Pretty Things (2005 TV Movie) User Reviews

Fascinating subject

[akimon · 5/10 · 30 August 2005]

And it would have been a fascinating and engrossing documentary, if only Ms Goldwyn stayed out of the picture! I understand this is a movie about her coming of age- she has a long way to go!- but these women were very interesting subjects on their own, and it just seems such a lost opportunity. Instead of all this footage of Goldwyn prancing around, singing - cringe!- and toying with her "sexuality" (not that I sense any) why not show more archival footage of Zorita and co and let us hear more of their stories? In any case, this is Liz Goldwyn's movie and she can do whatever she chooses, but I feel this would have been a really great film with more reality and less of Goldwyn fantasies.

An exercise in self indulgence

[torpedoboy4 · 5/10 · 11 September 2005]

This movie felt very "grad school" to me. Or even a therapy session. Goldwyn has a lot to learn as a documentarian. Why oh why did she feel the need to show herself so much? If she had only focused the camera on the actual dancers, then we would have gotten an even fuller picture of burlesque history. It would have also been really great to see more of a correlation between sexual and government politics of the era. The archival footage of these beautiful proud women was stunning. When the actual dancers spoke, I was amazed, especially by Zorita and her bluntness. When the film-maker spoke, I cringed. With every word she spoke I knew there was that much more time stolen from the dancers' spotlight. For Christ's sake, when this was filmed, the clock was ticking loudly for these poor women. Didn't Goldwyn understand the sense of urgency to tell their stories as thoroughly as possible? These women were so elderly, and a few died before the film even saw the light of day. Instead of an exploration into the full richness of their lives, we got Goldwyn's failed attempts to be sexy. The film wasn't all bad though. It articulated that pseudo-grace cannot be substituted for god-given grace, even when they wear the same clothes.

Good topic, shaky presentation

[angelatalk2000 · 5/10 · 25 July 2006]

Others have noted that Goldwyn's documentary was weakened by her insistence on inserting herself into the story. Two of her subjects even told her she was interpreting their stories to reflect what she wanted to see! Her intrusions made it difficult for the women to tell their stories. It was a shame, because the film could have been a vivid picture of an era in entertainment that has disappeared. Older ladies teaching their stuff to the new girl was not a bad idea, but Goldwyn let it take over the show. She also omitted all mention of one of the most famous, and most mainstream strippers; Gypsy Rose Lee! Goldwyn seems talented, but needs to grow as a film-maker.

Interesting subject matter, but poorly conceived

[dealaw12 · 3/10 · 22 August 2005]

What could have been a fascinating look at burlesque queens from the 40's and 50's turns into a vanity production for the untalented, but obviously well-connected Liz Goldwyn. The subject matter is rich, but Goldwyn oddly chooses to focus on her own pursuit of the art of stripping rather than the experiences of these women. Just as the interviews with the former strippers start getting interesting, Goldwyn forces the audience to watch her clumsy and awkward renditions of the bump and grind. The camera work is bizarre. In a scene where she interviews two former vaudevillians, Goldwyn keeps the camera centered on the trash can placed between the two actors.

She also imposes her agenda and her own feelings about stripping on the gals that actually made a living at it. Goldwyn insists that burlesque is a glamorous art form without listening to a word of what the interviewees are saying. Not only do they tell her that stripping was not glamorous, the majority of the women hated it. They loathed being treated like trash. The most beautiful of the pack, Sherry Britton, responds to Goldwyn's insistence that Britton was such a "confident" young woman by telling her, "that's what you think about me, but it isn't the truth." It seems that Goldwyn's purpose for making the doc is self-serving: She wants an act and needs her subjects to give her their old costumes. Even the music is narcissistic. Instead of scoring the piece with the brassy sounds of the old strip clubs, Goldwyn records and sings her own rendition of "Big Spender". She never gets to the heart of who these ladies are or how they survived once burlesque was over and old age and sagging muscle tone settled in.

