An Application of Film Theory to ‘Burlesque’ (2010)

(December 2018)

---

At first glance, Christina Aguilera’s 2010 hit film ‘Burlesque’ is simply an entertaining and engrossing film and simplistic quasi-musical. However, with the sheer number of famous musicians, actors and references throughout the film, the movie can only be better appreciated the more it’s understood by analysts and the more an audience enjoys or empathises with it.

Steven Antin’s ‘Burlesque’ uses a powerhouse of stars to elevate both the story itself and elevate the publicity and buzz that surrounded its release. Antin, a relevantly unknown director, doesn’t stick to themes or typical styles like a lot of famed or blockbuster directors, for example the Spielberg or Burtons of the film industry. The obvious style differentiation between Antin and say, Spielberg, is that there are no thematic similarities with Antin’s films and no real hidden links between films, as some film-buffs love to find.

For this film, the real factors that create such hype and success are of course the stars used and the act of taking a well-known narrative idea (he poor girl, moving to Hollywood to find stardom) and changing it to show more empowered female leads and a modern take, in such a decades old storyline.

The leading ladies of Burlesque are the legendary Cher and Christina Aguilera. Though in the 80s Cher dabbled in film, Aguilera used ‘Burlesque’ as a platform to ‘comeback’ from a somewhat career hiatus and to really show off the talents of singing, dancing, acting, comedian and so on, that she posses’.

Though Richard Dyer claims the ‘woman’s film was designed for a female audience’, in the current cultural climate and including of openly gay characters, the film stretches its audience for those who love; the stars included, the art of Burlesque and indulging in a non-generic musical. However, both Dyer and one of the fundamental developers of ‘Star Theory’ Christine Gledhill, both agree the usage of stars for their cultural value helps signify morals or values a spectator might identify with or ideas to share with an audience for a sweet lesson throughout the film. Gledhill’s idea of cultural value (1) works quite well with the stars used for the film itself. Cher is notorious for speaking out on social and political issues and much like Aguilera, is a big advocate for the LGBT community. These types of values may be seen as favourable and in 2010, before the policies of gay marriage or equal rights pretty much, were legalised for LGBT people, stars such as Cher, Aguilera and acting heavy –weight Stanley Tucci have all actively spoke out for and with the community and upon closer inspection, the film not only signifies the art of womanhood, sensual and refined but also the arts of burlesque, drag and performance- that have all been developed and lifted through the gay and drag community (2).

Other relevant points on the stars used in ‘Burlesque’ is that the representation of character with actor is fitting and the dynamics of power are easily portrayed and twisted when needed. Cher’s on screen character of ‘Tess’, the club owner, is a feisty, blunt and successful ex-dancer/performer. Now, Cher as the ‘real’ person really does fit that criteria, the use of such a powerfully famous and successful artist really heightened the character and Antin’s decision to use Cher helped her career also, leading her comeback into film and musicals, which of course led her to star in ‘Mamma Mia: Here We Go Again’ in the summer of 2018.

Much like Cher, Aguilera and Tucci are character chameleons, Aguilera in the sense of her previous ever-changing and evolving musical style and sense and of course, Tucci, renowned for his haunting role in ‘The Lovely Bones’ and his ability to switch from comedic supporting actor to dramatic villain/leading man.

Again, Gledhill’s theory suggests that films use stars as ‘constructs’ (3) almost and that it gives audience the yearning to know the real person from the ‘reel’ star. For the audience of ‘Burlesque’, arguably they were drawn to the film for either Cher or Aguilera, because they are the powerhouses of the production AND audiences or fans of the two know their personas through the decades of them being in the spotlight and through countless encounters on talk shows, social media and of course the honest persona each woman seems to genuinely hold.

Though some stars are looked upon negatively, some use their platform to promote values or social ideas that push fans and those who may just know of their names, to just follow positively in their footsteps- Cher’s ongoing feud with current president Donald Trump and Christina Aguilera’s work with body image and using her platform and career to send messages of empowerment and ownership of one’s body and mind to girls, boys and all those in between.

