‘TICKLE MY FANCY’
Traditional British Burlesque - Funny Ha-Ha or Funny Peculiar?

Amidst the renaissance of the showgirl-striptease, the art of traditional (or ‘classical’) burlesquing is in danger of becoming totally removed from it’s own genre. This article is an attempt to draw attention away from the fleeting frenzy of all things frilly; unravel the misconceptions and cast a spotlight upon the magnificence of what classical burlesquing really was – and still is.

Firstly, it must be understood that there is a problem with the ‘b word’ itself. The meaning is currently undergoing change and adaption according to current popular trends - but all too often ‘burlesque’ is merely a misplaced buzz word and, does no justice to the stars of then or now.

The term ‘burlesque’ literally means to ‘satarise, send up or make mockery of’ and it refers in theatrical terms, to a kind of ‘Spectacular Satire’ or a ‘high brow pantomime’. It does not by it’s nature, involve stripping of any kind. The lexical problem has come through an early 20th century marketing gimmick where the term was borrowed by the American adult industry and then glamorised over time.

The true story of classical burlesque in Britain is one of social commentary, taboo breaking and genuine female empowerment through the Arts. To fully appreciate the importance and significance of classical burlesquing in British entertainment, and why it is now so misunderstood, we must thoroughly examine it’s roots, it’s history and it’s misadventures in language and time.

‘To burlesque’, literally means to send-up, satirise or make mockery of. This has not changed. Burlesques are deliberate and purposeful send ups. They are devised, planned and written to affect change in opinion or provoke a reaction. They are performed to tease – to make fun of.  The form has migrated across the globe and advanced according to different social demands. In terms of a theatrical spectacle, it was the British theatre that reached it’s apogee during the 18^th and 19^th century. It’s resulting endurance and influence in popular culture both here and abroad has been as rich and puissant as Victoria’s Empire itself.

Largely unchanged in 500 years, the British tradition of burlesquing exemplifies the very essence of what makes British humour so peculiar to Brits. We laugh best when we are ‘not supposed to’.

So what is it about the British sense of humour that makes burlesque such a peculiarity? We rib, jest, pun and make fun given any opportunity. We are a nation of self-effacers and eye pokers with a repressed penchant for guilty pleasures.  It therefore comes as no surprise that we just love to dress up, act out and get bawdy - and the bigger the taboo, the bigger the laugh. British humour has always been bawdy and burlesque was certainly no different – in fact it seized the bawdy bullock by the hornies.

Myths and Misadventure

British burlesquing has a rich and impressive history but it is now subject to selective or even revised histories. Many of the misconceptions about this quintessential British form comes through a kind of retrospective prejudice from some, but through rose-tinted retro-spectacles on others.

Low Brow: Many assertions state that burlesque was ‘low brow’ or aimed at ‘low-brow’ audiences. But this is an odd conclusion given that burlesques were ‘spoofs’ of known operas and literary works, meaning that to get the jokes, the burlesque audiences would have had to be au fait with the originals. Furthermore, the evidence shows that burlesques of 18^th and early 19^th centuries were written by and performed for Middle Class audiences. Later, with the advancement of working class Music Halls, burlesques were performed there too.  It is often assumed that the working class audiences would not have understood anything beyond the low brow - and therefore the form itself must have aimed ‘low’.

Having always been a popular culture entertainment, born out of middle class writers, the form although full of double-entendre (and a nudge, nudge, wink, wink) did not necessarily contain anything of an adult-only nature. British burlesque was always performed by men and women alike and typically involved song, dance and physical comedy. Evolving from the pens of journalists, satirists and poets, burlesques were always considered witty, intellectual and high brow. They were in fact, supported by top Oxford scholars and critics. It was subversive, creative and boundary breaking - and it still is.

Sex Industry: The only links between the concept of ‘burlesque’ and the sex industry, is it’s application to American strip shows in the early 20^th century which bloomed during the Depression and lasted until the 1960s.  It appears that much of the glamorous image of this era is only visible through rose-tinted retro-spectacles. Evidence suggests that many of the women performing in these shows had no alternatives and were further involved in drugs and vice. Very few had the glamorous lifestyle we have come to think of in association with these dancers. What was performed in these clubs is a distinct style of it’s own and is probably best described as hybrid form of stripping and burlesque characterisation – ‘burlesque-striptease’.

Female Empowerment: According to cultural reinterpretation and continental drifts, current trends would have you believe that burlesque is about ‘female empowerment through sexual confidence’ - quite specifically. This assertion may be one of celebration and a wonderful thing in itself, but it certainly detracts from the actual point of burlesque. In burlesquing, a person is empowered - to express an idea. Ironically, classical burlesque with some historical peculiarity, seems to have been an industry in which the women, quite literally wore the trousers as will be shortly discussed.

British Burlesque – The Classical Tradition

In terms of what we mean by the British tradition of ‘classical burlesque theatre’, we are talking about a form which evolved out of a soupy cocktail of social politics, entrepreneurialism and a national obsession with puns where British burlesquing enjoyed it’s ‘golden era’ in the 18^th/19^th centuries.