It left me wondering if HBO owed the Goldwyn family a favor.

Awesome Documentary marred by Filmmaker's Agenda

[luludavis · 8/10 · 27 August 2005]

Filmmaker Liz Goldwyn has done a fantastic job in helping to tell the stories of these interesting women of the Burlesque art form. Unfortunately the film is marred by the Ms. Goldwyn interjection of her own personal pseudo-feminist agenda. The high points of the film are diverse stories told by an array of very different personalities such as Zorita and Lois De Fee. The low points are when the Ms. Goldwyn decides to let us in on her own personal triumphs and failures as a female in search of confidence and personal expression. As a personality, Liz Goldwyn is no match for these older seasoned women who have lead "real" lives as opposed to the life of an unfulfilled person who is on the outside looking in. The finale drags the whole movie down. If Ms. Goldwyn was attempting to contrast the personalities of these hard-scrabble broads with her own whining, self-indulgent, psycho-babbling self she sure did succeed. If I could cut out the parts where Liz Goldwyn talks I would. The result would be an awesome documentary about smart, confident women who survived in a harsh world by using their instincts instead wallowing in academic, navel-gazing.

Great subject matter and archival footage, film maker failed.......

[jeannie626 · 3/10 · 27 July 2005]

I agree with the first two comments up front. Goldwyn had such a treasure trove at her finger tips, and she squandered it for a self indulgent "art school" project. Honestly, I can see a college art professor getting really excited by the idea of this....Because the idea of school is to inspire the creativity of their students. But, this movie is so awful, and it could have been great. I've been collecting old pin-up mags and photos for years (by the way, I'm a 35 yr. old married gal..) and actually know some of these women by face & name. Goldwyn should be ashamed, her passive aggressive tactics were stomach turning...."But you look so beautiful in that photo, I could never be that beautiful..can I try on your delicate costume that's over 50 years old, show me how you wore it..." PLEASE!!!! She should have just been honest with these women, the result would have been the same...It's more repulsive to me knowing this kid is Hollywood royalty, it would have been so nice if she was actually cool...not to mention talented in terms of the true art of documentary film making. I would find myself engrossed in the interview footage, and the archival stuff, and then there she would pop up, like a second rate Madonna circa. 1989. GET OVER YOURSELF! I apologize, this is the meanest comment I'll ever leave, because I'm so sad that the women featured (when Goldwyn was not hogging the film stock) deserved better! While the subjects were lively and engaging and such a kick to watch, the interruption of the film maker was jarring and ultimately unpleasant. Oh %!@*!, and she can't sing!! And her vocals are all over the soundtrack! (Covering old standards, of course...) If you're reading this Liz Goldwyn, I apologize for being mean, but if the point of your film was provoke a reaction (no matter what kind) I suppose you have done a fine job.....I mourn the loss of so many of these great ladies. Peace.

how NOT to make a documentary

[bcrumpacker · 16 September 2005]

1. Too much time spent showing these classic fantasy girls in their caftan and muu muu dotage. They should have been properly introduced, then given voice overs while showing much more old footage and stills. If I want to look at grannies, I'll go to Palm Springs.

2. Classic film student error: making the movie all about the interviewer and her opinions, instead of the subjects. LG has some dance moves, she has the stems, and she could pass for Capucine if she bothered to make an effort. Hint: make up, hair down to shoulder length, and chic clothes. But spare us the awkward rehearsals en pointe, the undergrad feminism, and the ending. And let's face it, without implants LG is out of her league here.

3. Great movie moment: Zorita hands LG a tiny G string and gives her a look that speaks volumes about what she really thinks.

4. Bottom line: less cheese, more cheesecake, please. BC

The director thinks a lot of herself, but don't let it stop you!

