Thread: Modern Classics, Innovation & Invention

Looking at the ever developing repertoires of performers, it's interesting to see that the 'classics' (typically defined by the Golden Age performers, i.e. the fan dance, the strip tease, the chair, the giant bubble, 'Little Egypt' dance and so on) are being redeveloped as well as performed in homage to their origins.

Who would you say has a great re-invention of a classic?

Nasty Canasta's car-alarm fandance comes to mind for sure:

YouTube - Nasty Canasta - Car Alarm Fan Dance

Modern Classics?

But what is perhaps even more interesting is the idea of 'modern classics'; acts which are actually recent innovations but have gone on to become perceived as 'classics'.

An example would be the giant 'powder puff act'. As far as I'm aware, the powder puff routine (which sees a performer use novely sized powder puffs to conceal and reveal), was devised by Immodesty Blaize around 2004 - but it has since become a staple of others and I've even heard it referred to as a 'classic' - just like the fan dance, as though recreating a timeless, vintage piece.

Do you think perhaps that in some cases, if something is performed in a 'vintage style', it is assumed to be a vintage or 'classic' piece?

Also, looking at transformation of character (rather than props), the 'detective' or 'spy' routine seems to be a staple too (this routine sees a performer dressed as a detective/spy and finds they must get out of/change their disguise) and there are many other transformations like this: bored housewife to sexy housewife, librarian to sex-kitten, nun to devil, man to woman, woman to man etc.

Do you think that it's common themes and archetypes at play? If so, what are they and why are they so ubiquitous? Is it generational? Geographical?

Do people naturally tend toward such archetypes of mystery, sex appeal or change? If so, why?

Perhaps people choose to perform the things that they themselves are already attracted to, or are familiar with? Familiarity is certainly one of the main factors in liking something and I suppose it is 'safe' to gp with what is already known to work.

What are your thoughts?

WARNING

Warning: This is an Old Thread This discussion is older than 60 days. information contained in it may no longer be current

I think the spy routine is often sparked by a fondness of femme fatale imagery... which often comes off the back of an interest in 1940s fashion and movies.

I've seen a lot of people perform their own take on or interpretation of Josephine Baker's banana dance too... perhaps that's on its way to becoming a classic?

And the New York scene seems to attract a lot of half and half acts - like Little Brooklyn's King Kong piece (YouTube - Little Brooklyn at Exotic World 2007). I'm not sure how far back this style goes back, but I certainly recall the half and half figure appearing in the opening of Salon Kitty. Again, perhaps this, too, is now a classic?

What makes a modern classic? Perhaps its as much about the contemporary scaffolding which supports the acts reception as it is about the act itself. Perhaps there is something particularly nostalgic about imagery such as the powder puff... ?

So much to cerebrally chew over there, Kitty! I like to be mentally stimulated

Originally Posted by Beatrix Von Bourbon

So much to cerebrally chew over there, Kitty! I like to be mentally stimulated

Yay!` I was hoping you'd join in here Beatrix :read:

I hope this will be a lengthy, interesting thread!

- also, I'm loving your new hair as seen in your avatar. Really suits you.

Originally Posted by Kittie

I'm loving your new hair as seen in your avatar. Really suits you.

Shh... it's a wig... I bought it for fun, but it turns out that it really works well for a couple of my acts.

But the topic in hand, yes, very interesting. :yes:

Putting myself on the line (and being rather honest) I sometimes find it far too easy to say "I'm sick of seeing routines performed to the Stripper" or "I'm sick of seeing acts where the performer starts out as a "good girl" and then the music changes and they become a "bad girl"". I'll bravely admit that I can get lazy occasionally and forget to ask the whys. Why are these things/themes chosen by performers time and time again?

Is it convenience? Is it a lack of imagination? Or is it that these ideas in particular resonate with a nostalgia that is easily accessible to a modern audience? Do these things lend a somewhat-nuanced 'vintage' aura or atmosphere to a piece?

addition - I just recalled something I've discussed with a few circus performers recently... There are a lot of burlesque and circus performers using the Moulin Rouge (movie) version of Roxanne for their acts. Could this be an audible example of a modern classic??

This may make no actual sense, but here are some of my thoughts…

I think people do like to stick to what they know, and classic routines provide a framework to be influenced by, or deviate from in a way that takes some of the pressure off creating something new. And it seems a lot of new burlesque (like, dare I say it… postmodern theory) is art (That, according to folks like Jameson, has nothing new to say) that has become concerned with the subject of art itself. Which is not meant as an all-encompassing, or negative thing. I guess you could say in many ways that whereas ‘classic’ or ‘vintage’ burlesque, in its heyday, parodied society, burlesque of the present often parodies the parodies, as well as parodying society (Which itself is comprised of a pastiche of what has come before).

I think the powder puff thing may be described as classic given that stylistically it calls to mind ‘classic burlesque’, particularly Lili St Cyr’s propensity for extravagant props. I guess you could say the powder puff act being described as a classic suggests pastiche in that it stylistically connotes ‘vintage classics’ whilst apparently not being one.
Regarding transformation, I think that this represents shifting identity. We have the ability to transform ourselves in consumer society where we are defined in terms of materialism. I think the housewife etc are archetypes; they are instantly recognisable, and easy to relate to. The transformation of these present-day archetypes then can be said to represent the underlying desires of domestic life. The act of performing burlesque provides an escape from domestic life as, say a housewife or secretary, so the performance of the transformation of these characters speaks of the individual’s attraction to burlesque on a wider level as an alluring notion outside of the daily ‘grind’ (Get it? Grind! Heh). And I guess things like the detective represent the same ‘secret’ desires that are unleashed in the other archetypes, the only difference being the representation is more ‘fantasy’ given that one can assume that less people are detectives in their daily lives. It is interesting though, that the detective is about disguise, and on stage the disguise is revealed to essentially be another disguise. Such are the shifting identities of the modern burlesque performer.

