The Swayze-Polanski Parallel
When you get right down to it, recently deceased Patrick Swayze’s professional legacy was inextricably tangled in his classic film role as pedophile Johnny Castle.
Wait, what’s that? Pedophile, you say?
Obviously that’s a remarkably reductive, distilled take on Dirty Dancing – a movie which is every bit as dimensional as it is iconic.
But there’s no sugar-coating the fact that Swayze’s character bedded a young, impressionable teenage virgin. Everybody called her “Baby,” for crying out loud – and not as a term of endearment, but as an actual first name.
Yet Dirty Dancing – with its unrequited “us-versus-them” romantic construct, close proximity gyrations and “Time of My Life” soundtrack – is remembered not as a cautionary tale but rather as a fairy tale, while Swayze’s character is remembered as more of a white knight than a big bad wolf.
Swayze’s death last month brought with it a dizzying flood of commemoration for Dirty Dancing, and, especially, his role in it.
The movie is timeless.
Of course in spite of – or maybe because of – that timelessness, Dirty Dancing could never be made today. Nobody would write, direct, produce or distribute a movie about a grown man seducing a teenage girl … particularly, as is the case in Dirty Dancing, when that grown man is in a position of some authority, and the girl is, clearly, desperate for identity and acceptance.
How can I be sure that the movie would never been made today?
Well, just look at the Roman Polanski fiasco, much ado about which was resurrected last week when the Swiss police arrested him for possible U.S. extradition.
Three decades ago, filmmaker Polanski pled guilty to unlawful sex with a minor, following a champagne-and-Quaalude-fueled escapade with a teenage model. To avoid sentencing, he fled America and has since been living abroad, making movies and making money and making waves.
Now that he’s in Swiss police custody, Americans demand that at last he serve his sentence. It’s mad-making to people: Here’s a man who screwed a teenager and got away with it, right?
Which is, in a nutshell, is equivalent to Swayze’s role in Dirty Dancing.
So where’s the equality, people?
One guy seduces a teenager and subsequently becomes a cinematic legend, a cultural hero. Another guy seduces a teenager and subsequently becomes a villain, and a fugitive. How did Polanski get cast as a predator, while Swayze is cast – now memorialized – as an irresistible, benign Romeo?
And more to the point, if art imitates life, isn’t this Polanski-Swayze parallel one hell of a scary reflection of our cultural devolution, of our loss of judicious humanity?
Comments
By Jonny D on October 7th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Mande, I don’t understand a fuckin’ thing you just wrote, all I know is that nobody puts Baby in a corner!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vciEDI3dD8I
By PasserBy on October 7th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
Mande:
I call this one a “stretch” to connect the dots on those two. DD was a ’stylized fantasy’ where the main female character seemed to consent. I think it was unclear of her age, or I don’t remember it (didn’t the movie come out years & years ago?).
Polanski got a 13-year old girl drunk and took advantage of her. He was convicted of that. Was ready to plead guilty to that. Ran away rather than face justice for that. I seem to recall that the character in DD didn’t run away, but came back.
And, lastly (and most importantly), one was MAKE BELIEVE and one was REAL. Why not compare Polanski to Romeo and Juliet, for that matter?
By confused on October 7th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
wait, what?
you haven’t actually read what polanski did, have you? because if you’re equating what i presume to be at least quasi consensual sex between two adult-ish people(never seen the movie) to polanski’s drugging and getting drunk a 13 year old girl before he orally/vaginally/anally raped her, all while she said “no, i want to go home”, you are quite possibly the dimmest person alive.
really?
By Brian on October 7th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
Seduces? Is that what you call administering a date rape drug to a minor and then raping her?
Oh yes, and clearly he was wrought with romantic despair when he pleaded guilty to drugging and raping the girl. And then subsequently fled the country for decades.
Are you seriously using a shitty 80s movie as your fucking moral compass here? Have you lost your damn mind?
The only “judicial loss of humanity” here is that you find pedophilia acceptable because of Dirty Dancing.
By Just alike! on October 7th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Yeah, I was just thinking they were exactly the same, right down to the part where Johnny drugs and forcibly has sex with Baby while she tells him to stop.
Oh, wait…
By anon on October 7th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
The only difference is “consent”. You know, when she doesn’t scream no repeatedly while you sodomize her?
NO MEANS NO. PERIOD.