[Mark_NWDC · 8/10 · 28 July 2006]

I give the Queens of Burlesque a big 10. Liz gets a 3. I wish we could have seen more of them and less of the awkward Liz Goldwyn. Her concept of telling the stories of the lost royalty of Burlesque is great, but she interrupts the engaging history with her quest to pump up her own volume. Still, I did enjoy the rest of it. If you can look past a woman who seems like a 11 year old child playing dress up, and feast on the beauty of the Burlesque Queens, The Queens whose lives were anything less than beautiful yet they survived, thrived and can tell their stories, then you should enjoy this. Sherry Britton is honest and charming. I love her candidness when Goldwyn awkwardly asks her if she slept around. Miss Britton's answer is, "A bit. But I sent out the invitations." Classic and classy. Zorita is equally as honest, not only about her experiences as a dancer, but also her challenges as a lesbian in the 1940's. Betty Rowland proves she still has a lot of life and experience to share. Lois De Fee is so charming, with her slight Southern drawl and the sparkle in her eye. And seamstress Gussie Gross gives us the view of the stage that only an insider could know. I love these ladies. Too bad Liz Goldwyn is in it so much.

Egomaniac "Director" ruins the movie

[kimgor · 2/10 · 11 August 2005]

Immediately you are drawn in by the brilliant opening graphics, by the collections of photographs and the history that these women can share. You think "Wow, this is going to be great.. how fascinating!" you put down the clicker and get ready for wonderful entertainment and a new understanding of these women. Then you realize that there is this irritating girl in her own world who keeps appearing in every single scene.. you ask 'who is this idiot?" only to realize that she is the director and you will be forced to see her - and hear her - the whole time. The only way to describe her is .. well, a drippy and passive aggressive self centered bore.. watch as she tries on clothes and/or give lifeless, one dimensional personal comments on what was happening in these women's lives. This 'director' obviously loves herself on film more than her subjects, missing almost every single opportunity to explore and enrich the viewer with what is absolutely interesting and full of potential. This is not a documentary so much as a self serving masturbation. Very Film School. Meanwhile, there are these missed stories.. these women who spent their lives as sex objects during a very weird time in our country's history.. sexuality and independence were both just peeking out from under the oppression and denial of the 50's ... how did these ladies get started, what did they dealt with, how did their families deal with it? .. we lose most of this while we blink in distraction watching this 'director' gratiate herself into every nook possible starting with her childish costume obsession.. Watch the strain on the dancer's faces - now in their 70's - as the 'director' asks to try on their clothing: fragile, precious relics and trophies from their career. Who would even THINK to ask to try this stuff on?! Who? A self centered, clueless, disrespectful ego maniac whose eyes are open only to see herself.. "oh yes that's very interesting.. oooh.. can I try THAT on?" These dresses are sacred to these women, left in zipped hangers for the past 40 years and some twit is going to turn on a camera and ask to try it on?.. Leave them alone - the clothes and the women! These ladies have an amazing life story, they are amazing now..

It turned out to be SO DISAPPOINTING!! You cannot help but ask yourself who this girl knew to get this movie made and presented to HBO.. Meanwhile, Pretty Things could almost be a segment on Saturday Night Live.. But seriously, It's a wonderful film to watch and learn how NOT to make a documentary.. compare this with something like Grey Gardens where the directors allowed their subject to blossom. Not to watch the director plant herself into the subject and kill it all.

God - I thought it was just me!

[pamelabporter · 10/10 · 7 May 2006]

First off - I give this a "10" *SOLELY* because of the presence of those fabulous burlesque ladies - especially Zorina - what a hoot! I thought it was just me who felt this way about this film! I caught it yesterday on HBO & came in after it started. I kept saying to myself - "Who *is* this annoying person and why is she in this film??"...along with "You have to be in touch with your body & sexuality to be able to be a stripper - and she ain't!" My most prevalent thought was "How did this idiot get to make a film?" and then the credits ran I saw Liz GOLDWYN. Duh! What a waste of celluloid. The strippers themselves were *fabulous* and I've always loved those costumes. Too bad this film can't be cut to edit out Goldwyn and her annoying presence.