Traditionally, a burlesque show was a cheeky satire of a known opera, play or historical event. It had a plot, a cast, a witty musical score, detailed historically accurate costumes, elaborate sets, clever dialogue - and a sharp point to it all. In a country where Italian operas and theatre plays were often a privilege for the few, it’s not hard to see why the Italian word for ‘mockery’ would at this time become an English turn of phrase in theatre and a verb meaning to ‘to mock (Italian opera)’. 

Bored of the sober-serious nature of operas, writers developed laugh-out-loud spoofs packed full of political puns and social shtick. So here, the ‘burlesque theatre’ was christened - in name and personality, subverting the need for respect and making a mockery of it’s deeply established roots. The audible yawns became roaring laughter. Burlesque was thus, a wayward offspring cut from the same cloth as it’s classical parent; but instead of following suit (pun intended), it turned on it’s heel and presented a well bred, delicately gloved middle finger to it’s critics and audiences alike.

It’s power to make bold political, religious and social commentary was also not overlooked. Considering that laughter is a reaction - not an emotion as many assume – we can appreciate that humour has always allowed us to explore even the most taboo of subjects. Therefore, the power to burlesque something is the power to have it frankly discussed - in public and as a spectacle. Wrapped in costume and characterised by theatre, a taboo is sugar-coated. It is a seductively provoking, eye-wateringly costumed, historically detailed display of an idea - an idea often disregarding of political correctness and coupled with musical ingenuity. All this, sprinkled with the incessant use of the immortal ‘pun’ makes up the backbone of the traditional British (or classical) burlesque.

The act of burlesquing is an act entirely based on caricature-characterisation, lampooning society trends and issues. Through it’s own history on stage, burlesque theatre has already transcended demographics and poked fun at everything and everyone with equal fervour.

Threading the Sequins Together

But where did it all begin? And where did it’s lexical misadventure begin? No doubt, for arguments sake, burlesquing originally began when the first man (probably a woman really) decided to take the pee-pee out of his cave-neighbour’s haircut by fashioning a dead stoat on his head and mincing around for the amusement of others, but flippant speculation aside, the British form has an exceptionally vast history which has transcended continents and centuries of cultural difference.

The form was first notably refined through the poetry of Hipponax of Ephesus in 6th Century and no doubt through many unsung others peculiar to their own loci and eras of influence. One could even argue that some religious doctrines are in fact burlesques of others. Besides, who ever said that God didn’t have a sense of dry irony? Perhaps one day a cult of Ironic Fundamentalism will sweep the globe?

Similarly as the Greeks, in Britain our fixation with poetic burlesquing can be seen in the 14th century verse and prose ‘The Canterbury Tales’ by Geoffrey Chaucer. In further understanding Britain’s bawdy burlesque backdrop, we need to examine where it began to take shape as a genre in it’s own right. The form took shape in the 18th century through caricaturists, satirists and the ‘burletta’ playwrights O’Hara and O’Keefe. The form gained popularity and distinct style in the 19th century through elaborate stage craft and high production values and as a result, it’s punchy attitude has endured in our arts, media and tabloid headlines ever since.

It was easily the late 18th and early 19th century burlesques of the great operas (i.e. Moncreiff’s ‘Giovanni in London’ - a burlesque of ‘Don Giovanni’) that started a cultural revolution of all singing and dancing, slapstick, gender-bending, toe-tapping Travesties.

It may surprise many female empowerment protagonists to learn that in burlesque, the real unsung heroes and heroines were undoubtedly found backstage as well as on stage. The pioneers of the old satirical form are truly inspirational. For example, in 1817, opera singer Eliza Vestris became arguably, the first burlesque star when she played Don Giovanni in Moncreiff’s famous burlesque. In 1831 Eliza also became the first woman in Britain to control her own theatre – one which she dedicated to burlesque (The Olympic Theatre, Wych Street).

In her employ, Eliza commissioned the best. She commissioned Mr. James Robinson Planché (a satirical writer for Punch magazine) to write burlesques for her theatre. Planché also pioneered the art of historical accuracy in costuming in British theatre and his wife too, went on to write shows for Eliza’s theatre.

Subverting the gender-roles and norms even further Madame Vestris continued to tread the boards herself, dressed as a ‘principal boy’ clad in figure-hugging ankle worthy breeches. Her legs are reputed to have inspired many poems and plaster replicas that gentleman could keep at home, although the casts stopped (for decency’s sake) ‘just above the knee’. So here we have Eliza - a star, a male impersonator, an entrepreneur, a producer, a manager and a woman. Now that’s ‘girl power’.

The early 19th century works (i.e. Planché’s ‘Olympic Revels’ and his ‘Baron Factotum - The Great Grand Lord Everything’) were also the inspiration behind much of the subsequent work of Gilbert and Sullivan. Burlesque therefore, is often regarded as the roots of Musical Theatre itself. Gilbert and Sullivan were practical jokers and damnable proud of their own burlesquing. For example, in ‘Iolanthe’, Queen Victoria is cheekily portrayed as the Queen of Fairies chasing after her magical lover (John Brown).

