Thread: To Reveal or Not Reveal?

When in doubt I always refer to the dictionary.
Technically speaking, according to the OED, Wikipedia etc, burlesque is originally about parody; it has developed associations ( particularly from 1880 to 1950) with striptease and/or titillation, but these aspects should not necessarily be intrinsic to the act.
And yet if you ask the (Wo)Man on the Clapham Omnibus what 'burlesque' means today in 2010 , his/her answer will invariably involve an element of titillation/nudity.

My question is : what is the difference between a contemporary burlesque act where there is no 'reveal' and a 'dance', or a piece of 'performance art'?

Personally speaking, I go to see a burlesque show in order to be entertained.
But more specifically, I go with the expectation of being entertained in a particular way : a way that involves the clever/witty/artistic removal of clothing.
If I simply wanted to see some interesting dance moves there are a miriad of companies whose work I could see. And actually, if I wanted to see people dancing naked, I'ld still have a pretty wide range to choose from: witness the current production of Aida at the Royal Opera House, never mind your Michael Clarkes or Javier de Frutos or Pina Bausches etc.

I pay my money to see a particular style of performance : not inane pointless wriggling against a pole in 6" platform shoes, or blank-eyed clothing-removal, nor some beautiful plastic Amazon dancing in killer heels and rhinestones in the chorus at the Crazy Horse; but not some self-indulgent second-rate 'dancing' which is justifiable only because there is some kind of 'concept' behind it, either.
Sorry to be brutal, but : I don't just pay to see you dance. I don't actually expect -or want - to see anything more than I would on Brighton Beach, but I've come to a Burlesque show because I'm expecting you to take your clothes off in a witty/clever/entertaining/thought-provoking manner. At the risk of sounding like some ghastly X-Factor hopeful, it's about the journey.
And I come to see the journey from clothed to less-clothed.

What I pay to see can be raunchy and sexy a la Immodesty Blaize. It can be politically challenging a la Dirty Martini/ Honey Wilde. It can be cutesy/cheesecake/beautiful-but-bland like Polly Rae.It can be 'artistic' and with historiographical references ( Loie Fuller etc) like Vicky Butterfly. It can be camp and anti-sizeist like Jo King. It can be refined and expensive like Dita. It can be hot as hell like Catherine. It can be a boy, for goodness sake.

I'm not necessarily going to go home muttering because I haven't had a flash of tit. But if I simply wanted to see some piece of physical theatre, then that's what I would have booked to see. And I wouldn't have expected it to be called 'burlesque'.

So for me burlesque does inherently involve elements of nudity, and probably progressive nudity at that ( i.e. - a reveal of some sort). Until the day that burlesque reclaims its original meaning and we just get back to parody. Which would be fantastic in my book - but incredibly unlikely!

Vx

I like the (very few) acts I've seen that make you think there's going to be a reveal, and then there isn't one, a la Gypsy Rose Lee!

I have to say this is a pet topic of mine and prone to rambling on and on and on.....

I don't think burlesque has to be about the 'strip' per se. In fact I think often a great act can be ruined by a feeling that they have to get down to titty tassells and a g-string. A fellow performer and I were recently lamenting the fact that when people see burlesque advertised they essentially expect these things- I've witnessed a performer (who did a more avant garde, slightly cabaret styled routine) doing a routine that was fantastic and had been well recieved at a burlesque show, doing the same routine in a club and get very little applause - partly because people were expecting the nudity.

I think it's a shame as I'd much rather see a cleverly put together act rather than just waiting for a pair of pasties to come out. How often have you been to a show and just cringed seeing someone go onstage, do a glorified chair dance and then whip their bra off at the end to call it burlesque? Okay we all start somewhere (and I cringe thinking of some things I did in my early performances!!!) but I sometimes think the pressure to do a strip-tease can ruin a performance. Indeed the slightly cabaret/chair routine I saw recently by a dynamic burlesque duo in Hobart had to be one of my favourite routines for the year- it was witty, well choreographed and utterly unique (as far as anything in burlesque is utterly unique)

With my own fan dancing I often like to do them completely without nudity, so that the emphasis is on the skill of fan dancing. So maybe that is not a totally burlesque routine - but I love the tradition of the old skirt dancers like Loie Fuller etc and think that it is as much a part of burlesque as the titty tasselling.

Wow that was a ramble....but generally I'd say that yes burlesque should have to it something that at least refers to its tradition - whether it be the old American burlesque or British burlesque style. Generally this ends up being a not to the 'strip' or 'tease' but I guess what I'm saying is that I don't think it's always a necessity, and I think performers should resist the pressure to get their tits out just because they think its burlesque. Sometimes the glove/garter/stocking removal can be just as sexy as a pair of pasties!

There's definitely more than one way to reveal or not reveal. For me, the reveal is more the climax to the act, which can involve anything from tassel twirling to some kind of exciting action or statement, an ending to a story if the act is storylined, and sometimes it can even be the absence of the climax that can be the climax, because it can act as the tease.