"Crazy Girls" celebrated 28 years on the Strip last month, and "Fantasy" just threw itself a 16th birthday party. That makes them the third- and seventh-longest running shows in town.
The opening narration of "Crazy Girls" goes a step further, telling audiences it's the longest-running topless revue in the country.
4 comments:
I couldn't really figure out what the author of this article was getting at, but I'm going to make the assumption that he was trying to explore the idea that topless shows were created in order to be provocative, and modern audiences just don't view topless woman as provocative as audiences in the 80's may have. I don't know if that necessarily translates to audiences taking the woman for granted, but perhaps if they really wanted to embrace the spirit of the topless cabaret the shows may need to up the level of shock factor if they're going to stay in business long term. I wonder about the market segment that the topless productions are appealing to in the first place. I know that it must be predominantly males, but I just don't know why you would waste a night in Vegas seeing a topless show when there are so many other alternative forms of entertainment.
Is this the musical equivalent of "I read Playboy for the articles"? It almost comes across as sarcastic because what kind of person goes to a topless show and critiques the "art". Not a fan of the idea myself, but its clearly a great business model. The author seems to be missing that no one in Vegas thinks that these women are performing topless to make the art more provocative. I'm pretty sure they are doing it because they are making tons of money, the producers are making tons of money, the venue is making tons of money, and a lot of people are getting their rocks off by watching women dance topless. This is not about art, things do not become art just because they are on a stage. As long as the business model brings in more money why would they ever change anything.
Brennan poses the question why you would "waste a night" in Vegas when there are so many other forms of entertainment. I think that might have some correlation with the fact that it's called Sin City.
Like Brennan I'm not quite sure what theis article is trying to say, aside from calling for the general improvement of the topless shows. I thought at first that the author was calling for the removal of the shows form the more populated areas of the strip to help Vegas's more family friendly vibe. But instead it seems that he wants more toplessness for the back row? Or simply a variety in the content of the acts, more risque? I understand that these are some of the longest running shows of this nature and as such the acts have been worn a little thin. He also mentions however that some of the companies are making the strides to update their material albeit slowly. Really I'm just not really understanding the point of this article. How big are the topless shows of Vegas, are they essential to the artistic scene? Otherwise I feel like they are just one of those programs that should be left to its own devices.
In opinion, this article is trying to hide the fact that "[THEY] DON'T PERFORM ACTUAL SEX ACTS ON STAGE SO THAT MAKES US BETTER THAN OTHER SHOWS." I mean, sure. To be completely honest, I didn't know that there were actual people who made a living reviewing these kinds of shows. At this level of dancing and performance, how crucial is the fact that the performers are topless? It's something to be said that if you see something for a long period of time, the effect of it goes away. Does watching a show with topless dancers desensitize you over the course of the performance? I feel like having nudity in the the middle of the show after having your dancers clothed would make more of an impact with the audience. It definitely would increase the collective anticipation and eventually surprise them when it does happen. Otherwise, it just seems to be a dance show with topless dancers. It's Vegas.
Post a Comment