Originally Posted by Beatrix Von Bourbon

I just recalled something I've discussed with a few circus performers recently... There are a lot of burlesque and circus performers using the Moulin Rouge (movie) version of Roxanne for their acts. Could this be an audible example of a modern classic??

I've got a funny story about that! My burlesque teacher used to work at an old-style gentlemen's club here and one time they hosted the official after-party for the launch of the Moulin Rouge movie. The club owners asked Lena and her group to come up with a Moulin Rouge-based routine for the afterparty.

Now keep in mind that the movie hasn't officially been released yet so there wasn't any way they could have watched the movie to find out what it's like. Lena had to go online, look up the soundtrack, and find songs to work off. She found Roxanne, loved it, and did a routine with it.

The Moulin Rouge people LOVED it. Massive reaction.
The club owners go "Hey Lena! That was awesome! Let's do more routines for the next 3 months!"
Lena thinks "Hey, yeah, there's three of us and we can come up with all sorts of routines..."
Club owners go "Uh, no. Do that Moulin Rouge one."

So she does that same Roxanne routine. Every night. For THREE MONTHS.
Poor woman couldn't stand that song for a while afterwards!

Originally Posted by Beatrix Von Bourbon

I just recalled something I've discussed with a few circus performers recently... There are a lot of burlesque and circus performers using the Moulin Rouge (movie) version of Roxanne for their acts. Could this be an audible example of a modern classic??

I PROMISE to dive back in on this later cos Kittie it's a great thread thank you!!

But just had to say today I had ANOTHER call asking for an aerial act to this song...

I originally performed to this as a request two years ago and it does seem to be making a come back.

Particularly within circus.

xx

I like the idea of transformation as a way to get outside the daily grind - a lot of the transform acts I've seen start off with an innocent character being "bad", which probably speaks to society's expectations of women. They have to be sweet and innocent and non-threatening, but also sultry and sexy, but not often the same person. Burlesque as I see it plays around with society's expectations of archetypes so the goodgirl/badgirl variant is just a common theme.

That said, I think a lot of modern performers aren't really conscious about the "parody" part of burlesque. To many people "burlesque" brings up connontations of sexiness, corsets, vintage, feathers, fascinators, glamour, red lipstick. As one person put in his review, "striptease for people who like cosplay". As Beatrix said, there's the idea of building up a look and feel - old-style music, old-style clothes, and so on. But they're not commenting on society per se, they're just going up there looking pretty.

Then again it can be too easy to overthink perfomers' motivations for their perfomance...I just did a Creative Industries degree and I'm worn out of essays that require you to write stuff like "There are many mentions of socks because he was reflecting on Foucalt's theory of clothes reflecting our privilege juxtaposed by his use of the colour green" when really the writer was just a socks fan. :P

I think the idea of 'transformations' is very deeply ingrained in westren culture; look at the folk and fairy tales we grow up with where transformations are a vital element and stand in for many key elements of life such as sexuality, mauturity, morality, role, rules and destiny.

In burlesque it is eay to make the leap that you are 'stripping' from one character to another and the good girl to bad trope seems to nicely fit the narative pace that we are used to from other mediums. The typical characters seen in burlesque at the moment, like the housewife, the spy, the girl-next-door-gone-bad, the naughty sailor etc seem to me to fit and evoke the stylistic themes of the 30-50's that many involved in burlesque cherish and champion. I agree with Merch Girl that while many seem to acknowledge that 'parody' and 'pastiche' play a role in burlesque, there seems to be many who don't really understand or utilise these concepts in their work, and many routines can seem a little stagnant and stayed, and the tropes over-tired. However, there are some extreamly exciting and fresh ones as well :-)

Beatrix raises an interesting point with the 'half and half' routines, which I guess is just another way of demonstrating the character split, I guess you can trace this right back to the days of Barnum and the circus sideshow with the She-He's like Josephine Joseph etc.

an interesting thread indeed!

It seems that character work is very important to performers - of past and present. Important for both reasons of narrative device and also personal expression, often both.

The original burlesque stars were women dressed as 'principal boys' - including Lydia Thompson when she took burlesque to the USA in the 1860s. Naturally, archetypes like this go back as long as anyone sought to entertain or lampoon another. So it's difficult for anyone or any genre to lay claims to an archetype.

I suppose it is an argument about specificity - i.e. how specific or iconic is a character that it cannot be reworked to be someone elses with enough of a difference to avoid confusion? i.e. It's easy for a thousand performers to have a good girl/bad girl act and there is enough scope for difference amongst them, but the more speciifc and singular a character is (perhaps Britannia is a good example), the harder it is to reinvent that image - without treading on another toes.

Comparing the female stars of classical burlesque (19th century) with modern burlesque, it's interesting to see how the idea of cutting edge femininty has changed. Where as Vestris, Farren, Thompson, Tilley and co all dressed as males and were heralded as risque, beautiful and boudary pushing leaving legacies as 'symbols of female empowerment', today burlesque performers seem to be mainly focussed on ultra feminine characteristics, stereotypes and peripheries.

Why such a 180 degree turn around?

It is absoultely fitting that it has done so - as burlesque theatre has always been about turning the 'notions and protocols of theatre upside down'. So it's quite literally apt.

But regarding the prop based routines...

Can props be archetypical?

Do you think that there is a danger of toes being tread on - where the instigator or innovator of an act which goes on to be regarded as a 'modern classic' might feel ripped off?

I suppose it's more than the props themselves - it's how they are used. Otherwise, we'd never be able to use anything drink based as a prop - lest we tread on Dita's toes and so on.