Burlesque vs. neurosis with a budget: neurosis wins

[Paul Weiss · 3/10 · 26 January 2006]

I was quite eager to see what had been described as a "documentary" on the burlesque strippers of the second quarter (or so) of the last century. I worked as a live musician behind strippers in the mid 1960s, when the women I worked behind were already an anachronism. Older than I was by 10 or sometimes 20 years, they had an "act" (or a "shtick") with props and a narrative of sorts; they didn't disrobe completely; and there was no possibility of confusing the experience of watching their show with being a non-medical presence at a gynecological examination. They were also (to generalize, certainly) wilder than hell, full of life, and committed to a philosophy of behavioral laissez-faire which was truly mind-expanding to my young suburban self. Nevertheless, I am quite disappointed with the film.

OK, what is this film? First of all, to the degree that it explores the director's (and - should we also call her the female lead?) discomfort with her own sexuality, with her stammering, over-controlled and nearly inarticulate vocabulary of movement, and with her search for a new (and appropriated) vocabulary of movement which she hopes to be self-empowering, it may well be some sort of autobiographical essay, but exactly to that degree, it's not documentary. (By the way, watching her attempt to perfect some bumps, grinds, and shimmies while "en point" in ballet toe shoes is an example of the brittleness of her self-conception, and provides apparently unconscious self-parody. For a person who spends as much time as she does looking at herself in the mirror, she sees remarkably little, and nothing to laugh at.)

Also, in an effort to mold the expression of the strippers (yes, oldish women, but in the context of this film, first and foremost strippers) to cleave to a puerile combination of partly-chewed and regurgitated academic feminist theory and the psycho-babble of sex and power, she robs from the strippers the often formidable authenticity and power of their statements. They lay it out bare (as it were) and she hurries to wrap it up in something that's not so scary. Several times the strippers quite obviously are suffering her as an annoying, uncomprehending tourist to their world. At one point, one of the strippers says "Oh come on, now - you're not THAT naive!" Unfortunately, I think that the stripper may have been incorrect.

Given the inherent interest of the topic (to me, at any rate), and the rich color and authenticity of the old strippers in the film, it saddens me that I think the movie such a dog, but dog it is. A producer with a commitment to excise the egregiously self-indulgent and narcissistic strains from the movie would have resulted in a much stronger work. As it stands, you'll learn more about female burlesque (if not about stripping) from watching old Lucy reruns.

A Blown Opportunity

[malthursday · 4/10 · 22 July 2005]

This is one of the most frustrating and infuriating viewing experiences I've had in years, and a real blown opportunity to do a comprehensive job telling the story of these burlesque queens. The problem is that Liz Goldwyn inserts herself into the story, and takes it over with her misguided attempts to do striptease, something that she has neither the looks nor the body for.

I mean, if you want to strip, it helps if you have actual curves. This woman needed to go on the all-ButterBurger diet for a month. But it's not her anorexic frame that's the problem here. It's her ego-tripping, wrongheaded approach to the subject that torpedoes this project. Despite having one of the Maysles as her cinematographer, she violates all the rules of documentary film-making, and misses the point time and again.

The interviews are great, and funny in spite of the filmmaker, who keeps trying to insert her third wave feminist rhetoric into their life stories. Whereas the strippers themselves are very matter-of-fact about their careers, Goldwyn keeps trying to tell them how they "owned their sexuality." When the women tell her about the raincoat crowd masturbating under newspapers while the dancers did their bump-and-grind, her reaction is priceless: "How dare they!," she says, adding, "That's not what it was about...It was about witticism...Empowerment." No, it was about women taking their clothes off and guys wanking to it. As one of the strippers says, "We were the poor man's brothel." If Goldwyn has a problem with guys beating off to strippers, she needn't worry that anyone will be masturbating to the striptease number she performs at the end of the film.

