Though the iconic “Dirty Dancing Lift” and Patrick Swayze’s electric dance moves are doubtlessly what most people remember about the 1987 movie “Dirty Dancing,” the film carries a much more powerful message about the risks of illegal abortion. It not only provides a visual poignant argument for the pro-choice side of the Roe vs. Wade abortion debate, but its carefully designed plot ensures that the film’s memory will remain ever-present in the minds of all who watch its iconic scenes.
The film came out 14 years after the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision, but it was set in the year 1963, a time when abortion was largely illegal in the United States (King). On a summer family vacation at a mountain resort, when the protagonist, Baby, comes to learn that the lead entertainment dancer, Penny, is pregnant and needs an abortion, Baby asks her father, a physician, for money to pay for it; the movie’s plot centers around the need for Baby to fill in Penny’s role as lead dancer Johnny Castle’s partner. When Penny returns from the “procedure,” she is on the brink of death, as the “doctor” used nothing more than a “dirty knife and a folding table.” Baby’s father steps in to save her life, and is shocked to find out that the young man who impregnated Penny, who refused to take responsibility, was actually dating his eldest daughter throughout the summer.
The film brings to light several important issues plaguing U.S. society that still hold up today. The socioeconomic limits of Penny’s lifestyle from a life of poverty, coupled with sexual inequality and limited paternal responsibility laws, led to her feeling like she had no other way out. Viewers can clearly see that desperation and a lack of options drew her to a dangerous situation, and could have cost her her life.
The film’s screenwriters faced understandable opposition in the process of creating the abortion subplot. The portrayal of a doctor unquestionably saving a woman’s life when it had been threatened by a botched abortion was risky at the time, and truly had not been done before, despite the appearance of abortion in film since 1916 (A Century…).
Screenwriter Eleanor Bergstein faced extreme pressure from corporate sponsors to remove the abortion story-line, but she believed it too crucial to the plot (King). She wanted young girls watching the movie to remember a time when abortions were illegal, so as to not take their rights for granted. The movie serves as a focus of memory that calls attention to the past as a way to show future generations a reality in which their current circumstances differ from (Nolan).
The film addresses the inequality in access to safe abortions based on class privilege, the physical danger in the practice of “under the table” abortion procedures, and the entirety of childbearing responsibility falling on a woman when she becomes pregnant. The film, which sold over 32 million copies worldwide, created an opportunity for abortion rights to be talked about more openly.
According to Quartz, around the time when the film first released, less than 40% of Americans believed under any circumstances that abortion should be legal, but in recent years that number has jumped to greater than 50%. The portrayal of abortion in film ensures that millions of people are going to be exposed to the reality of its illegality and the effects thereof, which leads to honest, open conversation.
In the present, as the debate has resurfaced, Jennifer Grey (“Baby”) has openly spoken out about being “horrified that this is really on the table again in 2022… Talk about being in the corner.” With the recycling of this famous line from the movie, Grey contributes to processual memory by applying the movie’s romantic story-line to the very real concept of limiting a woman’s freedom.
Moreover, the immortal movie has even more potential to impact future generations, as Jennifer Grey confirmed that there is a sequel in the making (Nardino). Though it is unclear how the subject of abortion might present itself in the new film, it is safe to assume that upcoming publicity for the movie will ignite memory of the original film, and call attention to the incendiary pro choice message behind the story.
Based on personal opinion and the assumed experience of most viewers, the movie effectively weaves the heavy subject of terminating a pregnancy into the story arc of a teenage romance, making the launch of this story appealing to all audiences. Memory of the movie is largely overshadowed by the chemistry between the two main characters, but upon further inspection, the driving force of the plot-line’s events stems from Penny’s situation. In doing so, the screenwriters sent lifelong memories of swoon to all who watch the film, and conveniently attached the secondary theme of reproductive rights.
At a time when women’s rights were stifled in popular media due to a lack of awareness and conversation, the 1987 film’s release guaranteed its success with the subtlety in its insurgency; it is with great anticipation that the film’s sequel does the same to engage current generations and beyond in pro-choice movements.
Nina Wozniak
Bibliography
“A Century of Abortion Onscreen, 1916-2016.” ANSIRH. Accessed April 20, 2023. https://www.ansirh.org/news/century-abortion-onscreen-1916-2016.
Herold, Steph. “From ‘Dirty Dancing’ to ‘Scandal,’ on-Screen Abortion Stories Carry Sway.” The New York Times. The New York Times, July 24, 2022. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/24/opinion/abortion-television-movies-dirty-dancing.html.
