1. What attracted you to the Neo-Burlesque movement?

I didn't know much about the "neo-burlesque" movement as a movement when I got involved.  I was simply creating dance numbers (with Helen Burkett who later would become one of the members of the World Famous Pontani Sisters) that were interspersed between "acts" of tradition theatre.  My involvement was simply an extension of what I identified in a video I made in 1997 for graduate school entitled "Dragging it Out:  Gender, Identity, and Performance" myself as a female drag queen.  The costume box I had in my early twenties has grown to an entire room and multiple closets of reconfiguring notions of self.  When Helen became part of the Pontani Sisters, I was invited to share the "work" I was doing in my living room with living, breathing audiences.

2. What changes has Burlesque undergone since its origin in mid-19th century?  Do you think, in some way, it has come full-circle?

Burlesque is an elastic art form that has changed with the times.  19^th century burlesque was about parody – an inversion of form and content.  Most 19^th century burlesques were "travesties" – making "high" culture topics and themes "low."  When Lydia Thompson and the British Blondes invaded New York City with their unique take on burlesque, they took the theater world by storm.  They lampooned classical and contemporary culture alike.  One of the main elements of 19^th century burlesque that continued (throughout the next 100 years and beyond) and continues today is the presentation of an image of "woman"/"women" that goes against the grain of what is considered "respectable" behavior in the public sphere.  Burlesque women have carved a space for themselves on the stage that reconfigures women's place both onstage and off.  Rather than conceptualizing it as a "circle", instead I like to think of it as a spiral (as I am uninterested in the impossibility of "authenticity"):  the conceptual and practical preoccupations of burlesque have changed according to the times but one factor remains (and has remained for the last 150 years) and that is a PARODY of contemporary and classic culture alike.

3. What's the fascination it holds for today's audiences?

I've said this in the past and it as of yet has not been met with opposition (though I know one day I will be taken to task for it) but one of the fascinations with burlesque oscillates around it being an amateur art form.  That does not mean the performers are not professional and that many of them have not received training in dance, acting, etc., but rather that one can conceive and perform a persona with little or no training.  Audience members identify with that possibility.  Audience members can watch a performance and think, "I can do that."  Or, if they are not interested in doing it themselves, they may think, "Good for them for doing their thing."  It's a rooting for the underdog to some degree.

Many (but not all) burlesque performers also push the envelope and make the audience think about representations of ideal beauty, politics, contemporary social issues, etc.  The politics are palatable:  glamorous, entertaining, and temporally short.  One may not have the patience to "sit through" a 45 minute butoh piece about 9-11 but the short format of burlesque allows performers to "sucker punch" (Julie Atlas Muz' phrase) the audience in a short time span.  And with our attention deprived culture, this, unfortunately or not, may be necessary for contemporary audiences.

The other fascination with burlesque that should not be ignored is the context:  the majority of burlesque is performed in clubs and bars.  It is similar to (but in other ways different from) cabarets of the early 20^th century:  spaces/places which depended on intimacy and the involvement of the crowd for the performance.  Drinking, smoking (well, not any more in NYC!), being verbal present are integral parts of burlesque shows.  It makes the audience feel like they are "part of the show."  And they are.

4. Are there parts of the current movement that stray too far from the definition of "Burlesque"?

No.  Next question.  Seriously though, I personally think that those who attempt to stay too aligned with the "definition of burlesque" as you put it are missing the point.  I can elaborate that point if you want me to.

5. Articulate how it differs from modern stripping. (Obvious, maybe, but some do not make the distinction.)

Burlesque in its current incantation depends largely on the art and act of stripping.  [Please see my blog on my myspace account, www.myspace.com/drlucky entitled "I'm a Stripper" for more on that.]  Jo Boobs has explained that one of the primary differences is performing to an individual (in stripping to make tips) versus performing for an entire audience (in burlesque).  This question, though always asked, seems to me to be slightly misguided.  It's asking one to vilify one form while celebrating another which I'm not interested in doing at this point.  Obviously, one is about money (stripping), the audience is different (mixed for burlesque, primarily men for stripping) and strippers tend to spend the majority of their stage time "scantily clad" while burlesque tends to culminate in the "reveal".  I do not deny that the "go go" and "topless" dancing that emerged in the 1960s changed burlesque, but rather than thinking about it as the "beginning of the end," I am more interested in conceptualizing it as a continuum.  I'm ambivalent about this topic as I don't see a huge connection with what you've called "modern stripping" [I think you mean "commercial stripping" since burlesque can be identified as "modern stripping"] and burlesque but at the same moment in which I say that, I understand that the historical trajectory cannot (and should not) be rewritten by those who want to distance themselves from "strippers."  So there are continuities and there are discontinuities but if you want me to say that burlesque is not stripping, well all I can say is "yes" and "no".  Fact is that early to mid 20^th century burlesque had a lot more variety in it than it does today:  comedians, variety acts, production numbers, etc.  But it's also important to note that burlesque at that moment was also considered "stripping."  So I think the question has the answer embedded within it, and represents a particular bias that most burlesque performers want to maintain.  Would I work in a "commercial strip joint"?  No.  But would anyone want to see me strip in a commercial strip going?  Again, the answer, is probably no.  So, yes, they are different.  But they are also more similar than many want to recognize.<O:P>

6. How many MEW annual weekends have you attended?  What's your impression?

I attended and performed at MEW in 2006 and 2007.  I greatly regret not attending in the past (I missed the goat farm!) but finances of a graduate student prevented me from doing so.  I now have learned:  do what you can, put that shit on your credit card, and GO!  My impressions are that MEW, like the form of burlesque itself, is constantly changing and that one of the most inspirational parts of the event is meeting the "legends" (or "vintage vixens" as they've been renamed this year).  Though there has been some controversy over what some "legends" consider the (mis)representation of burlesque, I still consider the presence of the legends to be a component that makes MEW different from other festivals.  I spent a lot of time with the legends this year (interviewing, hosting, hanging out with them) and I learned a lot from them, not only about the personal histories of these performers but also about the irrefutable fact that we live in a different time:  we are socially, culturally, geographically located beings.  I've been very impressed overall with individuals' personal interpretation of what constitutes "burlesque" to them.  The bling, the glamour, the brilliance is inspirational.