Zorita, a stripper who often used a snake in her act, has a lot of the best lines. Goldwyn keeps asking Zorita about her lesbianism. When she asks what use Zorita had for men, the response is classic: "A hairy chest and a limp joint. Who needs it?" At another point, when teaching the fan dance to the clueless filmmaker, Zorita tells her, "You're queer for asses." Anyway, there's some worthwhile stuff to be found here, but there could have been so much more if not for the overprivileged and undertalented Goldwyn and her lame, Women's Studies take on classic striptease.

Oh yeah -- she also loses points for using David Bowie's "Oh! You Pretty Things" as the theme song, instead of the Bo Diddley song.

A phenomenal subject and worthwhile film, due to some cool ladies

[Snead Hurn · 8/10 · 25 July 2005]

A fascinating subject - the burlesque queens of yesteryear. My hat's off to Liz Goldwyn for putting the project together and capturing the stories and views of some very strong and interesting women, while they are still around and interested in telling their stories. Liz's naiveté is somewhat charming and offers a nice offset to their world-wise and witty, knowing experience, which is most apparent in their grace and restraint. However, her insistence on inserting herself and her own "performance" - particularly at the conclusion of the film - is a little odd, and only understandable in the context of her apparently younger-than-her-years' perspective on a profession that was a blend of female elevation and not so pleasant way to make a living. In any case, a "do not miss" film for the experience of hearing some terrific, smart, working women who in the 1940s and 1950s managed to keep themselves and maintain their self respect in a role outside of societal expectations. The women Liz Goldwyn chose to feature never fooled themselves about the nature of their work, and their honesty and the integrity is a pleasure to share. Last but not least, they are truly beautiful, and sexy women. It's nice to be reminded just how beautiful a natural, soft female body can be, and how just draping a scarf and dropping a strap can be mesmerizing.

Narcissism

[chrimcyn · 2/10 · 2 August 2005]

What could have been a brilliant & entertaining documentary morphed into a self-indulgent display of Ms Goldwyn's narcissism. It was an exercise in futility to watch her emulate the graceful movements of the queens of burlesque. These women practiced the art of illusion,using their bodies to express fluid motion while enticing their audience. It would appear that "Zorita" had Ms Goldwyn all figured out as an imposter; on a REAL stage, she would have been booed off by the crowd! HBO should pay closer attention to the quality of their documentaries. Much of the material, editing, and commentary seems to come from Filmaking 101. Quite frankly, I don't CARE that Ms Goldwyn can tell the difference between a jete or a plie,it simply wasn't relevant.

Movie is about more than dancers

[fffe6axcyqdnoqc · 8/10 · 1 August 2005]

There have been many complaints about Goldwyn's insertion of herself into the film and while ultimately I suspect this is an issue of taste, I think there's also a lack of understanding on the part of the complainers.

Most seem to think Goldwyn was totally unaware of how she came across on screen and, though I suppose that that's possible, I doubt it. Instead, I think Goldwyn knew that she would come across as naive and a little bratty. The movie thus is not just a documentary about Burlesque dancers from 50 years ago, it is also about a woman trying to wrestle with and define herself sexually in the course of making this movie (I think I read that it took 8 years.) What makes the film unusual, and Goldwyn herself a little maddening, is that in the end she seems not to "get" what the rest of the audience gets -- that burlesque stripping was quite often a demeaning and degrading affair. Her refusal to show any nudity could be read as a kind of chickening out -- she doesn't "walk a mile in their shoes" as she promises at the outset.

At the same time, I think her defiance of expectation and convention (conventional structure dictating that the scales drop from her eyes, that she strips on stage and feels exposed and humiliated) presents another possibility. It's not that she hasn't "gotten it." It's that she has "gotten it" and decided to retain the fantasy. It's a sort of deliberate cognitive dissonance.

For her, burlesque is an escape and liberation -- even though she knows damn well it wasn't for her subjects. And for me, the odd pathology which permits her to both accept and ignore everything she's learned simultaneously is as fascinating as her interviews with the women. I think her flaw was not including too much of herself, but perhaps not including enough. I wish there had been more specificity and exploration of her personal psycho-sexual history, but perhaps this would have come at the expense of the women. Still the strange tensions in her, and between her and the women make for a fascinating, and entertaining, movie.

