Paris is Burning: An Outsider Looking In
Paris is Burning (1990) is a documentary directed by Jennie Livingston. The film spotlights drag queens living in New York. It’s a film that falls under the label ‘new Queer Cinema’ which Monica Pearl defines as, “. . . [G]ay independent cinema, made amid the AIDS crisis, that defies cinematic convention. This defiance can take the form of being fragmented, non-narrative, and ahistorical” (Pearl 23). Its main focus is on the Ball culture of 1980s New York, and the audience finds itself immersed in the culture of Houses, competition, and living as queer people in the Big Apple during the 80s. This film culminates in something that feels celebratory and educational while housing an undercurrent of melancholy – mostly about the real world outside of Balls. It features predominantly BIPOC drag artists and focuses on their specific queer community, but also highlights how that community has had impacts on the greater queer community that we know today. While this film spotlights members of the queer community that have historically gotten overlooked or sidelined, it is a double-edged sword. Viewing this film requires a nuanced approach. We need to be able to note the high points and also criticize its shortcomings.
This
film acts as a window that not only lets its audience peer into history, but
specifically a type of culture that doesn’t get the recognition it deserves. It
gives voice to people that, at the time (and even still to this day), are
silenced persistently. It’s a triumph in itself that a film that centers around
BIPOC queer folk directed by a lesbian was able to be made during the time it
was. Daniel T. Contreras writes, “I would argue that Paris is Burning is one of the very few New Queer Cinema Films that
directly and complexly dealt with race at all in an unavoidably queer context”
(Contreras 120). This film doesn’t seem to sanitize itself away more modern
queer movies have done. It’s very loud in its queerness, and it doesn’t make any attempts
to shy away from that to appeal to a straight audience. The heart of this
documentary is the drag artists interviewed, all of whom seem very
unapologetically queer.
In
terms of race, how the film deals with it is more complicated. Everyone who was
interviewed was black or Latin. Paris
is Burning is a film about queer
people of color and that is a big and important part of the film. It doesn’t
attempt to hide that fact or include white people who aren’t really a part of
that community. However, it’s worth noting that these people have been influenced
by the dominant white, particularly, hyper-capitalistic ideals of America. The
most prominent example of this is through something Venus Xtravaganza, a young
Latina transgender woman. In a personal interview, she says, “I want to be a
spoiled rich white girl. I don’t want
to have to struggle for finances. I
want a car. I want to be with the man I love. I want a nice home away from New
York. I want my sex change.” This quote examines the ambiguous and complex way in which
race is portrayed, but it’s also an example of how complex race relations have
always been in America. America’s systems of government, society, and culture
are designed to keep people of color down. Because of their heritage and/or the
color of their skin, their lives are noticeably more challenging than the lives
of white people. Whiteness comes with inherited privileges that are actively
denied to anyone who is viewed as non-white. I think Venus understood that her
life would be a lot easier – she would be able to get the relatively basic
things she wanted – if she were a cis white woman. America’s white-centered,
heteronormative culture wants to make anyone who doesn’t fit into a specific
box hate who they are by enforcing the cold reality of being considered an
outcast or being othered, and actively flaunting the fantasy of being amongst
the privileged masses. And I think this film showcases that reality that is reflective of
real-life ambiguity.
While
this film doesn’t feel like it’s trying to appeal to straight audiences, it
does feel like it’s trying to appeal to white audiences – which is likely a
casualty of the director of this film being white. Whatever the intentions of
the director, the lens through which this story is told is through a white
queer woman. Bell Hooks writes:
What could be more
reassuring to a white public fearful that marginalized disenfranchised black
folks might rise any day now and make revolutionary black liberation struggle a
reality than a documentary affirming that colonized, victimized, exploited, black
folks are all too willing to be complicit in perpetuating the fantasy that
ruling-class white culture is the quintessential site of unrestricted joy,
freedom, power, and pleasure. Indeed, it is the very "pleasure" that
so many white viewers with class privilege experience when watching this film
that has acted to censor dissenting voices who find the film and its reception
critically problematic (Hooks 150).