In the 1860s, British burlesque star, Lydia Thompson took burlesque to the USA and landed in favour with the wealthy New York set – those equivalent to the British middle class. Having exhausted her stardom in Britain (and having tired of the European continent), she had set sail for the USA with an all girl troupe known as the ‘British Blondes’. Legend has it, however, that none of these women were actually blond and so became the first peroxide blondes. Lydia and co adapted the jokes for American trends and enjoyed rave success with their shows including their Greek style burlesque of ‘Ixion’ in which, like their contemporaries back home, they ‘quite incidentally’ displayed their shapely curves by cross dressing in scanty boyish attire.

As the first to introduce burlesque to America, Lydia and co were intrepid adventurers, but their form was short lived. As is the case with most British comedy exports, the satire was largely lost in translation and here the genre developed a rather wayward and more provocative sister genre.

Aside on the US Burlesque Story: Over time and continental drift, American burlesque evolved to take on a more risqué focus, eventually becoming a new and distinct form altogether, one which was unwelcome in theatreland and even the Vaudeville circuit. In the early 20th Century, the term ‘burlesque’ was adopted by the US adult-industry to refer to the comic revues in which the strippers would perform. Borrowing from the style of burlesquers, the strippers adopted ‘gimmicks’ or stock characters and often included comedic skits or repartee in their routines. Thus, the ‘burlesque-striptease’ was born. It is a hybrid of burlesque and strip-tease and the purpose built shows were notoriously linked with Mafia drugs and vice, where many women saw no alternative and only the very few actually enjoyed a glamorous lifestyle. Here in the USA, the word ‘burlesque’ had ceased being a term used in the theatre industry and was seen as a euphemism for strip-shows.

Looking back at the British history, it’s also important to point out that although a showbiz star and a trailblazer in many respects, Lydia eventually came back to the UK penniless and died a pauper in 1908. She now lies, 100 years on in a forgotten, unmarked grave in Kensal Green, London.

During the mid 19th Century, entertainment in Britain was becoming more accessible to people of the poorer social classes and it appeared in the form of the ‘free and easy’ - or ‘music rooms’. These rooms were where pub patrons could each take a ‘turn’ and entertain one another after a few drinks. In order to capitalise on the popularity of this new social escapism and to circumnavigate the licensing laws, proprietors designed and commissioned purpose built theatres for the drinking masses of the working classes - The Music Halls. These halls provided everything – affordable booze, orchestra and a theatre show (with one notorious Hall in Glasgow stretching the limits of science by also cramming in a wax-works, a freak-show and an exotic zoo, no less!).

In these new establishments, the burlesque acts found a new source of work and their craft evolved to fit the variety bills of the Music Halls as well as the theatre shows. Instead of full length stage shows, the acts became akin to short characterised sketches and ‘turns’ with each designed to subvert the establishment, cause breeches of the peace (pun intended) and to send up the toffs. Much to the applause of their new socially repressed audiences.

Of course, where there is a party there must be a pooper.

The more hilarity the acts provoked, the more upset the moral authorities became.  Anything so arousing or titillating was deemed improper – especially when coupled with a cross-dressing cast of women in tights. Declaring acts as “the very suburbs of hell itself” the self appointed ‘Vigilance Society’ who, in fear of public moral health, sought to shut down the Music Halls. But, despite their efforts, the entertainer’s power to influence ensured the place\of burlesque and bawdy variety in the next century where another trailblazer took a leap forward in social history.

Here is where Edwardian favourite, Vesta Tilley (another ‘boy’ impersonator) made another first – she went on to perform by Royal Command in 1912. Famous for her songs, her attitude and her artistic credibility where she actually padded her curves to appear more manly in order to achieve believable male characters, Vesta has remained a symbol of female independence ever since.

Moving beyond the musical halls and theatre, British burlesque was still going from strength to strength in the early 20^th century. From the 1920s to 1950s, the Western Brothers entertained as mock ‘cads’ and aristocratic ‘silly asses’ to huge appeal. They were a lyrically sophisticated burlesque duo who specifically lampooned the upper classes. They were so successful that by 1937 they were BBC Radio stars and in 1953, they were in fact the faces used to ‘usher in the era of television’. Ironically, it was TV that killed their career.

Curtains?

The decline of burlesque in Britian is a curious story. The physical theatrical form played victim to the same events as all other kinds of live entertainment. At the dawn of WWI and then WWII, many of the halls and theatres closed with many being requisitioned for home-front purposes and were never re-opened. At the same time, the invention of and rise in popularity of early cinema, saw preference for the new comfortable and inexpensive movie theatres over the cramped halls and bills of the Music Halls. Gradually, the remaining halls closed.

However, the actual death of burlesque’ is merely a macabre myth. It didn’t depart, but it did channel a new medium (pun intended). It lived on and still lives today. Looking at British entertainment, we can see that burlesque has always been at the forefront of cutting edge comedy and how it easily adapted to accommodate the changing times and new mediums of show-business – i.e. film and television.