What a WASTE

[viciouscargo · 1/10 · 25 July 2005]

Ditto on previous comments. The first time I've actually been angered by the filmmakers ignorance, ineptitude and insistence in hogging the camera. She simply doesn't get it, -the subject matter, or how to make a film- and the result is a deeply disappointing non-documentary on what is a rich and wonderful subject matter. So much time is wasted on Liz Goldwyn practicing (bizarrely) en pointe, being fitted for a non-burlesque costume, singing in a studio (lingering, pointless closeup of her 20k Cartier bracelet) and thinly veiling her interest in the aged dancers giving her their costumes ('OOOH! I'd love to wear that OUT' to which Sherry Briton explains she 'can't have it'). It's embarrassing to watch.

She's an inarticulate interviewer, misses the points being made to her and complains endlessly that she doesn't want to get naked or let anyone see anything while she awkwardly paws their dresses and tries them on. It's maddening. I have to wonder if the editors and people who worked alongside her weren't sending her up a bit by including the revealing material.

The second insult is the fact that none of today's women who have been reviving the art form with well-known and widely traveled burlesque shows aren't even discussed.

HBO should pull this, salvage the footage of many of the now deceased performers, remove all footage and comments by Goldwyn and hand the project over to an able filmmaker. The queens of Burlesque deserve much better.

Fine film when judged on its own terms

[tomzorthian · 8/10 · 22 July 2006]

My views are similar to those voiced by Jim Jenson in his user comment. Many of your reviewers wanted a different film than the one Ms.Goldwyn has made. It irks me when reviewers fail to discuss the movie on its own terms, instead focusing on the film that is presented to them. Though much of what is said about Ms.Goldwyn's lack of natural dance talent is true, I don't think she would disagree. One theme of the movie is her insecurity. She is only an average dancer, but still dances better than most of us because of her tenacious dance training. Her voice is fine and I thought she did justice to the song "I Want to be Loved by You" in her homage to the Marilyn version. Goldwyn may not possess the beauty of her subjects, but she is an attractive woman. Her figure doesn't cause one's jaw to drop like the bodies of her subjects, but she has a nice figure and is not anorexic.

It is also noted by some that Ms.Goldwyn is a wealthy Hollywood aristocrat. More plaudits to her, then, for creating art instead of just luxuriating with her lucre.

I enjoyed the film, but also would like to see more footage of the strippers then and now. But that would be a different film. The idea of having someone use the raw footage of the interview with more archival footage (and possibly some new interviews) is a great one, but it would be a different film and stand on its own merits. This would give us two films, both of merit (at least I hope so). HBO would be smart to look into this and it would be an interesting historical document.

Who is the subject?

[krelm2001 · 1/10 · 8 August 2005]

Ms. Goldwyn seems to have no idea about how to conduct an interview and makes this entire film about herself. There are modern burlesque dancers that should have been interviewed for their interpretation of what burlesque was and is rather than Goldwyn's feeble attempts to watch herself dance in a mirror and on film. Not only does she have no sense of sensuality or rhythm, she is oblivious to the fact that no one wants to watch her. The camera operator should have had the sense to focus on the dancers who had real stories to tell, not the gratuitous and narcissistic self-discovery of Ms. Goldwyn. Don't waste your time watching this.

Documentary is about Goldwyn rather than Burlesque

[gk2829 · 4/10 · 29 August 2005]

Liz Goldwyn's new documentary on burlesque is a facile account of the golden years of striptease. To give the director some credit, the interviews with the performers are fascinating. However, Goldwyn's contribution to the topic was disappointing. Her commentary and her performances are so pitiful and shallow it is hard to believe anyone gave her money to complete this documentary. Many of the strippers came from troubled backgrounds and went into stripping because they needed the money. Liz Goldwyn's point of view seems to typify upper-class privilege. One of the strippers reminiscences in the film about how one of the Astors gave her 20 dollars and asked her to ring him up sometime- an obvious sordid appeal for cheap sex. The stripper was naturally offended by his effrontery. I don't believe Goldwyn's depiction is any less exploitative and self-indulgent than Astor's crass attempt at attention and sexual thrill. Lastly I believe Goldwyn never was able to stay focused on the topic of the documentary. Instead I was left with the feeling that Goldwyn was exploring her own obsessions rather exploring the history of Burlesque in America.