7. Have you seen firsthand in your classes how the performance art itself is empowering to women?  (I.e. redefining the image of Beauty?)

This is what I call "beauty performativity" – grounded in Judith Butler's concept of gender performativity – aptly put (and paraphrased here) by Dita Von Teese: "we burlesquers are beauties of a created kind".  Of course it's empowering:  here's a forum where one can imagine, create, choreograph, and pull off a persona to great critical acclaim.  But, again, I think the question is missing a major point and that is in the neo movement, burlesque is not solely about representations of women on stage:  at this point, it's misguided to ignore the influence of "boylesque" and others who do not fit within this strict dichotomy of "men/women".  But I should add that I do think it's important that people receive a "different" conception of what constitutes an image of "beauty" in our current era of emaciated "stars".  And for both of those incantations in the neo-movement I am grateful.  But, if we look at the history of burlesque, it has often been about reconceptualizing and presenting an image of woman (or beauty) that goes against the grain of what the dominant order conceptualizes as "acceptable."  I'll send you my student's feedback for the last 3 years:  they can probably answer that question better than I can.

8. What about it's subversive element?  (May relate to question 2)  I'm curious how it has evolved from the more puerile phase, when the main audience was men in trenchcoats.

You should read (or reread) Allen's Horrible Prettiness for this point.  He argues that burlesque has the possibility for "subversive transgression" and connects it to a reconceptualizing of "dominant/submissive" as "ordinationion/resubordination", that burlesque as a cultural production is about ordering, not about simply setting itself up in opposition to the dominant order.  Burlesque is subversive because it allows a space for alternative representations of "sexually aware" women (again, what Allen and Buzsek and others have identified as women "aware of their own awarishness") to "do their thing" in the public sphere.  Being aware of one's own awarishness, in its recent incantation explodes the very concept of "women" in the first place:  one of the most fascinating aspects of neo burlesque to me is that women who are "doing their gender right" (Butler) may be identified in this space of social transgression (men dressing up as women, women dressing as men dressing up as women (World Famous BOB's "female to female"; my "female drag queen" -- basically an explosion of gender divisions and social expectations)) as MEN.  I have heard a number of times folks asking about hyper feminine women:  "Is that a DUDE?"  That, to me, would never happen out of the context of the neo burlesque stage (well, maybe it would happen at a drag show, but that begs the question of understanding drag's important influence on the neo-burlesque movement).  It's because people's conceptions of what is acceptable representations of beauty, femininity, and what people do in PUBLIC dismantles peoples' conceptions of, well, everything.  That, to me, is burlesque's possible subversive element(s).

9. How is it a pertinent topic to offer as a college class?

Well, now, do I really need to defend my course from an academic perspective?  Burlesque has had a huge influence on American popular culture (and no doubt other locales as well though I cannot speak as well to that.)  (Watch the documentary "It's Burlesque!" for burlesque's influences on contemporary culture.)  To me the course I teach is absolutely revolutionary because it considers a historically based performance style/genre/movement(s) in its entirety.  That students can study and understand the roots of much of what now constitutes American popular culture and trace how the art form of burlesque has changed over time is unique.  My course is historically and conceptually grounded and, to me, one of the most pertinent aspects of "burlesque" is that it is still going on.  That my students come to class teaching me about new performers and troupes is revolutionary.  It is ALIVE, existing NOW, as we speak, and while I typed this some girl in Kansas just created a new myspace page (and hopefully invited me as a friend!) about her new act.  I don't know very many college classes that simultaneously celebrate the history of and current incantation of an ever evolving art form.  We study the history:  19^th century burlesque, minstrelsy, vaudeville, world's fairs, emergence of film, invention of the "new woman"; and concepts such as nationalism, exoticism and orientalism, camp and kitsch, gender performativity, modernism/modernity, semiotics, etc.  I think it's pertinent to a student's general understanding of American culture and society.  And, frankly, I think it should be a required course for all incoming Freshman!

10. How does the class transform your students?

 Well, again, you should ask my students to answer that question.  But I think the course asks students to rethink their preconceptions.  One of the interesting byproducts this semester is that many students rethought their conceptions of "stripping" (or "commercial stripping").  I'm not necessarily interested in turning all my students into burlesque starlets (though some of them emerge from the class with that possibility fully intact!).  BUT I am invested in them thinking through the cultural transformations happening around them and placing these transformations in both a historical and conceptual context.  The course asks students to rethink their preconceptions and through that I hope and believe they are transformed.  Students are already thinking, observant, conscience beings.  I think the course asks them to push the boundaries of their preconceptions; this, I believe, automatically leads them to transformation.  On the first day of class I ask students to write a "letter" to themselves defining what they think burlesque is.  I return these letters, signed and sealed, to the students on the last day of class.  I'm pretty sure that each and every student, regardless of their experience with the class, would write a different answer on that last day than they did on the first.  So that, to me, measures what academics call "value added."