Not flawless, but when judged in the light of what is done today, "Dirty Dancing" is a definite classic ...

Rating: 7/10 (14 September 2013)

To some extents, and regarding its respectable classic status, "Dirty Dancing" plays like the third opus of an unofficial "Summer 62-63" trilogy, a trilogy rhyming with eulogy to the magical American parenthesis preceding a tumultuous decade that started with Kennedy's assassination, followed by the Vietnam War, the flower power and concluding with the disillusioning departure of Richard Nixon.
The first two films were "American Graffiti" and "Animal House", and it's interesting how each one embraced the feel of its time. George Lucas' sleeper hit was a nostalgic ode to the 60's and its two youth-defining elements: rock'n'roll and cars. "Animal House" was zany and anarchic, fitting the rebellious spirit from which 70's artists fueled their inspiration. And "Dirty Dancing" (two-word titled too) tries to reconcile between both approaches through an improbable love story between a timid teenager with a bourgeois background and a free- spirited punk who works in the same summer resort she spends her vacation with her rich family. The guy is an expert dancer, especially dances that consists on explicitly erotic moves but no matter how 'dirty' they feel, the film handles its material with less subversion you might expect, ending up being the most (unintentionally?) innocent of the three.
But is that a criticism? In fact, "Dirty Dancing" is tailor-made for the 80's and the so-called dirty dancing needed to be sugar-coated for ratings reason, as it didn't try to be a musical version of "9½ Weeks". So logically, such a nostalgic immersion into a two-decade old era at a time where high-budgeted action-driven blockbusters were the norm could only increase the chances to catch the viewers' eyes (and ears). And for all the pretension it ever had, the film's magic worked, since it ended up being one of the highest-grossing of the year, much more, it reached an iconic status forever immortalized by the timid Frances 'Baby' Levy finally jumping in Johnny Castle's arms. She's your typical not-so ugly duckling, he's the perfect mix of James Dean and John Travolta and it's the typical underdog / impossible romance / coming- to-age story, but when enjoying the immortal "I've Had the Time of My Life" finale, these considerations hardly matter.
Still, I'm not denying there's no room for criticism: reading Roger Ebert's analysis, there's not one statement that doesn't ring true, and it's quite a delight to read how "Dirty Dancing" inspired a sort of delightfully sarcastic anger toward an overly formulaic plot. Do I need to list these overused devices? Yes, we know, the shy little girl will grow up and become a great dancer. We know that her father won't approve the romance. We know that some unfortunate misunderstanding will make him believe that Johnny is a bad guy, even if one bit of explanation would have cleared everything. And we know that they will finally dance together, the signal induced by the famous, or infamous line "Nobody puts Baby in a corner", uttered by Patrick Swayze, who by the way, hated that line. Indeed, some pieces of dialog were lacking and some others were too many. But no matter how irritating or predictable every single plot line was, in the context of the film, it didn't betray lousiness in the script but more of a naive straightforward way to get to its point.
For instance, having struggled to learn the basic steps of rock and salsa before giving up, I couldn't believe Baby would learn that fast. But I assumed that the purpose of the dirty dancing is to let yourself (as a girl) be guided by your partner's luscious moves and maybe she just 'had it' inside her and had to have that little catalysis from falling in love with her partner. Sure the dirty dancers are obviously professionals, and the racial diversity in the dancing hall is not the most realistic touch of the film. Sure, the whole 'abortion' misunderstanding needed a more serious focus, that and the fact that Baby came from a Jewish background to insist on the family pressure element, à la "West Side Story". Sure, the dances were not quite exactly dirty (Ebert admitted himself he was misled) but I guess it referred less to the moves than their earlier perceptions from Levy's perspective.
But can we blame the film for having a good and catchy title? I guess it handled with confidence a basic material, the flaws are those of average movies, but for some exceptional reasons, they didn't ruin the enjoyment of "Dirty Dancing" because the focus was on the two lead performances, which were good. The role of Johnny was perfect for Patrick Swayze, and Jennifer Grey is absolutely convincing and endearing as the indeed baby-faced Baby. Sometimes, that's all you need to make a good film if it has enough confidence and sincerity about its material. Sure, this isn't "Grease", or "Saturday Night Fever" but the chemistry works between Grey and Swayze, and we like them. Why being so intellectual?
Paraphrasing the Oscar-winning song, "I've had the time of life" to watch movies and if I didn't see the ending coming, I wouldn't call myself a movie lover. But I guess that's what the expression "guilty pleasure" was made for. But I respect the achievement of a film that stood the test of time and became such a phenomenon, still considered one of the defining films of the 80's. I also respect it because it's the film that made Patrick Swayze a movie star. And it also gave a one-hit success for Jennifer Grey, the actress who infamously made that rhino-plastic surgery to sink irremediably in anonymity, while it's precisely her 'girl next door' features that touched the public's heart when they came to see "Dirty Dancing". Sometimes, an actor should learn lessons from his own characters.
And if only for having inspired one of Rogert Ebert's most irresistible reviews, I'm glad the film was done.