Don't believe the other "reviews"!!

[santorikelly · 10/10 · 19 September 2021]

I'm actually shocked that someone (sic) felt so jealous and mean-spirited as to write multiple bad reviews of this celebrated and memorable HBO doc. This was an excellent documentary, Liz! The multiple (very long and negative) reviews posted with obviously similar themes and writer(s) is pretty transparent. They barely disguise the slight differences in style and tone and all just regurgitate the same over-stated complaint about Liz ruining this documentary and wasting her opportunity and her privilege. Not so!! This piece was actually well-received. Liz is not self-centered and egotistical. In fact, her warm personality and ability to make others comfortable is evident throughout the film. The subjects of the film clearly enjoy her company and she is able to get them to share and open up on ways rarely seen.

Liz I hope you are enjoying your current successes and thank you for this doc. I viewed it many times with many others and we all were thrilled.

Could this be anymore of a disappointment?

[cj-123 · 3/10 · 15 March 2007]

I was excited to see how HBO would capture the realm of the Burlesque. There were so many ways to make an award winning documentary - and only one way to really fail. Strangely, Liz chose the one way to make such a promising film a bomb... she made it all about herself.

Liz is actually quite attractive, but all you see in the film is that she's an attention whore. The few moments she gave to her "guests" was the substance of the show, the rest was like being stuck in a room with a little girl playing dress up.

It bothers me that she wants us to view her " coming of age " but pulls back anytime there is something actually sexy. She even states again and again that she doesn't want to show the camera too much. The naughty bits are what the whole thing was about. It's like making a documentary about war, but not showing any fighting.

I hope that HBO gives an opportunity to someone else to do a real documentary about Burlesque. This was a waste of time.

A Short History of Burlesque

[sharonmaeg · 9/10 · 19 January 2007]

I really enjoyed this documentary. Maybe Ms. Goldwyn was a bit stiff in her dance, but she was great at bringing out the best in all the burlesque queens she interviewed, and I think she enjoyed herself doing it. The costumes were magnificent, no matter how dated they were, I just wish Ms. Goldwyn wouldn't have tried everything on over her clothes. Modesty is fine, but she could have found another way of modeling all the glitz. It was interesting to observe the attitudes that all the "queens" had, and how they displayed their affections (or lack thereof) for each other. They were truly fun to watch and I totally enjoyed the "old broads"!! I would watch it again, and hope to see another film produced by Liz Goldwyn. Hats (or clothes) off to her!!!

The singular worst piece I've ever seen

[Thalog482 · 1/10 · 24 September 2005]

This is the worst piece of 'film making' I have ever seen. 'Film' maker Liz Goldwyn interviews a bunch of really cool old women who used to be in burlesque. The women and the archive footage were great, those were the coolest ladies I've ever seen and what they had to say was usually quite interesting and/or humorous. However, Liz Goldwyn comes along and tears everything apart, the main thing she does is turn burlesque into something much larger then it is. She talks about it being a way to make a performance and have power in your sexuality, how it's not something shameful and all of this other rubbish. She even mentions the men masturbating in the crowd and tells them to **** off, "Who the **** do they think they are?" well, who the **** do YOU think they are? They're the target consumer. Burlesque was pornography back when it required talent as well as breasts, nothing more then that. However, she comes along and acts like it's about making an elegant performance and it's not some thing for men to masturbate too, which as well was insulting to the women she was interviewing. Everything those women were saying was contrary to this image she was trying to create for burlesque. All of their commentary about other dancers usually included, "And she had big knockers". My favorite part was when she asked that one woman if she would like to see people refer to her as being a burlesque star with the same reverence as they would a movie star, and the woman said no, because she couldn't reverse what she had done. It was a poor man's brothel, just like one of the women said at one point in the movie. Regardless of every other implication, Liz got the message of what burlesque is in an entirely farsical view point. That naive view point was even insulting to the industry. She had to make it seem like it wasn't about giving guys something to masturbate to in order for it to not be shameful, which if I was a burlesque dancer, and I was one who had been confident in what I was doing, I would find insulting. I would tell you to watch this just to have something to laugh about.