I guess you might not see the difference between consensual and nonconsensual sex, in which case, you need some therapy.
By Seymour Glass on October 7th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
Stick to politics.
By TotalWench on October 7th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
Anyone who could write the piece above is seriously in need of therapy. This makes me question everything else you’ve written.
13-year old girl? That’s okay?
Creep.
By HMMM on October 7th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Ridiculous. If I’d read the byline before the article, I could have avoided this inane blather altogether.
By 1 + 1 = 3 on October 7th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
You’re a shit reporter.
First of all, the character in the movie was 17, the legal age of consent in NY (and the actress fyi was 26). In real life, the Polanski victim was 13, underage in all fifty states. So right off the bat, your facts are wrong. Next time Google it if that’s all you cam manage.
Second, in the movie, the character consented (not to mention seemed pretty glad about it before, during and after.) Not once did she say no. In real life, the Polanski victim begged to go home. So if she didn’t say no and she’s legal, it isn’t rape by any definition. If she did say no, age is irrelevant and it’s rape.
Third, in the movie, the character was high on first love, legal in all fifty states. In real life, the Polanski victim was drugged. Illegal in all fifty states. That makes it rape at any age.
So where’s the equality, people?
Why don’t you ask that to the woman who was raped and her rapist is a free man? She was no character in a movie.
By SWE on October 7th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
I don’t agree with your assessment. Wasn’t Baby a high school graduate heading to the Peace Corps? That would put her at 18.
American Beauty did pretty well and I thought it was very creepy.
By Mande Wilkes on October 7th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
About Baby’s age:
In, like, the first line of the movie, Baby says she’s 16…as in, “It was the summer I turned 16, everybody called me Baby, and it didn’t occur to me to mind.” Or something like that.
Now, don’t y’all have some “To Catch A Predator” reruns to be watching?
-Mande
By SWE on October 7th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
Wow… I always thought she was 18. That does put a different light on it.
By EM on October 7th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Mande, you must be in your twenties.
Let me give you a little social history lesson. The girl Baby (hard to believe but I know a Baby and she has grown children now..her real name is Mary Jeanette, but only a few know that)is 17 and going off to college. The “boy” man is in his twenties. Back in 1963, if you were not married by 21 you were considered an OLD MAID…hard to believe I know. So, a girl going off to college, meets a 20 something while on vacation and um a romance occurs.
Skip forward to the 1970’s, a 40 something Man gives drugs/alcohol to a 13 year old, puts her in a hot tub and does things..(read the report) that you should not do, while she is screaming NO and I want to go home.
I really don’t see the comparison.
EM
real life Jennifer Gray was 27 and Swayze was 35…nothing wrong with that either…
By EM on October 7th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_Dancing
By Mande Wilkes on October 7th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
About Baby’s age, part two:
Upon review (gracias, YouTube), I see that she doesn’t actually say she’s 16 in that opening scene. I misremembered?
Here I’ll defer to the omniscient Wikipedia and accept that she’s 17.
But what’s give or take 12 months, anyway? Substantively, my point stands. And I stand by my point.
Sheesh, people. Nothing riles up the riff-raff like paraphilia.
-Mande
By Mande Wilkes on October 7th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
EM –
Mary Jeanette, what?
-Mande
By Catherine on October 7th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
Mande, you know I love you, but Baby had just graduated high school in DD. The first line is “it was the summer of 1960″ not “summer I turned 16″.
By Catherine on October 7th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
First of all, it doesn’t matter how old Baby was. I don’t necessarily see the parallel of the stories, but I don’t know why people get so riled up about the Polanski rape either. So she was 13. So what? She was an implied adult, as she was a “model” and then there is the propinquity issue. If she hadn’t been in the physical vicinity of Polanski, she wouldn’t have been able to cry victim. The parents of that girl are the ones who should go to jail. You people want to have your cake and eat it too. If a 13 year old “model” inserts herself into that lifestyle and cavorts with the “A list” then you have to take everything that comes with it. If you want to be a stage parent, have at it. Just don’t cry about it when real life happens.
By 1 + 1 = 3 on October 7th, 2009 at 7:15 pm
“But what’s give or take 12 months, anyway? ”
Are you stupid? It’s the difference between statutory rape and consensual sex, a pretty big legal distinction.
