[un]dressed to impress: An Examination of the Impact That Clothing has in CHESS: The Musical

One Night in Bangkok, and suddenly the world requires the female ensemble members to completely strip, save for colorful lingerie.

Yes, the purpose of the song “One Night in Bangkok” is to emphasize the American chess player, Freddy Trumper, and his exploits as he is tasked with reporting on a chess match in Bangkok. Yes, the song directly informs the audience that Trumper is surrounded by prostitutes and other vices. Yes, it is indeed a song that by all means might seem to necessitate the most provocative of performances.

Except for that, the majority of the 2025 revival of Chess relies on androgynous costuming for the entire ensemble in gray suits, rather than the correct gendered attire. Essentially, no specific outerwear is assigned based on the ensemble character’s sex. However, during the song “One Night in Bangkok," the ensemble members must distinguish the gender they are performing as by revealing what is underneath the unified outer clothing. Moreover, this is the only time when it is deliberately made clear that both female and male ensemble performers are on stage. At no other point in this revival are the ensemble’s sexes so distinguished.

Even more intriguing is that the male ensemble members are allowed to keep pieces of their neutral, exterior suits on. The most they had to “strip” to was going shirtless, and even then, only two or three of the male cast are actually shirtless during this number. Throughout this number, it is important to note that the male-identifying actors never reveal over 50 percent of their bodies for more than a minute.

This is in stark contrast to how the female ensemble lines up at the front of the stage at the beginning of the song, intentionally removing any gender-neutral elements that might conceal their femininity.

Apparently, to portray a prostitute or a sex worker, one must exclusively be shown as a woman. The messaging is clear: this is a woman’s practice, to be exposed as such, and it must be explicitly depicted in this way. What is never clarified, though, is why it is typically women who find themselves in such a line of work. Yet, it would take more than an onstage costume change to do that.

Regardless, the female ensemble should not be made to do something that is not expected of the male ensemble—exposure solely constituted by one’s specific physicality. In all honesty, it would have been enough for the female ensemble to keep their gray pants and suit jacket on while switching out the white button-down for a moderately revealing bralette. The same message the song conveys is exemplified while still emphasizing the ensemble's overall androgyny. And all performers on the stage would have equal levels of skin showing. Unfortunately, the performance, as it stands, puts a shock value on the female performers' bodies, given the exclusivity of their exposure (i.e., only for this song).

Overall, it creates a forced comparison between the monotonous uniformity of a genderless ensemble and the innate burst of excitement at anything that is different. Alas, it would seem that the artistic significance of an ambiguous ensemble will never matter as much as the eternal liberty to exalt the female form for the amazement of all to see.