Proud Feels Pinch Over Burlesque Shows

By · April 29, 2009 at 11:40 am · No comments · Latest News · Report an error ·

2904_burlesque.jpg
Miss Polly Rae by WowtheWorld

Camden Council have ordered the immediate halt of burlesque nights at the Proud Gallery, demanding that the venue apply for a similar license to those held by strip joints and lap-dancing clubs. Under pre-existing but newly-enforced laws, local establishments Koko and the Roundhouse, which play host to burlesque nights, will also be forced to apply for the license.

Burlesque has had a respectable rebirth in the last few years, and London now hosts an annual Burlesque and Variety Fringe festival, but Camden’s decision threatens to re-open the tired debate about whether burlesque is first and foremost an overtly sexual performance, or a form of artistic expression — an issue most of the performers want to leave behind. Proud Gallery’s owner, Alex Proud, complained that “the letter of the law rather than the spirit of the law is being enforced.”

According to the Council, however, any such “entertainment of an adult nature” needs to have the proper licensing. Specifically:

“Any premises in the borough that wish to offer entertainment involving nudity, striptease or other entertainment of an adult nature will need approval from the licensing authority – burlesque falls within this criteria.”

Perhaps there’s merit in organising a fundraiser to take the undersexed office drones at Camden on a trip to a burlesque club so they can judge for themselves whether it’s really the same as a dingy peeler bar.

Tagged: , , , ,

Report an error

  • http://null mswake

    Oh come on. “Undersexed office drones”? What is this, Carry On Blogging?

    Which bit of the council statement are you disagreeing with? Does burlesque not involve nudity or striptease now? What exactly is the clear difference between strip clubs and burlesque clubs that means you should license one and not the other?

    Or is it just that paying to see someone’s tits might get all awkward and shabby again? Awwww.

  • Dave

    Well, it seems that it’s not just Camden Council who patently don’t know the first thing about the premise of burlesque performance. If ‘mswake’ thinks that burlesque and strip clubs are the same thing, it’s quite clear that he/she is seriously misinformed.

    As for the implication that burlesque performances are in any way about “paying to see someone’s tits” – anyone paying to go to a burlesque night for the purpose of this sort of titillation would likely end up sorely disappointed (and would be much better off sticking to strip clubs).

    Of course, anyone who had ever checked out any events within the burgeoning burlesque/vintage scene in London would already know this.

  • http://undefined Tom Williams

    As long as the bureaucracy involved with obtaining such a license isn’t prohibitively expensive/time consuming and takes into account the nature of the performances, then I think this is a reasonable thing for Camden council to ask for. Differences with strip clubs may well be obvious, but you can’t deny that burlesque is sill ‘entertainment of an adult nature’.

    Rules iz rules, and they should be applied evenly, otherwise you just end up with blurred boundries and loopholes, with every cheapskate strip club owner having his girls wave a feather or two around so he can claim its a ‘burlesque’ show.

  • http://undefined mswake

    OK, I shouldn’t have gone for the tits line from a position of ignorance and kind of wish I’d stuck to the serious point, as Tom did.

    Looking (admittedly VERY slightly, ie Google) further into it I can see there’s possibly a bit more wit about burlesque, but fundamentally I still don’t see a clear line between what you call “this sort of titillation” and what I can gather from pics of the South Bank shows from earlier this year (http://www.dafyddowen.com/Gallery.aspx?ID=65), or Chaz Royal’s promo at http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=6441412, for example. (I do recognise the extent of my ignorance here, so if this is unrepresentative, fair enough.)

    At least, it’s not a clear enough line that we can reasonably expect a council to draw it.

  • http://www.victorianlondon.org lee jackson

    The current vogue for ‘burlesque’ often seems to include women taking their clothes off, and adopting a range of sexual poses. It may be slightly reductive to call it ‘paying to see someone’s tits’ but I don’t think it’s grossly unfair. Whether we should actually need to license this, or object to it … well, surely it’s open to debate, tired or otherwise?

    Camden Council, however, are just doing their job. I think it’s a tad unfair to castigate them. If the law is ‘newly enforced’, I suspect it’s because burlesque in its ‘revived’ form is relatively new to the capital, and councils take a while to catch up.

    My own concern about burlesque is not that bare flesh is immoral, or that people shouldn’t portray sexuality for commercial gain. It’s that our perception of sex is becoming increasingly media-dominated; that sex-as-a-performance – porn – voyeurism – is increasingly the context in which young girls get their messages about sex; that eg. love – or even the concept of two happy people just having mutual fun together – doesn’t get a look-in.

    Burlesque isn’t responsible for all my worries, of course. I wouldn’t ban it; I probably wouldn’t even license it. But, hmm, I can’t say I like it.

←
→