By Mande Wilkes on October 7th, 2009 at 7:16 pm
Catherine -
You had me at ‘propinquity’ …
I’m a sucker for good words, and the more polysyllabic the better. =)
-Mande
By Gee on October 7th, 2009 at 7:45 pm
Whoopie stood up for her fellow celeb ’cause it was only rape, not “rape rape”. Now, you think the criminal relates to the star of a movie that is known more for the dancing than the story line? Seems to be a Whoopie – Mande parallel in the female disconnect. Is this Fit?
By Dave on October 7th, 2009 at 9:27 pm
If Swayze did do the dirty with Grey acting as minor in the film and it was obvious to everyone that this is what was happening then I’m shocked, astonished, astounded, demoralized, perplexed, dissillusioned, unnerved, rattled, disheartened and totally pee’d off that all the feminists groups, women’s rights activists, men hating divorcees and legal beagles back in the day did use their limitless resources of money anger and hatred to get this movie banned from theatres before its release. Answer this and you might find the answer to your own question.
By Laura Campbell on October 7th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
The older I get the more conservatively I believe, and I’m not talking politics.
There is a 74-year-old female, a dear friend of mine, who speaks of her deceased husband daily & dearly. He was 22 and she was 15 when they married. He left, after being drafted, to serve in WWII. They were married for 50+ years. Different era. Different circumstances and beliefs. Society has changed.
Attention to details and consideration of all facts in any issue should be mandatory in any discussion.
As a parent, I am sickened by the majority of Hollywood’s response to Polanski; it is disturbing, at best. He shouldn’t serve time. He should fry. After being forced to watch “Rosemary’s Baby” a 1000 times. Where were the 13-yr.-old’s parents? Left-wing liberals in Hollywood are just as disturbingly ridiculous as the right-wing nuts, and their philosophies & actions usually result in people getting seriously hurt and setting positive change in society back by decades.
Regardless of all considerations, in the movie, Swayze’s character had just gotten his girlfriend pregnant and she was having an abortion. Yeah, he was just an all-around swell guy. He moved on to Baby. Baby was his “true love”, and he had apparently learned from his mistake with his 1st girlfriend. Wonder if he used birth control with Baby?
Any parallels to what some in Hollywood are trying to subtley sway people’s opinions on, with regard to this movie & Polanski?
Some fools would say, why not just to hell with all the people who have fought for children’s rights? Why not use them for sex slaves, free labor, punching bags, and all the in-betweens? Let’s just resort back to the European Middle Ages, that was such a Golden Era in history. Oh wait, I failed to mention that human trafficking, children bought & sold for sex and cheap labor, and child abuse are alive & kicking worldwide, U.S. included.
Catherine, I must say your response is simply sickening. Period. I don’t generally call people out on this site, either. You’re right only about the parents.
If any other posters don’t comprehend the basic point of this article, that both Swayze’s character (fictional or not) and Polanski (again, needs to fry and the girl’s parents locked up) both are criminals, you need an in-depth study in ethics.
You need to be taken out of any job you have & be forced into social work, where you will quickly learn 1st-hand from the victims of child sexual abuse the dangers of pedophiles and what the victims would have happen to them. You will deserve the fact that you will lose much of your sanity and peace of mind and probably be in need of psychiatric care & meds, and you will worry more about your kids, if you have them, than you ever imagined possible. The world will be quite a different place for you, if you have any moral fiber at all.
The fact that Polanski obviously paid off the victim and she has been brain-washed into believing it wasn’t that serious of a crime, by the likes of some posters here, and is now ok with it is the icing on the cake.
Thank You for the article, Mande. I hope you and FITS will post more concerning this issue. It needs to be fully addressed and taken more seriously by the legislative branch of our government, and not suprisingly, by some folks in SC. See SC SLED sex offender registration page and research the national statistics on child sexual abuse.
A secondary issue is the fact that many abused children, left untreated, do poorly in school, abuse other kids, become abusers as adults, and engage in criminal activities.
For anyone who cares to call me disturbed or a radical concerning this issue, you are correct. I fully comprehend the importance of faslely accusing people of child abuse, as well. I won’t apologize for the length of my post, as I have a hell of a lot to say about this issue.
By Laura Campbell on October 7th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
By the way, Mande, am I correct when I infer that by stating, “the Polanski-Swayze parallell”, that both “characters”, if you will, (I know Swayze’s was fictional), are “person’s similar”, in your opinion?(parallel definition courtesy of Miriam Webster)
By Mike Honcho on October 7th, 2009 at 10:32 pm
I’m not really shocked to see this site endorses the use of drugs to liberate a 13 year old girl from her inhibitions. Mande, while you were at it, why didn’t you make the “no” sounds too much like “go” for Polanski to be held responsible argument?
