Running head: A BRIEF HISTORY OF BURLESQUE 1

A Brief History of Burlesque and Its Influence

Katelynn A. Drury

Northeastern Junior College

A BRIEF HISTORY OF BURLESQUE 2

Abstract

This paper gives a brief history of the theatrical art form of burlesque. It describes the

role burlesque has had in culture as a commentary towards society and redefining

stereotypes. A comparison of the dictionary definition versus the connotations that

accompany burlesque is explored while attempting to explain the art form’s true magic

and appeal. The changes burlesque has undergone have been tremendous, and this paper

clarifies such changes and offers support as to why they happened. By discussing the

paradigms and typical gender roles that burlesque attempts to unseat this general

overview sheds light on the various facets of a complicated and misunderstood art form.
A BRIEF HISTORY OF BURLESQUE 3

A Brief History of Burlesque and Its Influence

Burlesque is defined as “a comic imitation, parody; a performance or work of this

kind; bombast, mock-seriousness; US-a variety show, often including striptease”

(“Dictionary,” 1989). This definition is multi-faceted, defining both adjectives and nouns,

and alluding to the many layers of which burlesque is composed. Burlesque, as an art

form, reflects this multi-faceted definition. Beginning in the 1840s burlesque evolved

through the use of a myriad of performance techniques including mockery, commentary,

and patriotism while simultaneously attempting to return to its roots and purpose in satire.

Burlesque is an art form with deep roots in politics and satire. “From 1840 to

1860, burlesque was used to parody the operas, plays, and social gatherings of the upper

class while entertaining the lower and middle classes” (Sinclaire, 2008). It utilized

comedy and music to challenge a prestigious upper class and its ideals. The operas and

classical theatre commonly attended by high society originated during the Renaissance.

The shows reflected the Renaissance’s high ideals and humanistic views. Mid 19th

century Burlesque adapted these classics to be more risqué; in turn ridiculing the classical

style in which it was originally performed (Kenrick, 2004). In addition to the specific

ridicule of adapting a classic show, the variety show became wildly popular. It combined

many forms of comedy, parody, and extravagance into one super charged show of hilarity

and jest.

In 1868, Lydia Thomson’s ‘British Blondes’ arrived in New York, ready to

challenge perceptions through performance of such a variety show. The intent was not the

display of the female body, but rather to share a “politically aware and self-conscious

program of entertainment” (Nally, 2009, p. 622). Although the girls were progressive and
A BRIEF HISTORY OF BURLESQUE 4

wild, “the curious combination of comedy, parody, satire, improvisation, song and

dance, variety acts, cross-dressing, extravagant stage effects, risqué jokes and saucy

costumes took New York by storm” (Hoffos & Moulder, 2006, p. 5). The defining aspect

of Thomson’s troupe was their costumes. Nude tights were the secret to the risqué and

scandalous costumes worn by these ‘British Blondes.’ The tights allowed the woman to

perform cross dressing roles without her legs actually being revealed in the literal sense

of the word. “Of course, the legs were being revealed, but the tights offered an illusion of

decorum” (Glasscock, n.d.). The illusion of modesty paired with the obvious sexual

nature of such bare legs made the ‘British Blondes’ a wild success. Besides being

appealing, the tights were also a special way to call attention to the larger concept of

Victorian era fashion.

Thomson’s troupe especially challenged the Victorian era’s view of women and

what was proper to wear. Victorian women went to great lengths to hide their physical

figure under layers of fabric, but Lydia Thomson’s girls wore impressive spoofs of such

attire involving comically large ruffles, bustles, corsets and bows of the nineteenth

century (Nally, 2009, p. 622). Such exaggerations were “often a clear satire of upper-

class fashion, social mores and sensibilities, as well as a dramatic and deliberate display

of the female body” (Nally, 2009, p. 622). The specifically designed costumes artfully

displayed legs, cleavage, and neck in a tantalizing way. “The very sight of a female body

not covered by the accepted costume of bourgeois respectability forcefully if playfully

called attention to the entire question of the ‘place’ of women appearing in American

society” (Allen, 2008, p. 258). The idea of young, scantily clad women appearing on

stage in a production written and produced by a woman was a powerful change to the
A BRIEF HISTORY OF BURLESQUE 5

societal norm. Because of its tendency to focus on the gender roles and perceived

characteristics of women, burlesque is famously considered a feministic form of

entertainment. Burlesque rejected the common display of women as intrinsically demure,

innocent, helpless and retiring in matters such as sexuality (Soloman, 2001, p. 694).

Through burlesque, a new type of woman emerged, one that was exalted for having a

voice and making herself into exactly what she wanted to be.