No Talent, No Boobs, No Rhythm, O My!

[AZINDN · 3/10 · 11 September 2005]

This documentary explores the world of the stripper culture, and is meant to be insightful as a young woman, Liz Goldwyn interviews the few aging burlesque queens living. Although Goldwyn attempts to examine the stripper of American 1930-60s society, these ladies are anything but that; they're mostly real hardworking "dames" who with good figures managed to make a living shaking their maracas in sleazy joints not inhabited by nice gentlemen.

The exotic dancers are themselves both catty and nostalgic, but all were more interesting than Goldwyn, whose lack of dance talent and self-confidence is comical but more irritating in an ending dance sequence she closed the film. The woman learned nothing from the women although again and again the frustrated strippers attempted to impart their wisdom to her. Goldwyn, who was more intrigued with their costumes than their words and advice is at fault for their words went past and over her comprehension so that the label "documentary" needed replacement. A better title would be "without a clue."

The filmmaker centered the story on herself with egocentric arrogance that she wastes the time of both viewer and interview subject. She should be ashamed. A poor interviewer, Goldwyn needs to take an anthropology course in interviewing techniques. She eyeballs the fragile and unique stripper's costumes with both envy and greed as if she were shopping in an antique clothing store. While these women were part of a historical theatrical tradition, and its passing is a loss for American cultural heritage, the Goldwyn documentary is more voyeuristic and clumsy, an insensitive film with vivid flaws that insult the intelligence.

Failing to delve beyond the surface niceties, the stories of these elderly women were sadly unexplored and thus, lost to the historical record by the inept costume-obsessed, interview fumblings of the annoying director/"star", Goldwyn. Easily missed or used for film classes as an example of "how not to make a documentary."

Self-indulgent journey

[Mambolica · 5/10 · 5 February 2007]

This film could have been genuinely interesting, a multi-faceted, personal and respectful investigation of the lives of the women who were the burlesque queens of the 40s and 50s. As I said, it could have been that.

Unfortunately, Goldwyn, treats these gracious, ballsy old women, who were the undisputed queens of the burlesque stage exactly in the manner these women despised when they were performers - as objects. Even the title of the film "Pretty Things" demeans and trivialises them and their histories.

Goldwyn, a wan and lack-luster interviewer/dancer with ridiculous romanticised ideas about sex and stripping, goes on a journey to unlock her inner sex symbol. The viewer is forced to watch her patronise and humour her subjects, asking them incredibly shallow questions and trying on their old costumes.

Goldwyn had a real opportunity to delve into the lives and experiences of these women and create a truly profound film about the pain, guts and glamour of burlesque, but instead trivialises them. Most of the women are not only smarter, more articulate, and funnier than Goldwyn, but as old women dressed in floral mu-mus, have more sex appeal and attitude in their pinky fingers than Goldwyn in her whole body.

And God help us, Goldwyn exposes her body and middling talents throughout the film, not only as filmmaker and interviewer, but as a dancer and singer. The film should have been about the women who owned the burlesque stage of the 1950s, instead it was a vehicle for Goldwyn's own self promotion, even to the point that it ends on her own 'performance' to the music she recorded.

Goldwyn had the chance to create a truly excellent documentary about the aging women of burlesque, but instead she gave us narcissism and mediocrity.