The links between Gledhill’s theory of stardom and that of Dyer are those of apparent stars as use for money, status and living significantly in front of a camera for the amusement of audiences (4)

Richard DeCordova on the other hand, details and researched the ‘emergence’ and interpretation of stardom in film and society. Do we need a hierarchy of being to feel uniquely satisfied? Or is it simply that stars are used as money-making machines and when hired in films or media stints, the agenda of a company or management can control the messages or persona the ‘star’ sends out into the world. The negatives of star theory, such as the intense interpretations and worrying power that celebrity-dom may have over society, just isn’t as lethal in 'Burlesque' than say films that visibly use exploitation of power or status to convey said message. Think ‘The Wolf of Wall Street’ in comparison to the somewhat lesser ‘Chicago’ that is Antin’s ‘Burlesque’, it requires only for an audience to switch off and enjoy: the point of Burlesque is for enjoyment and not to quizzically analyse whilst watching the film.

The stars included may help this factor, as some performers acting prowess, as well as (in this film) Cher and Aguilera's apparent musical talents, can intrigue us. For an easy film –goer, the analysis in this film is that of the acting skills and whether you can decipher between the celebrity likeness of Cher and Aguilera and the characters they portray on screen. The deliberate casting of such iconic stars may have been exactly what Antin needed to promote and furthermore, create a unique and fun take on such a used-up storyline, yet the film is favourable for enjoyment and as a ‘feel good’ film.

Burlesque as an art form is an exploration of female sexuality, prowess and an encapsulation of the true essence of empowering the divine female. Essentially it explores female sexuality, class, dignity and intelligence and moreover, creativity, a factor in which many films in Classic Hollywood would skim over, as to remove a woman’s ability to be portrayed as, or actively be, creative and innovative. To an extent the film looks at adversities that challenge driven women and force them to give up things for their dreams or struggle and, though cliché, hope it’ll work out in the end.

‘Burlesque’ is an all-round feminist film and uses stars Cher and Xtina to excite different generations and the cast themselves embody true female grace and strength- both leading women are renowned feminist icons and revolutionaries in the music industry. The film is sound in accepting that burlesque would have been to sexualise or objectify women- Laura Mulvey links this to the male gaze (5), in which films and characters are created to excite or project fantasies for male spectators. However, the act of burlesque represents the ownership and a woman’s possession of her sexuality, body and voice and therefore the film takes the idea of claiming back the rights to a woman’s body and tries to destroy the ‘male gaze’ theory, for the girls do not care for pleasing men in an ‘erotic’ or muse-type way, but entertaining audiences as theatrical dreamers and performers.

The film is a brilliant example of Angela McRobbie’s post-feminist icon theory (6)- the idea that there is an element of control for a woman’s and her own representation. This factor means women exude both male and female tributes like strength, courage and logic but a woman that is willing or allowing herself to be sexualised or objectified, shows her control over her audience or likeness or the ‘gaze’ of those who watch her. Back to Mulvey, her belief that there is a sexual imbalance (7) within society elevates the need for more dominant or ‘masculinised’ female characters on screen, as if to claim back equal representation in film and in regards to society or the current culture of the film industry.

‘Burlesque’ as a feminist film was crucial during its release date (2010). It was birthed from the stars intrigued in it and the era of ‘Legally Blonde’ and the pushing for female leads and allowance or need for powerful characters that are women or just as simply- allowing women to be smart, or comics or simply just the ones driving narrative, without aid of men or titles such as ‘girl next door’ or ‘the psychotic ex’. The development of feminist film theory covers a range of aspects within the film and media industry but in reference to ‘Burlesque’, shows how women can come up with solutions, without interference of men and how women can become successful, without falling into the exploitation trap of becoming an object of desire or fault- the only two paths for a woman in a storyline it may sometimes seem.

To link back to star theory, Aguilera and Cher help stimulate the idea that powerful celebrities can create a domino effect of powerful characters or role models. Perhaps the use of said celebrities helps the ideals used in the film stick with fans and help audiences overcome desire to put women leads on a higher pedestal for some reason and learn to enjoy and be excited for a female led film- much like the success of ‘Charlie’s Angels’ or the original and remakes of ‘St Trinian’s’. We can use one of Cher’s debut films, ‘Moonstruck’, to explore this idea further. Cher as the lead would have been riveting for fans, as she was a huge star at the time but the film and its success, which is little to none, is a strong example of the double standards in the film industry (8). ‘Moonstruck’ was a flop in the box office and though starred a younger Nicholas Cage, the disappointing successes of its release led to Cher, the leading lady, being heavily reprimanded and mocked for the film and led to a lack of appearance from her in films from then on. Cage, however, was seemingly unhindered, as though the fault of the flop was pinned on Cher.