Paris, France, had a thriving burlesque community at the same time Lydia

Thomson entered New York. There was, however, a very distinct difference. In Paris,

burlesque was celebrated as a lifestyle rather than a character which concluded at the end

of a revue. Women made themselves into stars by defying class, society, and stereotypes.

“It was the age of the Moulin Rouge and a time when any girl, no matter her background,

could transcend class by lighting up the stage” (von Teese, 2006). The show girls, or

courtesans, were first and foremost performers. The sexual nature of their lifestyle came

as an afterthought. Courtesan did not have the negative connotation in the 19th century as

it does in the 21st.

Most courtesans were “esteemed as a model of beauty and mysterious feminine

power” (von Teese, 2006). They were socialites and celebrities in the social circle. These

dancers associated with kings, artists, and writers, many of whom were patrons of

burlesque. Lavished with gifts, courtesans lived a life of gaudy wealth and high end

indulgence. “But the truth is that this courtesan was not dependent on any man; she made

her living onstage” (von Teese, 2006). The woman the courtesan created on stage was the

woman dependent on men. A courtesan’s goal was to create “tantalizing, yet ephemeral

characters” yet still remain “just out of ‘real’” (Schweitzer, 2000, p. 67). Showgirls were
A BRIEF HISTORY OF BURLESQUE 6

selling something that was not tangible, and oftentimes fleeting: the art of sexuality. As

Minstinguett, a popular courtesan, said herself: “We sell [the audience] a trip to nowhere,

canvas landscapes, moonbeams made out of gelatin” (ctd. in von Teese, 2006). The

showgirl sells magic. It was this undeniable magic that changed the art of burlesque at the

turn of the century.

From the 19th to the 20th centuries, burlesque became extremely popular but also

mass-produced. Shows altered their focus to be a showcase of the female body, rather

than an interaction between audience member and performer. The majority of burlesque

clubs “focused more on the physical form of the girls rather than the substance of the

performance” (Sinclaire, 2008). While America became laden with restrictive laws

determining what could be worn and what exactly was deemed appropriate, the striptease

was the objection to such control. However, the women were not initiating this rebellion.

Women were no longer in charge of burlesque shows; they were the show. Burlesque was

no longer an interaction between audience and performer. “The female burlesque

performer ceased to be an assertive subject” (Soloman, 2001, p. 695). Although the

women had been silenced and the show entirely revised, popularity did not decrease in

the slightest. In fact, this new version of burlesque was even more popular among

patrons.

Striptease may have revived the popularity of burlesque, but it also enforced a

sleazy reputation. Rather than selling magic, burlesque was seen to be selling sex. Sex

without intimacy was seen as primal and, therefore, connected to the dregs of society.

Participators in this carnal act, as well as the act itself, were seen as a threat to the social

structure of America (Schweitzer, 2000, p. 67). Strip joints were regulated to red light
A BRIEF HISTORY OF BURLESQUE 7

districts and other sketchy areas of town. Despite such a risk in performance, the acts

became more elaborate and increasingly graphic, often including props. Running

burlesque clubs became a liability and the strippers who performed there were a large

part of such a hazard. “Strippers had to walk a fine line between titillation and propriety

—going too far (let alone ‘all the way’) could land them in jail for corrupting public

morals” (Kenrick, 2004). Although the material was more graphic, the police did not

formerly close down burlesque houses until well into the 1930s.

New York mayor Fiorello LaGuardia began his reform plan from the moment he

took office in 1934. Among many other goals for his mayoral term, restoring and

upholding his puritanical beliefs was on the top of the agenda. The National Winter

Garden, the largest and most popular burlesque house in New York City, was famously

raided by police numerous times before it was closed in 1937 (von Teese, 2006).

LaGuardia dismissed burlesque houses as “purveyors of filth” and believed they

degraded society as a whole (Kenrick, 2004). Unfortunately, he was not entirely wrong.

The once theatrical art form of burlesque had simply become a series of bump and grind

routines always resulting in almost entirely naked women and lifeless comic bits.

Burlesque had a very real chance of ending entirely as performers were denied the

opportunity to perform.

In an effort to keep burlesque alive, groups went on the road. New York City,

once burlesque’s main stage, now had few opportunities or spaces for performance.

Fortunately, bringing the shows to people who had never experienced such an act before

was beneficial. Shows were commonly sold out and new clientele gave the performers a

chance to experiment with new and more inventive costumes, acts, and props (Sinclaire,
A BRIEF HISTORY OF BURLESQUE 8

2008). However, the large effort to revive the original focus of burlesque fell incredibly

short as audiences clearly favored the saucy striptease. Even with the benefits of new

material and props, live burlesque would never again be the passionate political and

social commentary it once was. A continuation of the art form would have to be found in

a different source. Luckily, television and radio producers were enamored with the

unique, raunchy comics that emerged from the burlesque scene.