Like all other posts on this website, the author has no ability to separate facts from fictions. The sheer stupidity of this musing hardly merits a response. But the comments at least affirm that not everyone who reads this site and posts is wearing a robe in their mother’s basement listening watching reruns of The Next Generation on DVD.
And to answer the rhetorical question at the end: It would only be a scary reflection on our society if we start treating movie characters and real life criminals with the same ethos.
By Mande Wilkes on October 7th, 2009 at 10:49 pm
Laura -
As I see it, the “parallel” is purely situational.
-Mande
By Aquinas on October 7th, 2009 at 11:34 pm
I agree with the “situational” comparions between the Polanski-Swayze parallel, Mande. Sex is supposed to be sacred. It’s a gift that is designed for two things: babies and bonding within a lifelong martial covenant. Anything outside of that is not a proper use, but an abuse of the gift. Obviously, Polanski’s abuse was forced, and the resulting psychological scars upon that 13-year old girl are probably still being felt today. However, if Baby was a real person (and I don’t doubt many real flesh-and-blood women like her have found themselves in similar situations), then she also spent a lifetime dealing with all the issues surrounding something as horrific as killing one’s own child. There’s ample evidence that post-abortion syndrome is real, and becoming a serious women’s disease. Too bad the reality of that process was never dealt with in the film. It only points back to what can happen when the gift is abused.
By Laura Campbell on October 7th, 2009 at 11:48 pm
Mande,
Point-blank, then. Do you believe Polanski should be free or brought back to America to serve time in prison?
If your answer is no to the prison sentence for Polanski, and yes to Swayze’s character being the “worse of 2 evils”, you should seek help and be banned from writing anything on a topic as serious as pedophilia. That’s one censorship I would fully support. If your answer is yes, thank goodness, you have some moral fiber and decency.
I wonder what victims of pedophilia who may be reading this article and posts must be thinking? I’d be very interested to know.
By Mande Wilkes on October 8th, 2009 at 12:44 am
Laura -
For me to answer your question would be to go way, way beyond the scope and purpose of this article. There is, just for example, the issue of extradition. So central is extradition to this case that without it there’d be no basis at all for even this discussion. Honestly, I just don’t feel like delving into all the ins and out of whether Polanski should be imprisoned, so I’m frankly dodging your question.
Aquinas –
Your point about women-averse consequences of abortion is opportune. October is breast cancer awareness month, and incidentally abortion correlates with breast cancer. Now, I’m caustically pro-choice, but it seems misogynstic that the lady-lovin’ feminists bury that correlation.
-Mande
By Catherine on October 8th, 2009 at 1:13 am
Laura,
My entire point is WHERE WERE THIS KID’S PARENTS? If that is sickening to you, so be it. At 13 there is a higher authority than self to which we all shall bend… cue the parents. If you let your daughter assume a role in a profession that is inherently ADULT then you should not be shocked when ADULT things happen in the absence of unyielding scrutiny. Polanski was not the first person to “victimize” this girl. Those who were responsible for her well-being failed her, and if they aren’t going to be held accountable, then why should Polanski? I am merely pointing out that throwing your kid to the wolves is FAR worse than anything Polanski may have done.
By Catherine on October 8th, 2009 at 1:22 am
And please give me a break with this pedophilia gibberish. He didn’t pluck this kid off a playground by unsuspectingly luring her into his van with candy. She was at an adult gathering, obviously unsupervised, probably trying desperately to act “older”. Pedophilia… that’s silly.
By Laura Campbell on October 8th, 2009 at 1:30 am
Gotcha. You wrote a purposeless article at the expense of the issue of child sex abuse.
I hope someone allowed you to post this article with the hope of your doing so giving them a valid reason to fire your ass. If it was allowed to let the public know this type of mentality toward child abuse exists, then I appreciate that, as it would be the only positive reason for doing so.
FITS news is going to get a hell of a lot of backlash over this and lose much credibility.
Now I’m going to sit back and watch the backlash storm that is brewing and which you so rightfully deserve.
