The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

A really fun film that I found in my Maureen O'Hara TCM 4-pack that I highly recommend if you enjoy films from that era. I like the two films I've seen so far from Arzner, who was one of the earliest and most successful of female directors and I believe the first openly lesbian one--the other work I've seen of hers is the great pre-Code look at alcoholism, 'Merrily We Go to Hell'.This is great if you either like musicals from the era, are a Maureen O'Hara or Lucille Ball enthusiast (holy, she was unbelievably a knockout in her early filmic days!) or are simply curious about the works of early female and/or lesbian directors. Arzner--at least in the two films I have seen from her thus far--showed she truly deserved to be successful in the industry.

Dance, Girl, Dance (1940) This competent if unremarkable film was directed by Dorothy Arzner, Hollywood's one female director of note between the silent years and Ida Lupino. It's a package of different kinds of dance numbers, from show girl to burlesque to high art ballet. The thread that keeps it going is the usual: girls trying to make it in one show or another.Lucille Ball, famous for her television shows of the 1950s and 60s, might seem to be making an early appearance in this 1940 song and dance drama. But she had made fifty (fifty!) films before this one. She's no a remarkable dancer by any means, nor singer, but she has personality to spare, and she's fun, period. She plays the worldly girl who will dance anywhere, anyhow. In contrast is the Maureen O'Hara character, sweet and restrained. She's rather humiliated in the movie, and you can feel her pain, but it's a forced contrast.Musical numbers intersperse the thin plot, and those might or might not be your taste. I found even the ballet, which looked like a serious ballet troupe in action, pedestrian. And it was poorly filmed: the camera sat at the edge of the stage and watched. In truth, the movie as a whole was functional, not reaching for the stars, and not getting any. The one surprise, for me, was the ease and presence of Louis Hayward as a kind of good guy leading man who appeared now and then to properly show his love for O'Hara's struggling character.

Amidst the boy's club of classical Hollywood cinema, Dorothy Arzner's Dance, Girl, Dance is notable as a rare female vision. While the film's behind-the-scenes-at-the-girly-show subject matter might have been sensationalized in other hands--"NOT SUITABLE FOR GENERAL EXHIBITION" brags the poster--Arzner unceremoniously mutes the male gaze throughout: rather than command her camera to linger leeringly on the female form, she chooses to communicate her dancers' eroticism through,for example, an unmoving shot of a man's eyeballs.The film's characters are faced with two modes of femininity to embrace, neither particularly appealing: Lucille Ball's Bubbles exploits her sexuality so that she might latch on to--and this is a direct quote, and I s*** you not--a "great big capitalist;" Maureen O'Hara's Judy maintains a healthy self-respect and work ethic to absolutely no avail.Dance, Girl, Dance will be entertaining to contemporary audiences for its antiquated weirdnesses-- Louis Hayward in particular is delightfully insane as Mr. Harris, completely derailing the movie every time he's on screen--but the movie's real power is in its harrowingly cynical finale: our protagonist is literally forced into a chair and told not to think by a patriarchal businessmen, and through the least convincing laughter I've ever seen on screen, Judy laments how easy her life could have been had she subjugated herself sooner. I don't know if Arzner was trying to make a statement on the impossibility of maintaining a strong female identity in male-dominated culture, but that is certainly what she did. -TK 9/2/10

I love classical Hollywood as much as anyone I know, but I am also aware that the films are often mechanical and emotionally distant. Very few reach the level of Dance, Girl, Dance. The plot is great. It is not exactly original, but it seemed that way to me. I was entirely hypnotized. This is due to the direction, characterizations, and acting. This is one of the few Hollywood films of the era directed by a woman, Dorothy Arzner. Generally, you can't tell this fact, except for in the climactic scene of the film, where Maureen O'Hara delivers a powerful feminist speech. The direction is amazing, but it's definitely subtle and sometimes hard to catch. All the characters in this film, especially the lead two, are very well realized. They're people, and we believed them. The acting is the best of all. Lucille Ball may be best known for her television show, but she was a great movie actress, as well. I can't say that I've seen too many of her films, but it would shock me if she was ever better than she is in Dance, Girl, Dance. She is the spark of the film, and Maureen O'Hara is the emotional core. I think that her part represents one of the best female characters to be found in the cinema. O'Hara is simply fabulous as a ballet dancer who has to lower her artistic standards to make a living. And, like I mentioned before, listen for that speech she gives near the end of the film. I hadn't heard of this film before. I had never heard of Dorothy Arzner. I love the feeling that I've made a major cinematic discovery. This is most definitely one of those. 10/10.