The burlesque movies of the 1940s and early 1950s were not nearly as graphic or

objectifying as striptease. The women in the movies did wear revealing costumes, but

they were never nude. (Kenrick, 2004). It was not about the individual body, but about

the collective experience and atmosphere. The humor of film burlesque was not the

typical political and social mishaps, but rather a light simple humor focusing on

malapropism and slapstick. At first, the films were shot in medium or long shots because

the shows were staged in an actual theater (Caldwell, 2008). The theater made burlesque

a more formal affair and showing such a performance on television enhanced the

credibility of burlesque. Television made the potentially controversial spectacle more

accessible through its tendency to broadcast resepctable public entertainment. W. Merle

Connell reinvented film burlesque when he moved the performances from an actual stage

to a studio, enhancing lights, sound, and allowing for close ups. The 1951 film French

Follies is described as a “faithful depiction of a burlesque presentation, with stage

curtains, singing emcee, dances by showgirls and strippers, frequent sketches with

straightmen and comedians, and a finale featuring a star performer” (Allen, 2008, p. 258).

Films were burlesque’s saving grace. Recognition of the original intent of such a

performance style was exactly what burlesque needed to once again come to the forefront
A BRIEF HISTORY OF BURLESQUE 9

of entertainment. Never again did such a complete reversal of principals occur, but a

gradual evolution kept burlesque in the limelight for many years.

Pin up girls, the product of the evolution, came about at a time when “people

everywhere were celebrating Americana of all kinds, and burlesque was as American as

baseball” (von Teese, 2006). Live burlesque was revived with new acts inspired by the

movie stars that graced the big screen; more specifically, Marilyn Monroe. Marilyn

Monroe took the country by storm; she was, however, a “created” beauty and the

burlesquers played up that exaggeration (von Teese, 2006). Monroe’s pristine appearance

and overwhelming popularity made the perfect burlesque subject. Personalities,

appearance, and publicity stunts were overemphasized in each performance, enforcing the

fact that the average woman was nothing like Monroe. Every performer had a signature,

ranging from their act to their attitude. Such signatures made burlesque memorable and

enjoyable. The audience felt involved because they were able to identify with each

performer’s created persona and identity in some small way (von Teese, 2006). Burlesque

never again faded entirely from the stage as it had in the 30s. In fact, the 21st century

incorporated burlesque and its fundamentals into a variety of entertainment outlets to be

enjoyed by audiences all over the world.

The golden age of burlesque may be far gone, but the legacy lives on as certain

aspects of the original burlesque comedy appear in modern everyday comedy. Spit takes,

double entendre, and public mockery of politicians and celebrities are all reminiscent of

the heyday of burlesque. The early 2000s brought on another possible revival of the

original act of burly-q featuring cross dressers and drag performers. Parodying not one

sex but both, simultaneously, was the ultimate nod to burlesque in its purest form.
A BRIEF HISTORY OF BURLESQUE 10

“Without question, burlesque’s principal legacy as a cultural form was its establishment

of patterns of gender representation that forever changed the role of women on stage”

(Allen, 2008, p. 258). The live burlesque comedy scene is irresistible as it challenges

social, cultural, and sexual status quo. Burlesque leaves an important legacy as it is

tweaked to suit audiences of all generations. A revival of burlesque and a renewal of the

art of showmanship would surely make the world a brighter place and all signs imply that

audiences will get their wish.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF BURLESQUE 11

References

Allen, K. (2008, August). Classical burlesque - funny ha-ha or funny

peculiar? Retrieved November 2, 2010, from

http://www.kittie.me.uk/funny-ha-ha-or-funny-peculiar-a-guide-to-

classical-burlesque/

Caldwell, M. (2008, May 18). The almost naked city. New York Times. Retrieved

November 5, 2010, from http://www.nytimes.com

Glasscock, J. (n.d.) Burlesque of the 1950s. Retrieved November 5, 2010,

from http://www.clotheslinejournal.com/burlesque.html

Hoffos, S & Moulder, B. (Autumn 2006) Desperately seeking lydia and appreciating

lydia. The Friends of Kensal Green Cemetery Magazine, 43, 1-7

Kenrick, J. (2004). History of burlesque-parts I&II. Retrieved November 15,

2010, from http://www.musicals101.com/burlesque2.htm

Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd ed. London:

Oxford University Press, 1989. Print.

Sinclaire, S. (2008, October 21). History of burlesque. Burlesque Hottie.

Retrieved November 2, 2010, from

http://burlesquehottie.blogspot.com/2008/10/history-of-burlesque.html

von Teese, D. (2006, March 25). A brief history of burlesque. The

Independent.Retrieved November 15, 2010, from

http://www.independent.co.uk