Paris is Burning
Paris is Burning is a film that provides a look into the drag queen and ball subculture of 1980s Harlem. The film is composed of shots of the ballroom scene interlaced with interviews of members from the scene, either with them talking directly to the camera, talking-head style, or talking while they are doing an activity such as sewing or applying makeup. The film is broken up into sections, signaled by white text labeling the sections, either with members' names or prominent aspects of ballroom culture, such as “Reading.” Those interviewed discuss their personal lives, their connection to the ball scene (either through being part of a house or being a mother), and how the ballroom scene has allowed them to create and belong to a community of their own, even if they still dream of something more.
This dream of something more is a repeated theme in Paris is Burning. Many members who were interviewed discussed their desire for fame and fortune, with some having specific goals in mind, like becoming a model or professional dancer. We even see one interviewee, Octavia, go and audition to become a model. In chapter five of A Critical Introduction to Queer Theory, Octavia’s want to be wealthy is highlighted as an example of the film's reinforcement of the notion that identity can be bought or self-created (Sullivan 95). In the film, Octavia also says that if money wasn’t a need she wouldn’t want much more than what she had. But because money is such an important thing in our capitalist society, Octavia and those like her have to dream of having money in order to do what they want with their lives. But even when they do dream of money, they aren’t dreaming of extravagant things; most want a home, a family, and in the case of transgender interviewees, a sex change. One person even said that if they had millions, they would share it with friends and members of their house. I wanted to mention this because I thought it showed how, even when thinking about a fantasy future, the ballroom community is still within a lot of people’s hearts.
I think the film does a good job introducing audiences to the ballroom scene and it acts as a good learning tool for those today who want to learn more about queer history. However, there are still critiques of the film, which I believe bell hooks put best when she wrote:
“She [Livingston] is not asked to speak about what knowledge, information, or lived understanding of black culture and history she possessed that provided a background for her work or to explain what vision of black life she hoped to convey and to whom. Can anyone imagine that a black woman lesbian would make a film about white gay subculture and not be asked these questions?” (bell hooks 151)
If Livingston had addressed her internal biases and her role as a filmmaker creating this documentary, I don’t think she would have received critiques like those of bell hooks. But as hooks mentions, Livingston avoids “...the difficult questions underlying what it means to be a white person in a white supremacist society creating a film about any aspect of black life…” (bell hooks 151) This critique brings up the question of how documentarians can document subjects when they are from outside their culture. I think, to do it right, a documentarian needs to build a connection with members of the community, one that precedes the film and lasts long after the documentary is done. And from what I’ve read, it doesn’t seem like Livingston does that. I’ve read about how Paris is Burning was important to New Queer Cinema, and it certainly helped Livingston's career, but what about those who are the focus of the documentary? One article discusses how the cast of the film was paid a couple of hundred dollars, and then had to fight for, what I would argue is, a deserving amount of money (Collins). It’s these aspects of the film that make Paris is Burning such an interesting film to critique. Because within it is the potential for a dichotomy of views, which we can so clearly see from reviews.
I will say, while I think there are valid critics of the film, for me it was an enjoyable watch, especially the end scene. The film's last interviewee, an older drag queen, ends the film going against what many others in the film dreamt of; stardom and fame. They talk about how, as they got older, being a “big star” became less and less important. To them, you’ve left your mark on the world by “...just get[ting] through it and having a few people remember your name. Then you left a mark. You don’t have to bend the whole world, I think it’s better just to enjoy it. Pay your dues and enjoy it.” While the film has valid critiques, and those cast in the film may not have received the financial recognition they deserved, I can say that they have absolutely left a mark on the world.
Citations:
- hooks, bell. “Is Paris Burning?” Black Looks: Race and Representation. South End, 1992, pp. 145–56.
- Sullivan, Nikki. “A Critical Introduction to Queer Theory.” New York University Press, 2003.
Hi Milo!
ReplyDeleteI appreciated the theme of self-creation throughout the documentary that you touched on in Octavia's interviews. The scene where they describe "Executive Realness," and the queens are saying that they look like executives and the only reason they're not executives is because of the circumstances of their birth really struck me as powerful. When Pepper Labeija was describing what she would do with wealth, she describes herself as a generous person, and would share the money with all her loved ones. Emulating the fantasy of wealth is for the balls, but wishing to just be able to pay the bills is the reality outside the ballroom.
I also think it’s so interesting how Livingston seemed to avoid the questions about race as hooks describes. The same article featured in your post by Collins includes snippets of an interview she did in which she said “When you look at class in America…Underclass people tend to stay underclass. And rich people tend to stay rich. That was not a condition that Paris Is Burning created,” which is so interesting when you examine her role in creating the film and what she deliberately chose to include and exclude in the narrative, as well as how the subjects of the documentary were (/were not) compensated.
ReplyDeleteHi Milo,
ReplyDeleteI also think Livingston's avoidance of race and poverty within the film is fascinating, and also pretty telling about the perspective she created with the documentary. I think it's incredibly tone deaf that she said that "was not a condition that Paris Is Burning created" (to steal a quote from Milo), because that erases an entire facet of the queens lives. I think that adds to the criticism of the film sensationalizing its subjects which is . . . pretty dehumanizing, in my opinion. I think the film has a lot of really valuable things to say, but also leaves a bad taste in my mouth with some of its choices.
Milo, when reading other people's blogs for this film, there are common elements of white, capitalistic culture. But, your blog is a bit different. It does highlight that mentality, but you also reinforce the idea of family bonds and ball culture, in sharing the wealth instead of wealthy individualism. It is something we see very minimally in the film, but I think it is important to acknowledge it, as you do. For many of the queens, they want to be comfortable and would probably be willing to share their wealth and fame with the people in their lives that are important (drag parents, houses, etc.). I also appreciate your take on Darian Corey's last words about aging and enjoying the journey rather than demanding fame. For every queen, they have different desires, but this is just such a kind, humbling perspective that juxtaposes others we see in the film.
ReplyDeleteI loved your mention of how while these queens and trans women were dreaming of wealth and money, not to have an extravagant life, but rather to simply be able to safely live, own a home, and have a happy life. While there can be a discussion made about the seemingly white feminist comments from Venus Xtravaganza and some of the other queens, it stems from a place of wanting safety, acceptance, and comfort in their lives. Great thoughts!
ReplyDeleteHi Milo!
ReplyDeleteI thought that your commentary on the drag queens in the film wanting money in a way of survival, rather than genuine wealth was super important. All they wanted was to not have to struggle to live, and to have the ability to enjoy themselves. So many people who have any amount of money (middle class and above) want more money, in the way that they want wealth, where people in poverty often just want to not be below the poverty line.
Your blog was incredible to read especially when you discussed these layered conflicts and perspectives. I agree with you that Livingston created a redefining film and brought more identities to the media in her film, but I also see the issues and understand the critics she received. Yes, it may have been hard for her to capture a different culture than she identifies with herself but like you said at the end of your blog, those casted in the film left their mark. It is sad they didn’t receive the credit and financial recognition they deserve but I think they left something greater than Livingston did.
ReplyDelete