Are We Thinking of the Same Thing?

My very initial thought upon reading the first two chapters of this book was what on Earth is going on? My idea of Burlesque is tainted by the film featuring Christina Aguilera. I think of very provocative dancing with equally provocative clothing. Understandably, the definition of what was considered to be risqué in this time period is far different than my own connotation; however, the author stated that the clothing of the Thompson was different in style but as appropriate as that of ballet dancers. I also was not expecting for the show itself to be a literal play. Granted, they made some changes to modernize the scripts. In the Burlesque that I have come to know, there is not an actual plot. There is simply singing with vulgar dancing. The whole concept of Burlesque back then is drastically different than what I had envisioned. While the show is the main event, there are other forms of entertainment at the theater/museum. When I was reading it, the event seemed more like a circus act than a show. They are featuring a giant and a baby woman. And if you stick around you can watch the burlesque show. Would you like peanuts while you’re watching, too?  I also wondered what they thought to be the basis of beauty. There was a comment about how some men were dissatisfied by Thompson’s looks. Although her body proportions were fine, they thought that her face was not handsome. Is someone deemed beautiful simply by their face or by how they present their body? To me, even her body proportions seem off. In Burlesque, all the actresses are stick-thin. I know that times are different and in the past different body sizes were more appealing; however, does her face really matter? If I go to the ballet, I am looking at the dancer’s legs and arms and the shapes she makes with her body. I pay little to no attention to her actual face! Is it not enough that her body is pleasing enough? Would they have been more satisfied by a “beautiful” face with a body that does not match?