Any reporter, or blogger, who states, “or something like that”, “I misremembered”, “I never let facts get in the way of my opinion”, or “I just don’t feel like getting into the ins and outs of the issue, so I’m dodging your question”, should have a job doing nothing more than shoveling sh*t. It’s what you’re doing anyway.
By male sapphist on October 8th, 2009 at 8:08 am
Bad story; Wrong correlation; Cokie Roberts is right about putting a bullet into Polanski’s head. Polanski deserves punishment and we deserve justice.
By Rosi on October 8th, 2009 at 9:46 am
OK. Don’t get this guy. She was wasn’t a ‘Baby’. That’s the missing element. She was grown and independant, going off to college and the Peace Corp. Although, her parents accepted this on an intellectual level, they didn’t accept their daughter was grown up on an emotional level. Johnny couldn’t accept he was worthy in an upper class society. The movie’s poignant plot was everyone coming of age. Baby wasn’t thirteen, but a mature girl ‘who’s real name was Francis’ ready to make her own decisions about her life and that included her choice of seducing Johnny. Sorry boys… Girls didn’t we all want to seduce a Johnny, it didn’t make us victims, it made us in charge our of own well being – big difference from being taken advantage of with drugs, sex and debauchery. This aricle clearing shows the state of the author’s mind.
By Dave on October 8th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Mande, true education and wisdom comes with life experience. You contribute quite a few articles on your Blog with controversial titles meant to grab attention in hopes that people will respond. I call this the Madonna effect. Is your intent to serve a societal function or fullfill a personal need? The view point you present in your articles do not provide the profound insight that stir and stimulate the imagination into producing an inspirational response as proven by the elementary and simplistic responses you’ve received so far. Try to get beyond the ‘whore’ tactics you apply and try and put something out there that is truley insightful and stimulating.
By Catherine on October 8th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
Can somebody get the feminist a cross so she can nail herself to it?
By CL on October 8th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Baby was 17. 17 is over the age of consent in all but a handful of states (it is the age of consent in NY). 13 is illegal in every state. So your comparison is flawed from the start, and becomes outright embarrassing when you consider the inconvenient fact that Polanski’s victim was drugged and violated in every conceivable manner against her will. I must have missed the part where Johnny slipped Baby a qualude and some champagne before forcing himself upon her while she begged him to stop.
The most incredible part of the post is that you could even think to describe Polanski’s conduct as “seduc[ing] a teenager.” By your logic, Osama was just redeveloping some real estate on 9/11, right?
By Laura Campbell on October 8th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
Catherine,
To quote you, “I don’t know why people get so riled up about the Polanski RAPE, either. She was 13 so what?” “Pedophilia, that’s silly.”
You are just as sick an individual as any PEDOPHILE could be, because, like Mande, you think it’s a trivia issue. Polanski’s crime is even remotely forgivable because the girls parents are solely to blame? The child is to blame because her parents had her working as a model and she was in the wrong place at the wrong time?
I’ve will not argue this point anymore with you. It’s pointless to argue with crazy people anyway. Seek help. If you can, don’t respond to my posts anymore. You give me the creeps and make my skin crawl.
By AD on October 9th, 2009 at 3:42 am
Yo Laura-
Johnny had not just gotten his girlfriend pregnant, it was Robby the waiter, duh.
By Strom's Daughter on October 9th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
It upsets me to learn that Roman Polanski wasn’t even born in Rome.
I don’t know why a smart person like Mande — who loves big words and everything — could not have informed us of this very important fact.
By Strom's Daughter on October 9th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
P.S.
I was 16 in 1977, and if Roman Polanski had given me champagne and Quaaludes, I would have LET him rape me. In fact, he could have cornholed me nine ways to Sunday. I’m sick and tired of you Shi’ite Baptist assholes trying to tell the rest of us what fun is. And it sure as hell isn’t a Wednesday night prayer meeting with a visit to Shoney’s to top off all THAT excitement.
By EM on October 9th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
Mande, can’t tell her last name, she would kill me…(another controversial sin)
Rosi, I’m with you.
Some of you need to read up on Polanski and then watch the movie.
By Red Bank Bar on October 10th, 2009 at 5:37 am
There’s only one issue here, and there’s no denying this one. Mande’s a dumb b*tch. She subtracts from the sum total of human knowledge. She’s worse than her jefe when it comes to fact-free posts.
Hopefully her family has money so she won’t be a burden on society by qualifying for social security disability.