For over fifty years now, the TV sketch show has often been host to burlesques. When the variety theatres closed, we started tuning in to comedy shows like ‘Morecambe and Wise’ (who in my opinion do the best burlesque routine to David Rose’s ‘The Stripper’!).

Archetypal British comedy films are based on burlesque principals. Think ‘Carry On’. Think ‘Monty Python’. They are caricature based send ups full of puns, silly songs, innuendo and exiguous costumes which ‘right on cue’ would burst off setting us up for well timed bawdy gags, knob jokes and bosoms a plenty.

In fact, according to numerous independent polls, Monty Python’s ‘The Life of Brian’ has been voted the funniest film ever made. This is quite a finding because it proves the endurance of the burlesque form.  This film is arguably the pinnacle of a Western culture burlesque – it is a bawdy satire of the life of Jesus Christ.  Thanks to Eric Idle, it even comes complete with it’s own iconic, ironic theme song - and no doubt holy ring tone.

The acts are too numerous to mention but 1980s comedienne, Pamela Stephenson surely deserves a mention for her celebrity spoofs. Most recently we can see the craft of burlesquing in the award winning antics of master character actor, Sasha Baron-Cohen as ‘Ali G’ and ‘Borat’, all be it with less of a musical focus. Think too of comedy duo Mitchell and Webb in their razor sharp sketches and similarly (and with musical effect) impressionist comedian, Peter Serafinowicz.  Even every sketch in Little Britain is an elaborate caricature, satire-based send up of some aspect of Modern Britain.

In each case the performers are, like their forerunners, invoking satire, parody and humour and using the devices of costume, caricature, wordplay and music according to their styles of delivery.

Beyond the Breeches of Time  

Since it’s not-so humble beginnings in British theatre, the form has been subject to much cultural reinterpretation in different countries, across centuries and continents but yet it still permeates our culture today as always has done.

In addition to those few classical burlesque performers today who perform across the live cabaret, burlesque-striptease and comedy circuits, we have more and more west end theatre also taking stock of both the classic and reinterpreted burlesque forms. True to it’s roots, the new musical ‘Spamalot’ (based on Monty Python’s ‘Holy Grail’) rightly declares itself ‘a buoyant burlesque of musical cliché’.  And so the theatrical tradition clearly lives on in the modern era of television.

The form is alive and well but it is also now experiencing a ‘circle of life’ moment. The exportation of burlesquing to America in the 1860s meant that it was to be re-interpreted and eventually brought back over as new form – and it has. We must be careful to celebrate but not confuse the two.

In stating that one is a Traditional British or Classical Burlesque performer, one is implying that she or he is torch bearer for the ‘Power of Bygone Breeches’ – a specific craft with an important past.

As with every generation, the form is undergoing yet further advances in both medium and influence from multi-cultural material to internet sharing – and 21st century burlesque has more power than ever. At ministryofburlesque.com, we aim to bring everyone together to learn about and appreciate each other’s ideas and expressions whilst nurture new generation of burlesquers for an ongoing craft.

So, is Burlesque Funny Ha Ha or Funny Peculiar? I’d wager it’s both. It’s funny by it’s very action but it’s also peculiar to each and every one of us in our own funny ways.

 ”Together We Can Can”

‘Diamonds From the Rough’
Tinted, Tainted & Tarnished - A Portrait of Golden Burlesque

Since their emergence in the early 20th century, American burlesque shows have specifically promoted adult-oriented entertainment. In many respects, the early promoters even pioneered the genres within – the ‘striptease’ and ‘burlesque-striptease’ – a hybrid comic form. To Americans, such shows would become known generically as ‘burlesque’.

In writing about the history of these burlesque shows, many have been seduced by the ideals portrayed by modern PR companies and the nostalgic notions of wishful thinking.

Beyond the vision of rose-tinted retro-spectacles, the history throws out many more contrary issues and a bleaker portrait of this sex industry enterprise than is often acknowledged. To fully appreciate the impact and legacy of the American burlesque/striptease story, it is important to do justice to those facts.

It has long been said that creative genius and ‘dangerous’ art are often the fruits of pain, hardship and repression and perhaps the misunderstood form of burlesque is no different. But like any other form, for every genius or ground-breaking work, there are countless tales of ruin and misery. Furthermore, ‘stars’ rarely find stardom through their own genius. More often, they are engineered products designed to make money for their creators.

For example, Little Egypt often regarded by new performers as a ‘pioneer’ or ingénue, was not as it turns out, expressing anything at all. In fact, she was a gimmick. She was a series of interchangeable girls with poor education and often poor English, brought in to boost a failing World’s Fair and, was frequently arrested for her trouble.

Such conflicting ‘histories’ have often encouraged a glossy, selective view of the turbulent reality and the phrase ‘all that glitters isn’t gold’ certainly applies.