King, Georgia Frances. “How the Illegal Abortion in ‘Dirty Dancing’ Started Honest Dialogue about Reproductive Rights.” Quartz, March 28, 2019. https://qz.com/quartzy/1576857/dirty-dancing-started-a-dialogue-about-reproductive-rights.
Logan, Elizabeth. “Don’t Forget That ‘Dirty Dancing’ Has a Powerful pro-Choice Message.” Glamour. Glamour, May 13, 2022. https://www.glamour.com/story/dirty-dancing-powerful-pro-choice-message.
Nardino, Meredith. “Jennifer Grey: ‘Dirty Dancing’ Sequel Is ‘Tricky’ without Patrick Swayze.” Us Weekly, August 21, 2022. https://www.usmagazine.com/entertainment/pictures/everything-to-know-so-far-about-the-long-awaited-dirty-dancing-sequel/.
https://qz.com/quartzy/1576857/dirty-dancing-started-a-dialogue-about-reproductive-rights
Nolan, Emma. “’Dirty Dancing’ Writer Added Abortion Plot as Roe v. Wade Cautionary Tale.” Newsweek. Newsweek, May 4, 2022. https://www.newsweek.com/dirty-dancing-writer-abortion-plot-roe-v-wade-cautionary-tale-1703487.
Media has a profound impact on cultural conceptions about topics like abortion, as you’ve demonstrated in this post about Dirty Dancing. This post made me think about other more recent TV shows and films that portray abortion in varying capacities. For example, Juno (2007) presents a teenage pregnancy that was not terminated, as the titular character was dissuaded by a protestor at the abortion clinic. I’m also reminded of Netflix’s Sex Education (2019-present), in which Maeve gets an abortion and interacts with protestors and other women seeking the procedure. I wonder if the messaging in these post-Roe presentations of abortion is more opaque, or if it contributes to the pro-choice movement in a different capacity.
Movies and other visual media are certainly influential when it comes to dissuading or educating the masses- I love the points you make with Dirty Dancing particularly as it relates to informing the public of the situational difficulties surrounding reasons why people may seek abortions. It might be interesting to consider going forward if the proliferation of roe v wade representation in the media will become more heavily gate kept as time goes on or change the new official memory.
I feel like this movie really has such a huge impact on my early memories of abortion. It was probably the first movie (other than Juno, though it had a more nuanced take on abortion) I had seen focus on the issues experienced by low income women without access to safe options for an abortion procedure. Though not the main plot of the movie, including it in the story in the first place is a huge move by the writers. On a large scale, this movie might have played a huge role in the cultural memory of abortion during its time, but it continues to do so as mentioned in your article. The everlasting impact of popular media like movies and music in our contemporary memory is unmatched by any other formalized variety of memory, I believe. And your article goes into exactly why that is, and why for me this movie is one of my earliest memories of back alley types of abortion procedures. This all goes to show just how powerful movies as a vehicle of memory truly are.
Media is a site of collective memory, and, as you point out, it is also processual. An effective example of this is the promise of a “Dirty Dancing” sequel, which would serve to highlight the differences in access to abortion across time periods. It would be interesting to explore what exactly a sequel would choose to commemorate. As you say, “Dirty Dancing” is a commemoration of a pre-Roe v Wade era; what might a post- Roe v Wade era commemoration look like?
This was a point that I had never thought about in our discussion of abortion, even though this movie was probably the first time I had seen abortion represented in media. Penny’s abortion was the driving force of the movie; without it, there would not be the Baby and Johnny love story and the song “(I’ve Had) The Time of My Life” would not be nearly as popular as it is today. I did not know that the screenwriter was so intentional about including this subplot in the movie, but what she has done has become more relevant than I’m sure she could have expected. With abortion rights more at risk than they have been for half of a century, her message of remembrance is more important now than ever.
I appreciate this perspective on the cultural memory of abortion and its susceptibility to art. The format of a teen romance film, as well as an American star-studded cast, appeals to a much wider range of people than a simple discussion of abortion on its own. Further, I think the corporate resistance to Dirty Dancing’s abortion narrative highlights the essential reactionary nature of corporations under American capitalism – corporate sponsors aim to cast the widest possible net for their audience by avoiding controversial topics, those that might incite the audience to interrogate their beliefs. As is obvious in the significant increase in approval of abortion in the 80’s U.S., media does hold significant power to counter hegemony if the right narratives are presented in the right ways.