Photo by Scott Pakudaitis
In the popular vernacular of contemporary life, the word burlesque is often used synonymously with exotic dancer. But while both titles imply the removal of clothing for the titillation of a crowd, the art of burlesque focused more on conjuring a seductive tease than imitating carnal desire. Burlesque performers could mesmerize with lithely enticing movements designed to leave audiences craving more. Playwright David Mann’s Queens of Burlesque, now running at the History Theatre, excels as a loving tribute to all those talented women who danced under knowingly ridiculous monikers, some seeking fame and fortune, others hoping merely to pay the rent.
Set in 1953 at Minneapolis’ Gay 90s, then a club specializing in bawdy variety, Queens of Burlesque goes behind the curtain for an evening’s entertainment. In-between the scintillating striptease, dancers clash over headlining slots, run afoul of crusading moralists, and contemplate the harsh realities of their profession. Mann populates the nightclub environs with dancers who at first glance seem drawn from overly familiar archetypes but soon reveal far more facets than their stage personas would ever suggest.
As Gladys Page, the wizened veteran of the Twin Cities burlesque circuit, Greta Grosch gives a powerfully emotive study of a dancer reluctantly nearing the end of her career. On the opposite end of the spectrum, Daisy Macklin Skarning’s depiction of Barbette DeLight radiates the giddy naiveté of an aspiring ingénue. Between these two extremes are Blaze Comet, the reigning headliner played with headstrong assurance by Stacia Rice, and Rose DuBois, the ambitious rising starlet played by Emily Rose Skinner. Each of these four gifted actresses provides utterly captivating portrayals that resonate with an affection befitting a family. Like siblings, these characters might argue amongst themselves, but their heartfelt support for one another remains resolute.
While the burlesque artists are the star attractions, the production is flavored with an assortment of eccentric peripheral figures, from the one-liner comic (Brian Sostek reveling in groan-inducing jokes) to a hopelessly smitten newspaper reporter (played with bumbling charm by Matt Erkel). Even moralizing zealots emerge to protest the proceedings (a hysterically repressed Karen Weber and a befuddled Brian Sostek). But while most of these secondary characters are played for laughs, Scott Jorgenson’s take on Mack, the bar manager and emcee, is heightened by an unexpectedly gentle sentiment that is genuinely touching.
Though the direction of John Miller-Stephany firmly establishes the backstage drama as the heart of the production, it’s the onstage stripteases that quicken the pulse. As a founding member of Lili’s Burlesque Revue (not to mention the wife of playwright David Mann), Choreographer Gina Louise Woods brings a sultry heat and a sly humor to every routine, particularly Stacia Rice’s saucy take on Little Bo Peep and a “bathtub” performance by Emily Rose Skinner that starts with risqué suggestion but ends on a note of surprising refinement. Sexy and fun, Woods' choreography never fails to impress, especially during the versatile group routines.
Of course, a burlesque show wouldn’t be complete without some appropriately outlandish outfits. Costume Designer Matthew J. LeFebvre (who served double-duty with an equally impressive set design) dresses the cast in a va-va-voom assortment of burlesque staples including feather boas, lacy lingerie, and strategically placed lilies. The shedding of such adornments is bewitchingly lit by Lighting Designer Mike Wangen and set to an original score by Andrew Cooke that deftly evokes the swinging sounds of the era.
As a vividly rendered recreation of a classic burlesque revue, Queens of Burlesque is certainly a success. By actually exploring the lives of the women in the sheer apparel, however, the production achieves a thrilling intimacy that reveals far more than sequined tassels.
Queens of Burlesque runs through 05/23.
For more info: History Theatre
Comments
Thanks for the great review, Brad! One little typo - I think you mean "Woods' choreography" rather than "Skinner's choreography" near the end of the article. Just an oversight, I'm sure. Thanks again!
I think he just means Emily Skinner's dancing was great... which it was!
Thanks for the wonderful review. You really understood what we were trying to do.
Thanks for pointing out the error. While Emily Skinner does a terrific job with the dancing (as do the rest of the cast), I did want to give a special nod to the exemplary quality of Woods' choreography. Kudos all around.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!