The so-called ‘Golden Age’ of burlesque is commonly believed to have started with the Wall Street Crash, where a shortfall in disposable income made the price tag for a burlesque show (which was the fraction of the cost of a Broadway show) an appealing option. Coupled with the mass immigration of unemployed men to urban centres such as New York, the social fabric was firmly in place for “striptease” to take hold.

Far from the glamour of Broadway, burlesque in New York found its roots in the gang warfare, drugs, crime and prostitution which dominated the Bowery area of the city.  It took the famous Minsky’s almost 15 years to bring burlesque from the less salubrious surroundings of Bowery, to Broadway.  Gover, an anthropologist in the area during the 1930’s, described it as being filled with “For Men Only” hotels and rooming houses.  George Kneeland, author of a 1913 survey of New York’s nightspots declared: “practically all of the women in burlesque shows are professional prostitutes”.  In view of these kinds of accusations it’s hardly surprising that the more family orientated Variety and vaudeville shows tried to distance themselves from burlesque and regarded it as a ‘low’ form.

Minsky is often heralded as being the first to coin the term ‘striptease’ but who the first striptease artist was, is continually debated.  Some say it was ‘cooch’ dancer Omeena at the 1896 St Louis Fair, who allegedly stripped off the majority of her clothing in a midway tent; others credit Millie De Leon, Hinda Wassau or Mae Dix with the first ‘official’ striptease.  Regardless of who can officially claim the title of the ‘world’s first striptease artist’, by the 1930’s this new form, known curiously as ‘burlesque’ had taken over 7 major Broadway theatres.

The rise of burlesque, particularly in New York, was marred with links to corruption and criminality.  Burlesque and pornography went hand in hand with ‘candy butchers’ selling pornographic postcards and photographs during intervals.  The Minsky’s and other theatres adopted a ‘red flashing light code’ known as ‘John’s Law’ or ‘Boston Law’ to alert dancers on stage to tone down their acts when members of the city’s Vice Squad were on a raid – which by all accounts was a regular occurrence.     Jimmy Walker, a mayor of New York, associate and supporter of the Minsky’s resigned in 1932 amidst allegations of corruption.   This change in office resulted in only 30 of the 60 existing burlesque theatres operating in 1933.   Five years later with the sudden death of Billy Minsky, their Empire began to collapse.

The Minsky’s may have reached the heady heights of Broadway, but for your average burlesque dancer it was not a glamorous life.

Society’s views on burlesque meant that many women who worked as artists were adversely affected by social stigma.  Lois de Fee, found herself being sued by those she lodged with for custody of her own children on the basis of grounds for criminality and adoption proceedings were subsequently undertaken. Maggie Hart, one of Minsky’s artists reported in 1935 that conditions in the theatres were ‘real bad’ - dancers in the lowly chorus were often permanently in debt to the theatre owners as accommodation and food was deducted from their wages.  Hart spoke of playing to rough audiences and that many girls ‘got through it on a diet of drugs, liquor and nicotine’.

Similarly, in reading Gypsy Rose Lee’s ‘The G-String Murders’, Lee conjures up world where money was a constant worry. It portrays a life where dancers, often recognised in the street from pictures of police raids, were the victims of lecherous abuse and their boyfriends told how no ‘decent’ woman would be a burlesque dancer.

NOTE: In the UK, striptease didn’t take a hold until after WWII. Until then, Britain had to make do with Tableau Vivants and troupes like the Bluebell and Tiller Girls.  While the UK tried to cling onto anachronistic obscenity laws, the strip scene that sprouted in London’s Soho during the 1950’s was run by the notorious ‘Malts’ - the Maltese Mafia until the 1970’s. ‘Burlesque’ has always meant something quite different in the UK and was not traditionally associated with stripping or the sex industry.

Minsky’s girls generally had a far rougher ride in Showbiz than the supermodels of the day, The Ziegfield Follies.  By the 1950’s competition from showgirls and glamour models began to affect the burlesque-striptease scene.    Burlesque became about staring lasciviously at women, and vital statistics mattered more than ever.

Following the Golden Age era, Skipper and McCaghy’s research (conducted in 1969/70) confirms that the trend for strippers was of physically larger than average American women - larger hips and chests with “several approaching astronomical proportions”.  Their somewhat notorious research details the vital statistics of 35 strippers in the 16-45 age range.  According to their findings, 60% of the women came from broken homes and almost all stripped due to an unrequited need for ‘paternal love’ as their fathers had ‘abandoned them’ during adolescence.

The majority of their interviewees were first born (89%); matured physically early, had early coital experiences and came from the lowest strata of society.  These women, according to Skipper and McCaghy, displayed exhibitionist labour for gain and had few skills that would allow them to enter an alternate career that was as financially lucrative.  Allegedly 50-75% of them had ‘lesbian tendencies’ and some moonlighted as ‘whores’.

