforce symbolic signifiers, thereby creating a notion of gender and sexuality distinct from biological sex and procreation.

These symbolic signifiers encompass mannerisms, fashion, style, and actions, creating a dynamic of ambiguous interplay between heteronormative and queer perspectives within the scenes of 'Dance, Girl, Dance'. One of the most prevalent instances of queer symbolic signifiers is embodied in the character of Madame Basilova, portrayed by Maria Ouspenskaya. A former ballerina from Russia, Madame Basilova experiences a decline in her career, leading her to train chorus girls for nightclubs. Both Bubbles and Judy work under her as part of her troupe to advance their dancing careers. Throughout the film, several key signifiers mark her as queer. Her dress style is notably broad, resembling almost suit-like apparel. In contrast to the rest of the female cast, she wears little to no makeup, and her hair is slicked back. Even her mannerisms are characterized by a withdrawn, stern, and almost masculine nature.

At the 22:00-minute mark in the film, Madame Basilova is depicted watching Judy dance from a slightly concealed spot near the staircase. In this scene, she is observed to wistfully gaze at Judy's graceful performance. The interpretation of this scene can take various paths. From a heteronormative perspective, one might argue that Madame Basilova watches Judy with nostalgic longing for the time when she herself was a ballerina. On the contrary, a queer reading of the scene could propose that Madame Basilova is emphatically observing Judy with a lustful gaze. Both interpretations hold validity, but the credibility of the queer reading is bolstered by Dorothy Arzner's own background as a lesbian filmmaker.

A contrasting scene unfolds later at the 29-minute mark in the film, where Judy observes a dance production rehearsal. While the gaze in this scene is less singular, it draws a notable comparison to the previous encounter. Judy watches emphatically, leaving us once again to interpret the intention behind her fascination.

While both films share common elements of heterosexual coupling, they diverge in the implementation of these subplots. In 'Pillow Talk', the romantic subplot plays a pivotal role in the film's ending, serving as a narrative device to tie up all remaining story threads. Conversely, 'Dance, Girl, Dance' uses the heterosexual coupling as a fringe plot device, implying a 'happy-ever-after' to conclude the film's narrative. Although both films conclude with this coupling, the implications of it are perceived differently. It could also be argued that these plots are inherently ambiguous, as we never see beyond these endings. In both cases, this ambiguity leaves room for queer interpretations, drawing on readings of previous scenes with queer perspectives.

An aspect of comparison that can be drawn between these two films is their handling of the female and male gaze (Laura Mulvey, ‘Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema’, 1975). In 'Pillow Talk', the film incorporates a narrative and visual style that caters towards the male audience, including scenes that eroticize the female form. For example, the bathing scene displays Jan Morrow’s (Doris Day’s) legs in an erotically suggestive manner, targeting a heterosexual view of the sexual dynamics between men and women.

In contrast, 'Dance, Girl, Dance' caters more to the female gaze, but in a way that could be seen as having queer lesbian undertones. For instance, scenes in which we are left to gaze at the human form are often taken from the perspectives of female characters. However, these perspectives are still targeted at the female form. Some examples include the scene of Madame Basilova watching Judy perform. The perspective is distinctively hers, but the gaze through which we view her takes on an erotic appreciation of the female form. In both films, the gaze is distinctly targeted towards the female form, perhaps suggesting Hollywood's distinct bias toward projecting ideas of femininity and gender roles.

How has the presence of queer ambiguity in films such as 'Pillow Talk' and 'Dance, Girl, Dance' influenced the cinematic landscape and shaped the conventions of classical Hollywood during this era?

According to Barbara Klinger in 'Melodrama and Meaning: History, Culture, and the Films of Douglas Sirk', 'premarital sex was still taboo during the 1950s; however, other forms of intimacy—dating, going steady, and heavy petting—were more or less socially acceptable means of premarital sexual expression.' (1994) The societal development between 'Dance, Girl, Dance', and 'Pillow Talk' provides a roadmap spanning these two eras, revealing contrasting views on relationships. Notably, the shifting acceptance of queer identities emerges as a focal point between these periods. Dorothy Arzner was an openly lesbian filmmaker, while Rock Hudson navigated a closeted identity as a gay man. The implications of these differences suggest a transformation in the societal acceptance of queer identities from the 1940s to the late 1950s.

