A Study in Contrasts
So last night, I had a really good evening. I did a “Strip for your Lover” workshop at a bachelorette party. It was really fun. The women there were really smart, cool women in their 30’s–all product developers of one sort or another. They were a cute, spirited group and I enjoyed teaching them. It was a blissful evening.
Then this morning, I checked out a review that was done about our show in a local paper. Blech. I am sure that all of my frenemies will be happy to hear that we didn’t get a glowing review. So, it basically says that the show isn’t queer enough, the performers aren’t hot enough, and as a cast, we’re not young enough. It also points out one of the acts (that feels really complicated to me–it addresses 40’s racism blatantly and rides the line between what is right and what is not in a most uncomfortable manner) and says that more acts like that would help the show. I’ve been hesitant to say anything about said act, but I will say that it is one of the most difficult acts in the show for me.
I hate giving credence to reviewers. Especially skinny, gay ones who throw around postmodernist theory jargon in an assumption that burlesque performers aren’t going to understand them–and who rate each show in the festival based on whether or not the asses are cute…But need to address a few things.
His basic point is that because burlesque dancers are fundamentally strippers, we’re entrenched in the tired, old hegemony of women display for the male gaze.
He poo-poos the idea of it being somehow radical or revolutionary just because there is individual choice of the performer involved. And he misses the point of feminist/lesbian burlesque–it’s not the idea that lesbian dancers taking off their clothes is more radical than straight performers doing the same thing. It doesn’t surprise me that he misses the point–as a gay man who seems to be entrenched in body idealism and gives one show a higher rating because “…one of the performers stepped out of my wet dream”, it figures.
What is queer (in a lesbian way–definitely NOT a part of the youth-worshipping, “hot body” elevating gay male culture) about the show is the idea that every body can be sexy. That women of all shapes and sizes are hot and can be great, electric performers and deserve to be onstage every bit as much as the large-breasted skinny blonde “ideal”. And the point that I keep making about queer women stripping for a queer female audience shouldn’t be glossed over. Queer, to me, is anything that stands outside of the norm–and we’ve got it in spades.
Yes, we could have gone “queer” in the way of another show in the festival and had straight chicks making out with one another and giving one another baths for the voyeuristic pleasure of male viewers, but that is not our style. Neither is it our style to re-engage body art of the 1970’s or Karen Finley’s screaming-about-her-cunt-naked-and-covered-in-chocolate work–though I give a lot of credit to both for my work.
So, yes. Reviewers are meant to pick over and pick on shows. They pick them apart and give critique of entertainment options. And Girlie-Q has a very specific audience in mind. But I couldn’t let this review stand without responding.
Look for a more performative response on Sunday at Joie de Vine. I’m going to do a really “LESBIAN” act. Stay tuned…
xox,
Ms. Bea Haven
Uncategorized | admin | 
July 16, 2009 8:48 am
3 Comments
Other Links to this Post
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Subscribe
By chevet', July 16, 2009 @ 9:25 am
ms. bea, sorry about the review.
i LOVE reading you. thought i’d share that.
i would love more if i could ever get to a show. trust that it’s not personal.
i think your body of work (literally and figuratively) is most impressive!
By Svetta, July 17, 2009 @ 7:56 am
Read the review and was left puzzled by his purported grading system of people’s “junk” as he so eloquently put it. “Lots of nice asses” got a GPA of B to B- and “asses no better than yours” got a grade of C. But then, Tennessee Williams got an F. This critic is a tough customer! He wants the show to have meaningful, socio-political content while at the same time generating his SCHWING! My friend and I left the show feeling good about our bodies (one curvaceous and the other thin and lanky). I, as a queer woman, was not expecting to be hit with any revolutionary post-modern ideas about queer burlesque. In fact, I had no expectations other than to enjoy myself and enjoy watching queer burlesque and this I did! I guess what left me most puzzled about his review was that he lauds the body beautiful but then feels the need to denigrate the obviously no-longer twenty-something woman and then he says, “But all of the bodies on display—except for that of the mysterious older guy—are the slim, trim, young, nearly hairless sort that our culture has deemed acceptable.” The fact that he contradicts himself so often just leads me to believe that this is just another critic who is trying to keep his job. As we all know, nothing shows hard work and deep intellectualism like rating a show based on sex appeal and sprinkling it with bits of post-modern theory that one does not fully understand to cover up the triteness in hopes that readers at large won’t know what the f*** he’s talking about.
By Ms. Bea, July 17, 2009 @ 8:10 am
Thanks for the comments, Chevet (I know you have a little one, so I am not sad you can’t make it to a midnight show.
And Svet, thanks so much for that. It is really helpful to have perspective, from a queer lady point of view. (And it helps to have smart friends who can help you pick apart criticism.)
I do think his point about making the content more overtly “queer” or taking into account who’s initiating the gaze vs. who is gazed upon (vs. who is a gay! Haha) is a good one, though. I’m putting on my thinking thong to see what I can come up with for next time. There is a lot of material there to explore. And I am hopeful that the next show, we can add some elements to spice it up even more.