Listening to the personal memoirs of still living Golden Age performers (now affectionately known as ‘Living Legends’) we hear colourful 1st hand stories of glamour, good-times and a sense of ‘sisterhood’ but these tales are often paired with far more confessional ones of glamour to hide poverty, good-times out-weighed by bad and a sisterhood of women who had nothing but each other - having said that, even ‘sisters’ could be mortal enemies…

“I knew one girl, she used to like to go get somebody [whose costume] had a lot of beads, and she’d cut just a few threads in the right place, and her whole costume went. It was destroyed. And those costumes cost a lot of money. Even if you did it yourself, the beads and stones and things cost a good bit of money. I had one gown I did myself, and it was $1000 in beads and stones.” - Cherry Labrech

The New Orleans dancer, Cherry Labrech, adopted the name ‘Wild Cherry’ owing to her tendency to brawl. Like many others, Cherry ended up in burlesque due to her having no alternatives - having had no formal education.  Today, Cherry talks openly about her experiences.

“There wasn’t hair pulling and scratching, these girls duked it out with fists. Everybody pretty much did. There wasn’t a lot of that catfight stuff. Nah, these girls were pretty rough. And if they did decide they didn’t like somebody, in theatres I’ve seen, they would take a rolling pin and a lightbulb, break a lightbulb, and grind that glass up fine like a powder and put it in your face powder. They would put shoe polish in the eye mascara tube. They could get really rough. They didn’t play.” – Cherry Labrech

There is also a known case where a dancer started to copy another dancer’s routines and then had surgery to make herself look more alike by copying the other girl’s nose. The copy-cat victim dancer promptly punched her, and broke it.

There was also, for many women, a lot of time travelling alone on the road. As such, dancers sometimes died alone like Dian Rowland who had a heart attack and died alone in her hotel room at the age of 29.

Competing for work was in many cases, tantamount to competing for attention from criminals.  Drugs, vice and tax evasion were all common themes of scams and scandals in which the women were frequently embroiled – and these were neither small-time nor petty crooks.

Among the mob affiliated club owners was the notorious Jack Ruby who was also later arrested for the murder of Lee Harvey Oswald (who was arrested for the shooting of JFK) and died whilst in prison.

One of Jack Ruby’s friends and subsequent interviewee of the FBI was the famous cowgirl styled stripper Candy Barr and her story too, is one of tragic serial abuse and criminality. A survivor of childhood sex abuse, a victim of white slavery and teen prostitution, she reputedly married (briefly) at age 14 and went on to become the ‘first porn star’ by age 16. Candy maintained that her appearance in this underground film was against her will having been drugged and coerced. The ongoing tapestry of criminality meant that Candy eventually did time in prison herself too.

Similarly, the notoriously wild-living stripper, public streaker and sexploitation b-movie star Liz Renay was another known gangster’s moll who eventually went to prison herself (for perjury) and reputedly blamed her incarceration for her failure to fulfil her potential as a star.

Among other tragic figures was Honey Harlow who openly discussed her heroine addiction until her recent death. Her husband Lenny Bruce (famous US Comic) died of an overdose.

Further criticism on the exploitation of burlesque dancers lies in the attitude that the women’s identities were controlled by the male run industry. For example, much of the vintage aesthetics which were being mimicked (corsets, tight skirts, voluminous petticoats, high heels) were designed to repress women by further enforcing gender roles and restricting their movement and speed.

On a similar note, it has been suggested that girls like Zorita and Satans Angel were actually fired from certain clubs for not hiding their sexuality.

In his celebrated book ‘Horrible Prettiness’, Robert Allen also says that Lydia Thompson’s British Blondes (1860s) had plastic surgery to present a more unified and bland appearance - one that was more ‘pleasing’ to men.

Although the research that is still cited today paints a rather bleak picture of the US peeler, there were those (e.g. Gypsy Rose Lee, Tempest Storm, Lili St Cyr, Ann Corio and Sally Rand), who headlined and did live the glamorous life that we associate so keenly with burlesque but their own stories are undoubtedly fuelled with their own heart aches too. There are even those who have gone on to become reluctant legends post-hoc. The now legendary Bettie Page abandoned her burlesque career, feeling ashamed and repented her sins.

The true face of the Golden Age may well be a tarnished one but of course, a tarnished truth is not a less beautiful one.  It is a more complex one -both fascinating and more seductive than any ideal.  It is complicated and diverse. It shows tears and tiaras, devotion and desperation – it shows the full spectrum of human emotion including triumph over adversary and strength of character over disappointment in life.

It is important to keep feelings and facts in perspective. Looking back on the era’s harsh reality we must also be careful not to obscure the beauty and strength that the American burlesque once displayed and inspires today.

We must take the bad with the good, the rhinestones with the diamonds and remain objective. After all, using a cracked mirror to examine a facade will only yield a distorted picture.

No true tale of beauty is without elements of tragedy and loss; and with a history so shrouded in it’ own glamour, the American burlesque will always maintain at least one enduring quality – it’s inimitable mystique.

A collaborative piece by Kittie Klaw and Gypsy Charms, input from Vicky Butterfly.
With thanks to Jo ‘Boobs’ Weldon.

