
Take Her, She's Mine
1963

1968
PG-13Director
William Friedkin
Runtime
99 minutes
Average Rating
No ratings yetSynopsis
Rachel arrives in New York from her Amish community intent on becoming a dancer. Unfortunately Billy Minsky's Burlesque is hardly the place for her Dances From The Bible. But the show's comedian Raymond sees a way of wrong-footing the local do-gooders by announcing the new Paris sensation "Mme Fifi" and putting on Rachel's performance as the place is raided. All too complicated, the more so since her father is scouring the town for her and both Raymond and his straight-man Chick are falling for Rachel.
Overall Score
Limited
Category Breakdown
LGBTQ+ Representation
The film adheres to heteronormative standards typical of its era. Romantic tension is confined to a traditional triad involving the female lead and two male suitors.
Gender Representation
Rachel’s journey from an Amish community to the burlesque circuit explores female autonomy. However, the plot remains centered on a male-dominated dynamic where women act as romantic catalysts.
Racial & Ethnic Diversity
The cast is predominantly homogeneous, reflecting the historical constraints of the 1920s New York entertainment scene. It lacks diverse ethnic ensembles or race-bent casting.
Religious & Cultural Diversity
The story highlights the clash between religious traditionalism and secular vaudeville culture. It frames moral authorities as obstacles to artistic expression through comedic subversion.
Disability Representation
There are no prominent depictions of physical or neurodivergent characters within the narrative.
Strengths
Areas for Improvement
AI Analysis
The film functions as a period comedy that leans heavily into the social tropes of the 1920s. While it offers a degree of agency to its female protagonist, the structural foundation remains rooted in traditional gender hierarchies and a largely homogeneous demographic profile. The narrative's primary progressive element is the friction between institutionalized morality and individualistic pursuit. This conflict is explored through the lens of comedic situationalism rather than a deep systemic critique. Ultimately, the film reflects the era's social realities without attempting to disrupt them through diverse casting or queer subtext.

1963

1986

1967

1967

1963

1974

1971

1975

1968

1968

1972

2003
No reviews yet. Be the first to share your thoughts on this movie!
Use the rating form above to leave a star rating and optional review.