The Double Sashay of Dorothy Michaels and Elaine May: The On-Screen and Behind-The-Scenes Gender Politics of Tootsie

An essay by Tessa Squissato

“I wasn’t a nice girl. And when they found this out, they hated me all the more.” (1:07:37) remarked Elaine May (2006)— one of the twentieth century’s most influential comedic forces, and notably an uncredited script doctor on Sydney Pollack’s 1982 film, Tootsie (Courogen, 2024, p. 345). Like May, Tootsie’s Dorothy Michaels is not a “nice girl”. In fact, she is not a girl at all but the feminine alter-ego of male actor, Michael Dorsey. In this sense, Tootsie is often viewed as a comically self-referencial film. Dustin Hoffman’s leading role requires him to dress in drag and adopt a feminine persona in order to tell the story of an actor who essentially does just that. However, there is unintentional self-referentiality to be found in the parallels between Dorsey’s arc in the film, and Elaine May’s lived experience as a woman in the entertainment industry. As Michael Dorsey performs femininity in the most literal sense, May’s role in Tootsie’s creation is an example of the gender performance of everyday life. After years of being labelled as difficult, May refused a writer’s credit on the film, leaving her male contemporaries to reap the benefits of her labour (Courogen, 2024, p. 150). The character of Michael Dorsey, through his feminine performance of Dorothy Michaels, illustrates the precarious line between defiance and docility on which the woman must tread in order to succeed within a patriarchal structure. With his consistent failure to strike a balance between the two, Tootsie’s Michael Dorsey proves this an unattainable expectation, yet one which continues to plague the feminine existence.

Judith Butler (2006) defines the concept of Gender Performance as “a repetition and a ritual, which achieves its effects through its naturalization” (p. 16). Butler’s theory proposes that an individual’s gender identity is not inherent, but rather, socially constructed and unconsciously performed in everyday life. When viewing Tootsie through this sociological lens, it is crucial to consider that Michael Dorsey as Dorothy Michaels does not inherently align with Butler’s definition of performativity— in that the element of naturalisation is absent. In this sense, Dorsey’s performance is singularly focused on public perception of femininity, rather than an internal assertion of true feminine gender identity. However, the exaggeration of Gender Performativity in Tootsie speaks to the hegemonically asserted societal perception of the woman. Michael Dorsey’s performance of femininity is present in the drag he sports, yet it could be said that it is the identity which Dorsey creates for Michaels that provides the most interesting gender commentary. González and Cavazos (2016) assert that the “transference of knowledge” through consumed media shapes one’s “ability to think and perform gender” (p. 661). If knowledge transfers from screen to life, certainly the opposite is true. Tootsie, though fictional, echoes the real-world pressure felt by women for whom gender is not just an identity, but a system of oppression (Golash-Boza, 2016, p. 139). Under this system, the woman must meet the socially accepted standards of femininity in order to be deemed valuable and successful. Yet, these standards are ever changing, rendering perfect performance of femininity and consequently, female success, nearly impossible.

The audience’s first introduction to Michael Dorsey as Dorothy Michaels exemplifies how women must perfectly calculate their performance in the face of ever-changing societal demands. Dorsey, assuming his Dorothy Michaels identity, attends an audition for a lead female role in a daytime soap-opera. As Dorothy introduces herself to the production’s director, Ron Carlisle, she first assumes a submissive role in the interaction. She speaks quietly in very few words and plasters a smile on her face (00:21:21). This performance establishes Dorothy as a non-threatening presence who shall act compliantly at the will of the man in power. Using a performance of docility to gain favour in a patriarchal setting is a common approach. This is asserted in the lived experience of Elaine May who describes the process of presenting herself as no one to be feared in order to break into male dominated spaces (2006, 1:07:25). As the scene continues, Carlisle deems Michaels “too soft and gentile”(00:21:47) for the part. Michaels initially retains a docile demeanour, pleading with Carlisle to allow her the opportunity to prove herself to no avail. This interaction illustrates that though docility is often favoured in the woman as it eliminates the man’s fear of opposition and loss of power, it can simultaneously render her unexciting and easily dismissible.

As the scene continues, Michaels pivots into defiant feminine performativity which could be categorised as an expression of feminine rage— a term which only exists because the two words are societally presumed to oppose one another.  Michaels approaches her dismissal not from the perspective of a performer, but from the perspective of a woman. Michaels is rejected by Carlisle before demonstrating her acting skills, because she is not the “type” (00:21:37) of woman that he is looking for. Illustrated in this scene, is feminine docility’s potential to bore the man. Thus, women must also practise defiance, which presents a threatening allure. Speaking to Carlisle, Michaels exclaims: “I’ll knee your balls right through the roof of your mouth!”(00:21:51). By referencing Carlisle’s genitalia in her outrage, Michaels has introduced an element of sexual danger. This type of defiant performativity renders Dorothy Michaels an interesting iteration of Christina Lee’s (2010) “Bitch” archetype. Lee defines “The Bitch” as a woman able to “wield both artifice and truth-telling like weapons” (p. 87). In the artifice of her drag (including her performance of feminine speech and body-language), and in the truth-telling of her feminist beliefs, Michaels is able to briefly perform femininity to perfection and succeed in obtaining the role. 