Coming out of the Closet

 

Victorian Spiritualism and the Vaudeville Striptease

 

A grand parlour room bathed in the dim and eerie glow of phosphorous and magnesium lamps hosts an arrangement of ladies and gentleman seated on edge - eagerly awaiting the fine figure of a scantily clad, nubile maiden to appear before them.  Through some mysterious ritual, the audience witness a noble girl in her teens fall into trance and be taken amongst the shadowing shapes of the room to the dark enclosure intended for her. Here she is willingly bound at her wrists, neck and ankles,  placed in an enclosure and then concealed by a heavy curtain.  A gentleman stands near her, pleased with his bondage; he too awaits the emergence of phenomenal beauty. The perfect image of innocence bound in an era of scandal. The chanting and gentle singing of psalms masks the emotion of the group while the master of ceremonies, holds himself in anticipation for the climax.

 

Then, it happens.

 

The onlookers are in awe and dare not move, nor breath so loud as to disturb Her.

 

She is coming.

 

Perfect, snow white feminine hands with long tapered fingers appear through the folds of the curtain and gradually, inch by inch, the youthful silky figure of the beautiful Katie King materialises from the fabric.  The 23 year old daughter of the legendary John King – a 17^th century Caribbean pirate is here. A petty criminal, an adulteress, a murderess, long dead, now repentant - and here.

 

The audience gasp in disbelief, some in fear, some in awe, others in ecstasy as they witness the realisation of their long coveted Spiritualist dreams.

 

“It’s true!”

“It can’t be so!”

“ It  is!”

 

The corsetry of some ladies is suddenly several inches too tight, and others struggle to find such rationale for their apparent delirium.  However, this figure before them, swathed in white is indeed watching them just as they are watching her.

 

She moves. She appears to draw a young man out from the safety and sobriety of his seat and beckons him toward her with her ghostly white fingers, smiling eyes and parted lips. Like a skilful puppet master, she pulls his ethereal strings and he glides directly under her spellbinding gaze. Within inches of touch, the ghostly lips move to the chosen cheeks where they caress the warm skin and travel to whisper secrets to his pulsating temples and ears.

 

The atmosphere is charged and through the quaking excitement of the voyeurs, a burning lust for truth overcomes one man.  He lunges toward the Spectral Beauty and grabs at her.  Gasps of horror and shrieks of panic rip apart the meditative concentration of the room.  Such a ghastly offence! An act which no gentleman would ever attempt, has been committed - but there, in his forceful gripping arms now lies the naked the truth. The horror-stricken, trembling body of the young medium and not some phenomenon, lies undone in his arms, her undergarments askew, her large round eyes aflame with flummoxed fear and her dewy skin awash with heated vexation.

It’s curtains for this trick.

 

Had you been privy to a mediumistic sitting in the mid to late 19^th Century, the above scenario is a likely interpretation of what you might have seen.  To commune with the dead was the ultimate Victorian parlour game, the highlight of many a scientist’s research and a window to God and the sociable Dead for many others of varying social rank.  This was the forefront of Spiritualism and Psychical Research.  Indeed, some might comment that there was more sleaze than soul involved, but for a deeply, sexually repressed society, this “science” of the day embraced all the taboo of sex and death that any decent lady or gentleman could palate; such social engagements were justified in the name of scientific research. By the 1870s, the older, more stereotyped image of the spirit medium had in essence died and was being gratefully replaced with the young (and often underage) daughters of respectable families.

 

“We anxious investigators can scarcely complain of the change which brings us face to face with fair young maidens in their teens.” Rev. C.M. Davies (1875)

 

The famous physicist and chemist, William Crookes made his mark on the Spiritualists when he dedicated himself to testing such young mediums under scientific scrutiny such as Mary Rosina Showers and more infamously, Florence Cook.

 

Florence Cook was reputably born around 1850 and was the young lady who regularly materialised Katie King between 1872 and 1874.  Florence willingly participated in Crookes experiments where he endeavoured to study both the medium and the materialisation, Katie King. Crookes had Florence move in with him so as to watch her closely, help evade opportunity for trickery and of course so that he was in a likely position of witnessing any full spontaneous materialisation of Katie King. Many people scoffed at this arrangement and according to one sceptic - Trevor Hall, Florence was sharing Crookes’ a bed as his mistress. According to some sources, Florence was also rumoured to have been as young as fifteen, although it is also thought that she lied about her age.  Furthermore, the spirit of Katie King had declared that she would take full form throughout the year to prove the existence of the spirit world in repentance of her wicked life. As such, it was rumoured that Florence shared her bed with Katie King during this year of “development”.

 

During her manifestations, Katie King –like many other spirit forms – emerged from behind a curtain or from a cabinet or closet piece where the young attractive mediums were bound by ribbons and strings to prevent fraud.  However, not all performances such as these were intended to be evidential of the spirit world.  Ann Eva Fay was famous in the late Nineteenth century for her “phenomenal” act in which she was tied by her hand, neck and ankles to a pole, seated on a chair and secreted in a closet. Various musical instruments were placed on her lap, and after the closet door was  closed, the audience would hear the instruments being played form within and then witness her garments e.g. a hat and hoop being cast from the closet.  Interestingly, as mediumship grew in vogue and profit, Ms. Fay began to be billed as a talented medium.  Unsurprisingly, people started to really question the authenticity of the mediums; wondering if it was all a  vaudeville showpiece; people were keen to catch the girls mid-trickery.

