catapult magazine

If you read Time magazine, you might be aware that the Burlesque show is having something of a revival. Folks who are involved in it claim it’s an art form of higher caliber than the basic strip club where pole-and-lap-dancing requires reduced physical talent. There definitely is acting involved in both, some rehearsal, costumes, make-up; but is it theatre? Where do you draw that particular line? Before reading this article I thought the line was somewhere between liturgical dancing, church dramas and then genuine (and good) theatre. Now I see there’s much more grey area than I thought. Someone help me out of this murky no man’s land where absolute truth won’t show it’s beautiful face.

Just for the record…Andrew Lloyd Webber is British and he didn’t write the musical Les Miserables — it was adapted and written by Schonberg, Kretzmer, and Boublil.

There have been some good American musicals, though.

Yes, naked women as a spectator sport is quite a different thing than merely naked women. We surely wouldn’t want to say that wherever two or three naked women are gathered, there theatre is also.

It is important for us to make distinctions between theatre and non-theatre, of course. If Christians don’t make distinctions, they are made for us. One distinction represented in our own societal laws is that of consensus. According to our laws, I would not be able to justify peering in on a neighbor through her bedroom window simply by saying that it was free theatre. Our laws do not allow for such activity unless it’s “consensual”. Peering in on another person’s private life/parts IS acceptable, however, if that person has set up a 24 hour web cam on her web site for all the world to see.

But is consensuality (the willingness of the neighbor to become an actor and participant in theatre) a proper necessary distinction for what makes genuine theatre? From a Christian perspective, theatre must not be defined democratically (“All who think peeping-tomism is genuine theatre, say aye!”) but must be defined according to certain God-given norms. The problem, though, is that these norms aren’t static. Reading through history reveals that God’s norms often go through changes as time goes on and as people find themselves in a new day and age. People may have been able to define theatre in terms of spectatorship, seats, stages, lights etc. in the past, but that no longer applies to the various forms of theatre we experience today.

The suggestion that we must define theatre according to a theatrical context so that we don’t start writing 9-11 into theatre history books indicates that we need to define theatre more narrowly than we have so far. Any further suggestions?

I definitely agree that the Burlesque show should be distinguished from other kinds of theatre. Part of what I’m working out with this question, though, is the distinction between/relation of FANTASY and ART.

I don’t think all art intends to challenge us to look at ourselves. As audience members who have been trained to engage art in a certain way, WE take the art work as a lesson or impetus for self-discovery. But art is often produced merely to freeze or preserve one’s feelings/desires/ideals in a tangible way (Freud speaks of the Mona Lisa as DaVinci’s desperate attempt to preserve his mother’s smile) and the audience is often expected only to experience the work in all its complexity and unanswered questions.

I’m starting to wonder if defining art as that which causes us to question our own behaviors, as that which allows us to analyze or judge our feelings (horniness), thoughts (horniness) etc. might bind art to a definition that favors rationality over other dimensions of human experience. Artists themselves often stress the importance of shutting down the critical voice during the art-making process. Too much self-criticism in the early stages of composition can be deadly in the creative process. Artists seek to follow their senses rather than analyze what they’re doing (though this does not eliminate the aspect of self-criticism in the artistic process). So, my initial question might be extended in this way: How can we call a Burlesque show pornography without defining art as that which (by nature) motivates us to rationalize our experience? How can we define art in such a way that rational experience does not once again come out on top as the ultimate truth?

Maybe i am starting to bring this around into some sort of less-than productive way, but too what extent does theater need to be about some sort of coherent story? I think if you look at a continuum of the blatently pornographic over to the art film which uses sex or nudity to make some sort of point (other than arousal) — with each step you take the story becomes less of the excuse and more the point. The most blatantly pornographic material isn’t telling a story at all. Isit/

Of Possible Interest: Meriam Webster’s 3rd entry under the word PORNOGRAPHY
3 : the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction

I like that way of saying it: “quick intense emotional reaction”. That definition is still so vague. Anything can fall in this category.

That definition is also good for other forms of theatre. If it’s a quick emotional response, for me you’ve just encompassed 90% of the bad theatre out there. The majority of sitcoms (lame one-liners, superficial situations, 1/2 hour solutions), the Playboy channel (for obvious reasons), raunchy improv comedy (ie. good improv comedy is based on actors working together to create funny situations that pay off more and more as they build them together . . bad improv is a string of dirty jokes that get laughs simply because they’re dirty), and anything cheesy and overly emotional that’s written and produced to sell tickets rather than to “enlarge, enliven, and enlighten” (Peter Shaffer).