The shift in societal views on relationships was perhaps a reciprocal influence. As Hollywood films relaxed their portrayal of romance norms, society, in turn, became influenced by these evolving ideas. This reciprocal dynamic further prompted Hollywood to be more accepting, aligning with social trends. This suggests that Hollywood's influence on societal change largely emerged through a combination of adaptation and pioneering, contributing to social transformation.

The queer impact in these films has mostly been realized retrospectively by their attracted audiences. 'Dance, Girl, Dance' did not enjoy a particularly strong box office performance upon its initial release and only gained traction as a classical hit during its resurgence as a feminist movie in the 1970s, nearly 30 years later. In contrast, 'Pillow Talk' did see critical acclaim at the time of its release. However, its understanding as a queer-coded film would only emerge later with the revelation of Rock Hudson's homosexuality.

In revisiting 'Pillow Talk' and 'Dance, Girl, Dance', the question arises: are these films best understood through a lens of queerness or heteronormativity? As we have seen, both films contain moments of ambiguity that skew the line between heteronormative views of the era. In discussing the works of Butler (1990), Dyer (1977), Glitre (2006), and Klinger (1994), we have witnessed the flexibility of sex, gender, and queer identities, and their representation in film around this era, and how they have challenged these social norms.

While these films undeniably contain queer interpretations, they simultaneously do not impose upon heteronormative perceptions of the films. The retrospective understanding of queer elements partly stems from the authors' intent, as seen in Rock Hudson's performance and Dorothy Arzner's creative direction. Both elements only gained a queer following later during their rediscovery.

The retrospective awareness of these queer elements indeed adds layers of subtextual understanding and appreciation for these films. Dorothy Arzner's creative input into female empowerment gave a voice to the feminist movement in the early 1970s. Likewise, Rock Hudson's homosexuality helped shift public perception of queer people during the AIDS crisis.

In conclusion, the impact of these films on the broader Hollywood scene played a crucial role in pushing for a societal shift in heterosexual and, retrospectively, queer romance. The broader implications of these shifts influenced classical Hollywood's approach to the romance genre and, by extension, ‘The Sex Comedy’ (McDonald, 2018), and would later come to influence Hollywood's ideas of targeted audience in regards to the female, male, and queer gaze. (Mulvey, 1975). If we were to contemplate the notion of a contemporary release of these films within the current social climate, it could be argued that they might be perceived as lacking in explicit queer subtext compared to more overtly and ambitiously queer contemporary films. This observation implies that the perceived queerness of these films is contingent on the contextual understanding of the era in which they were originally released.

Bibliography

Altman, R. (1999) ‘Genre films share certain fundamental characteristics, in Film/Genre’, pp. 24-26.

Butler, J. (1990). ‘Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity.’ New York: Routledge.

Byars, J. (1991) ‘All that Hollywood allows: re-reading gender in 1950s melodrama. (The "Social Problem" Film in the 1950s)’. Routledge.

Dyer, R. (1977). ‘Homosexuality and Film Noir.’ Jump Cut, (16), 18-21.

Glitre, K. (2006) ‘Hollywood romantic comedy : states of the union’, 1934-65. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Klinger, B. (1994) ‘Melodrama and meaning: history, culture, and the films of Douglas Sirk.’ Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

McDonald, T.J. (2018). ‘Romantic comedy; boy meets girl meets genre (The Sex Comedy)’. Wallflower. Supplied by the British Library.

Mulvey, L. (1975). ‘Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema’.

Valenzuela, B.E. (2018) ‘Dorothy Arzner – pioneering lesbian film director – honored at Paramount’. QVoiceNews, 3 March 2018. Available at: https://qvoicenews.com/2018/03/03/dorothy-arzner-pioneering-lesbian-film-director-honored-at-paramount/ (Accessed: 6 December 2023).

Filmography

Arzner, D, & Del Ruth, R. (Directors). (1940). 'Dance, Girl, Dance'. United States: RKO Pictures.

Gordon, M. (Director). (1959). 'Pillow Talk'. United States: Universal Pictures.

Kijak, S. (Director). (2023). ‘Rock Hudson: All That Heaven Allowed.’ United States: HBO Documentary Films.