Elaine May was once referred to as a “very difficult girl” and a “very talented girl”, by director Fred Coe, “I have found that the two are synonymous.”, he remarked (Thompson, 2020). In the scene depicting Dorothy’s first day on set, Carlisle is shown to share in this belief. Dorothy is directed to have an on-screen kiss with infamous set pervert, John Van Horn. During the taping, she opts to go off script and reject his advances (00:38:50). Dorothy proceeds to perform a compelling feminist speech— an act of defiance identical to that which proved her talent and initially landed her the role. However, Dorothy now exhibits what is arbitrarily deemed to be an unacceptable amount of defiance which threatens Carlisle’s power and therefore, the performance of his own masculine identity. When she was hired, Michaels was situated in the early stages of the Bitch archetype. In this stage, the Bitch possesses the power to cause progressive social disruption. Yet, as Lee asserts, this power “cannot be maintained permanently” (p. 88). Dorothy learns of this impermanence as Carlisle reprimands her act of defiance. In her defence, Dorothy claims to have acted on “instinct”, reiterating that Carslisle had in fact asked for a “threatening” performance upon her hiring (00:39:08). Carlisle retorts that he “will handle the instincts”— a statement which establishes that feminine instincts, which are proposed to be natural and inherent, are only considered as such if aligned with the patriarchally defined conventions of femininity.  As Elaine May articulates, there is no way to know if something is correct “unless someone teaches you or you screw up” (2006, 1:02:54). As Dorothy gathers through this interaction, it is often the latter that guides the woman’s performance. 

Throughout the film, Tootsie’s Michael Dorsey/Dorothy Michaels character captures the cyclical experience of feminine performativity. This cycle is epitomised in the following dialogue: “He told me what he wanted. I didn’t agree with him. I didn’t say anything. I did it the way I wanted. He bawled me out. I apologised to him” (00:41:00).  Performing docility means suppressing desire and selfhood, which can lead to insufficient feelings of self-satisfaction and little external success. The woman will then turn to defiant performativity, which is often an expression of that which was suppressed in the performance of docility. Under certain circumstances, these acts of defiance incidentally benefit those in power, in which case the woman is not quite praised, but merely forgiven. More often than not, however, defiance results in punishment and a consequent return to docility. This cycle, though unfulfilling and frustrating, is one in which women remain perpetually as a means of survival— a fact which distinguishes Dorothy Michaels from the average woman. In discussing Tootsie, Dustin Hoffman marvelled at Elaine May’s instant grasp of the film’s message (Courogen, 2024, p. 345). As if it was extraordinary that May, a woman who had been blackballed by the studios, and essentially barred from directing, would have some understanding of the high stakes game that is feminine performance. Both Michael Dorsey and Elaine May broke from their feminine performances, yet for women like May, the consequences of betraying traditional femininity are more punitive than an arm-in-arm walk into the sunset with Jessica Lange. 

Bibliography

Butler, J. (2006) Gender Trouble : Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, Taylor & Francis Group. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/torontomu/detail.action?docID=710077.

Columbia Pictures. (1982). Tootsie. United States. 

Courogen, C. (2024). Miss May Does Not Exist: The Life and Work of Elaine May, Hollywood’s Hidden Genius. St. Martin’s Press. 

Golash-Boza, T. (2016). A Critical and Comprehensive Sociological Theory of Race and Racism. Sociology of Race and Ethnicity (Thousand Oaks, Calif.), 2(2), 129–141. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332649216632242

González, J. C., & Cavazos, K. C. (2016). Serving fishy realness: representations of gender equity on RuPaul’s Drag Race. Continuum (Mount Lawley, W.A.), 30(6), 659–669. https://doi.org/10.1080/10304312.2016.1231781

Lee, C. (2010). Violent Femmes: Angry Girls in Youth Cinema. In Screening Generation X (1st ed., pp. 77–94). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315607887-6

May, E., & Nichols, M. (2006). Elaine May and Mike Nichols in conversation. 

Thompson, T. (2020). Whatever Happened to Elaine May? In R. E. Kapsis (Ed.), Nichols and May: Interviews (pp. 35–44). University Press of Mississippi. https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.399511.12