The need for feminism in the film industry was of course to allow for more respected and creative representation, but also for the excitement from audiences that a female would be a lead or a director. ‘Moonstruck’ is also an example of how the acceptance of failures for men would lead to a fairer industry, yet throughout film history, the ‘logical’ and ‘strong’ man (9) was never labelled as the weak link or reasoning for a failure, the fault would always fall upon the woman.

However, ‘Burlesque’ shows not one weak woman and uses powerful characters to create a sisterhood of burlesque.

Issues discussed are accidental pregnancy, struggling business, alcoholism and the struggle to become successful in Hollywood, the land of hope and failed dreams. The film uses, to some extent, feminist ideals of pro-women acts and beliefs within the nature of the film. It can be analysed as a lighter take on political ideals of women being used as sex symbols or more complexly, the idea of a burlesque club being used to end patriarchal stigma of sex and the choice of women to perform (10) or allow spectators to enjoy their femininity as an act of performance and art.

‘Burlesque’ uses the crossover of feminist theory and star theory to produce a film enjoyable, relatable and impressionable to the audiences watching it.

Feminist film theory argues fluidly that Classical Hollywood cinema was produced by and for males to adhere to the male gaze and the need for men in society to be inspired to be heroic or strong but that was not going to be possible without equally as strong female parts. In the current film industry, the need for vocal women to break through stereotypes or barriers in creating, its growing stronger and more necessary. Mulvey’s beliefs are that the images of women are often depicted as weak or to be undermined by the male gaze and the depiction of women in this nature, it only privileges the male audience or for this example, the males within the industry. ‘Burlesque’, though not directed by a woman, is an all-round pro-women film and is the beneficial feature for compelling leads and narratives featuring women as the powerhouses and the supporting acts being your non-ordinary male or female additions. The usage of such renowned stars firstly excites and intrigue potential audiences but secondly produces such enjoyable characters that offer more than one-liners or a flat lining plotline- they offer insight to the minds of powerful women, with desires and driven abilities to succeed.

References:

1- Christine Gledhill (1991). Stardom: Industry of Desire. London: Routledge.

2- Kari Lerum. (2010). Burlesque Is So Gay. And That’s A Good Thing… Available: http://msmagazine.com/blog/2010/12/02/burlesque-is-so-gay-and-thats-a-good-thing/. Last accessed 25th Feb 2019.

3- Film Reference Forum. (2018). Stars. Available: http://www.filmreference.com/encyclopedia/Romantic-Comedy-Yugoslavia/Stars-STAR-STUDIES.html. Last accessed 25th Feb 2019.

4- Richard DeCordova (1990). Picture Personalities: The Emergence of the Star System in America. Illinois: University of Illinois Press. 130.

5- Emily Lowe. (2016). Laura Mulvey and the male gaze in the 21st century. Available: http://www.studentnewspaper.org/laura-mulvey-and-the-male-gaze-in-the-21st-century/. Last accessed 25th Feb 2019.

6- Angela McRobbie. (2004). female Individualism. In: McRobbie, A Post-Feminism and Popular Culture. England: Taylor & Francis Ltd. 255-261.

7- Laura Mulvey. (1975). Woman as Image, Man as Bearer of the Look. In: Lewis, M Visual Pleasure in Narrative Cinema. University of Glasgow: Screen. 6-18.

8- Marcia Sirota. (2017). The Entertainment Industry Double Standard Hurting Women And Men. Last accessed 25th Feb 2019. Available: https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/marcia-sirota/entertainment-industry-double-standard_b_15263092.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer_us=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_cs=ji9lzzdyps9DvN6B9RfTpA.

9- Andy Simmons. (2016). Explainer: what does the ‘male gaze’ mean, and what about a female gaze? Available: http://theconversation.com/explainer-what-does-the-male-gaze-mean-and-what-about-a-female-gaze-52486. Last accessed 25th Feb 2019.

10- John Hess. (2014). New Burlesque: Is it empowering or demeaning to women?. Available: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-25782781. Last accessed 25th Feb 2019.