 

Many of the young mediums were found to be concealing their “spirit” costumes in their drawers and others were found to have accomplices to act the part of the spirit.  What is a little less easy to explain are the eye witness accounts of levitation, however, reports of Florence Cook levitating on to a table and floating around the room are incongruous with one another.  Some say she floated onto and off a table. Others say her clothes floated off and she was levitated on to the table naked before them; excited gossip and rumours will be near impossible to disentangle from any truth, especially when sexual fantasy was courting the fantastic.

 

Successful or not as a Psychical Researcher, Crookes was “privileged to walk arm in arm with the spirit.” However, through his career, the rumours of Crookes infatuation with the young lady grew; but his apparent fixation was not with Miss Cook but the spectral Ms. King; even going as far as “to take her in his arms to see if she were real”- purely on grounds of scientific enquiry.

 

The mediums were generally subject to physical inspections where they would be examined and compared to the apparent physical bodies if the “spirits”. Audience members were sometimes allowed to feel around in the darkened cabinet to compare by touch, the bodies of the medium and of the spirit. The texture of their fleshes e.g. the smoothness of their necks;  a lock of “spirit” hair  would be cut; their and undergarments examined and as in the case of Florence Cook, one sceptic remarked that the “corset and stays worn by Katie King were terribly fashionable”…”trimmed with lime”.  The very thorough body searches were generally conducted by women- for decency’s sake -and the contents of the girls’ drawers would be inspected. Many fraudulent mediums were found to have secreted items around their person and in their undergarments; frequently the scanty spirit costume. One journalist of The Daily Telegraph remarked upon “the ungraceful confusion” created by the strewn garments behind the curtain or cabinet doors; this journalist presumable would have been like many of the audience who were imagining the chaotic garment aftermath of the striptease act preceding the materialisation of spirit.

 

Some mediums even purported to produce paranormal objects and ectoplasm from their bodies some are even claimed to have produced substances from their vaginas.

 

In more recent days similar trends have been seen; Fodor (1967) refers to an incident in 1934 where a medium, Mrs. E.F. Bullock, reports having felt a hand massaging her womb during transformations. It has been claimed that mediums draw on their sexual energy to manifest spirit forms. Furthermore, some have purported a psycho-sexual theory of such phenomena. Theoretically this suggests that hauntings and spiritualism  are a reaction to sexual repression - akin to our Victorian Spiritualists it seems that their may be a correlation between sexual repression and a desire to know the dead. 

 

So what was really going on?  The current scientific community in the main, regard Florence Cook and her contemporaries as fraudsters with financial motivations (The young mediums often received regular donations from wealthy believers).  It seems that there must have been more than simple trickery going on, How could such  eminent scientists such as Crookes, have been so easily duped? Perhaps they were willingly deceived by these young women.  Perhaps this fantasy role-play allowed young women to explore their sexual prowess and older gentlemen to feel needed and accessible to the fairer sex.  The parlour rooms suddenly became the playground for eroticism involving, the undressing of young and apparently naive women, their restraint, their being unleashed (as an alter ego perhaps?) to have their bodies idolised and of course their subsequent physical examinations and attention.

 

Perhaps it was acceptable being a believer rather than having scarlet desires and admitting to being deliberate party to such scandalous events. 

 

It seems that even Queen Victoria herself was not short of a spiritual advisor or two. Highland ghillie John Brown who allegedly had the gift of “second sight”, served both the Queen and Prince Albert in their Highland estate. It is said that after Prince Albert died, John Brown acted as the ethereal messenger between the two and thus some might speculate that the lonely Queen of Sexual Repression was privy to some post-humous materialisations of a Prince Albert.

 

Spiritualism- was it all smoke and mirrors for a truly Freudian love affair? Was it all a case of hysteria*? It seems to me that our Victorian predecessors found an outlet for sexuality in such a time of self-denial and chastity.  Consequently, it seems that the importance of social responsibility and a code of ethics within scientific research must be heeded as we continue as a nation to battle with Eros and Thanatos. We still hold the Victorians in high regard among our fantasies and perhaps these sittings had all the psychological elements of an erotic masquerade where Sex wears the face of Death and innocence dances hand in hand with power.

 

 

* the term “hysteria” was of Victorian origin and refers to a “wandering womb”.  The wandering of a woman’s sexual organs was typically to blame for female emotional outbursts.

 

Bibliography

Brookesmith, P. (2004). The Fortean Times. Issue 179. Dennis Publishing.

Fodor, N. (1964).  Between Two Worlds. Paperback Library, N.Y.

Oppenheim, J. (1985). The Other World, Spiritualism and Psychical Research in England, 1850-1914.  Cambridge University Press.