I guess I just like to default to old Petey Brook’s definition of theatre: An person (actor) in a space interacting with another person in front of an audience. In other words, some people doing some stuff together in front of some other people. Okay, maybe it’s a bit more vital than that, but I think Burlesque holds to the original definition. Now, I can’t help but call it BAD theatre, but to me it’s still theatre.

I love examples. Give me an example of what theatre is (aside from the obvious ones like plays). I can think of a few: A game of pool, an Aboriginal rain dance, a suicide jumper.

Trust me you guys will be talking about this till the cows come home… your guys have entered the wonderful world of what is Art what is High Art was is Craft. Who knows. there are so many things that are involved in that question and the largest here being Moral.

For me, High Art is a language and reflection of society. there needs to me a mental conversation in the punters head. There needs to be an exchange. True there is an exchange when a man sits down to watch Women undress in creative ways and for some it may even bee life altering so in that case it is high art for that person.

We are consumers when it comes to certain art forms. We have standards that are put in place to prevent overload or shock. I think we have to look away form these standards and just experience. We are big boys and girls. We know that there some crazy #@*% out there but there is also great art that we refuse to see cause it is out of out comfort zone. Cultural change and world change is not comfortable. The World is changing and that is what we are seeing….

We live in a global community more then ever so we need to know and understand other peoples culture inorder for this world to survive.

any way i am getting off topic kind of…
back to the Burlesque show

A Theatre stage dose not need to be filled with words inorder to be true….
When it comes to nudity on stage and 9 -11 you guys NEED to go and see
Dave St-Pierr ’s "La Pornographie des ames" ( the a has one of those little hats)
http://davestpierre.populus.org/

the human body is a tool and when that tool is put to good use it is good Art that effects you for life when it is not you may be slipping 20s into some girls G string and coming back for more.

As for 9-11 that is not Theatre that is Politics. that is real life.
Theatre has no concequence (SP) besides making someones mind work
Politics in the case of 9-11 kills
If we start bringing people on stage putting guns to their heads and…..
well that will never happen…. I hope…

But I guess we have the Television "Stage" that shoots and kills millions of people in front of me every day…. So maybe you guys have a point.

I don’t think I have helped any but thanks for the vent… I could talk for hours on this stream…

Thanks,

Angela Vaags

I think the “All Of Life Is Theatre” thesis blurs the distinction between the historical artform and the social/cultural phenomenon of performance. I think BBC’s comments about a frame help with that. For some, theatre is the frame, whatever the shape of the frame might be. Like any artform it is self-referential, and people are always trying to extend its boundaries. Is burlesque in a frame theatre? I think if the burlesque asks questions about itself, then yes, the frame does its job. Watch Annie Sprinkle. If you can stand it.

However, I hae me doots, as the Scotsman said. Strip the clothes off the actor and you strip the frame off the performance. Nudity has a structural literality that, I think, has a difficult time avoiding violating the norms of theatre. We’re not looking at a character any more, we’re looking at a naked actor. If the performer’s direct intent is to arouse lascivious thoughts, and to treat me as a customer purchasing the experience of arousal per se, there is no frame around that experience. I am not being asked to think about being horny, I’m just being asked to be horny. In fact, strippers hate it when the customers think about it. As a stripper once told me, they hate it when the customers look in their eyes. David Mamet’s Edmond gets at that question. The poor peep show girl just can’t get Edmond to complete the transaction, because he’s too busy thinking about everything.

So finally, I’d have to say no, I don’t think burlesque is genuine theatre. It’s not even performance art. It’s a kind of prostitution, and structurally so.

I think the “All Of Life Is Theatre” thesis blurs the distinction between the historical artform and the social/cultural phenomenon of performance. I think BBC’s comments about a frame help with that. For some, theatre is the frame, whatever the shape of the frame might be. Like any artform it is self-referential, and people are always trying to extend its boundaries. Is burlesque in a frame theatre? I think if the burlesque asks questions about itself, then yes, the frame does its job. Watch Annie Sprinkle. If you can stand it.

However, I hae me doots, as the Scotsman said. Strip the clothes off the actor and you strip the frame off the performance. Nudity has a structural literality that, I think, has a difficult time avoiding violating the norms of theatre. We’re not looking at a character any more, we’re looking at a naked actor. If the performer’s direct intent is to arouse lascivious thoughts, and to treat me as a customer purchasing the experience of arousal per se, there is no frame around that experience. I am not being asked to think about being horny, I’m just being asked to be horny. In fact, strippers hate it when the customers think about it. As a stripper once told me, they hate it when the customers look in their eyes. David Mamet’s Edmond gets at that question. The poor peep show girl just can’t get Edmond to complete the transaction, because he’s too busy thinking about everything.

So finally, I’d have to say no, I don’t think burlesque is genuine theatre. It’s not even performance art. It’s a kind of prostitution, and structurally so.