Maybe
Livingston hadn’t meant to uphold the values Hooks feels this film does, maybe
Livingston was well-intentioned in creating it – or at least convinced herself
her intentions were good. However, a well-intentioned white person can cause harm when they’re ignorant
of certain complexities and underlying issues that are apparent to people of
color. As white people, we should learn that sometimes we need to take a step
back. We have had the floor for hundreds of years, and it’s perfectly okay to
let others take the lead or at the very least be more mindful of listening to
people of color when they speak. I like that this film is celebratory of the
subject matter, instead of being belittling, but I think it’s fair to point out
that there is a layer in this film that does uphold high-class whiteness as the ultimate
fantasy. Hooks has this to say: “it is precisely the mood of celebration that masks the
extent to which the balls are not necessarily radical expressions of subversive
imagination at work undermining and challenging the status quo. Much of the
film's focus on pageantry takes the ritual of the black drag ball and makes it
a spectacle” (Hooks 150). Historically, the majority has often taken to gawking
at the minority like a circus performance. This film gives the opportunity to
gaze at the flamboyance and extravagance of this specific subculture
without taking much time to dive into the politics and social issues that
surround it and/or influence it. I think it’s easy to get lost in the sparkling
outfits and charismatic dances and lose track of the darker themes that were
very present at the times – issues that everyone in this film dealt with and
even talked about.
Even
outside of the issues of how it depicted race, many controversies are
deeply embedded in this film. One such issue is that Venus Xtravaganza was murdered during the
production of the film, and it was glossed over (perhaps to keep that
celebratory tone that I mentioned before?). To add insult to injury, Venus
wasn’t even honored in the film's “in memoriam” section of the credits. I feel
like it’s basic decency to include her in that section considering she was a
big part of the film. Even if it was somehow a big oversight, the fact that a
death that was explicitly mentioned was just overlooked feels pretty telling of
how the makers of the documentary viewed her.
To
add to the controversy, there was an issue of payment. According to Vanity
Fair, about $55,000 was divided up amongst thirteen performers, despite the
film going on to make 4 million dollars. In an interview with Vanity, Peppa
LaBeija – a prominent star of Paris
is Burning – said, “I love the
movie. I watch it more than often, and I don’t agree that it exploits us . . .
But I feel betrayed. When Jennie first came, we were at a ball, in our fantasy,
and she threw papers at us. We didn’t read them, because we wanted the attention.
We loved being filmed. Later, when she did the interviews, she gave us a couple
hundred dollars. But she told us that when the film came out, we would be all
right. There would be more coming” (Collins). That’s not a good look for
Livingston. Especially, when it was mentioned multiple times throughout the
film that poverty was something these drag artists struggled with. It’s fair to
say that aspect of it was exploitative. It’s the people in front of the camera
that are the heart of the film. Their energy, honesty, and vulnerability are
the reason this film can stand at all, and literally the only way this specific
film could have been made. There is no Paris
is Burning without the drag
artists.
Overall,
this film is complex – in its production and in
its final product. In reality, I feel
that the subject matter was much more nuanced than Livingston produced it to
be. Because of that, it results in mixed reviews, between different people, and
even from one, single person. It was a wonder that such a film was able to
get off the ground during that time, and it’s amazing that the cast is
comprised almost entirely of people of color. However, it is problematic on
multiple fronts, and it doesn’t really push the boundaries as far as it wants
you to believe. It should be celebrated that this conception was able to jump
over so many hurdles, but it should be criticized for its treatment of its
stars behind the scenes, as well as its adherence to a status quo.
Works Cited
Aaron, Michele,
editor. New Queer Cinema. Rutgers University Press, 2004.
Contreras, Daniel
T. “New Queer Cinema: Spectacle, Race, Utopia.” Aaron, pp. 119-127.
Pearl, Monica B. “AIDS
and New Queer Cinema.” Aaron, pp. 23-35.
Collins, K.
Austin. “Paris Is Burning Is Back—And So Is Its Baggage.” Vanity
Fair, Condé Nast, 2019, https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2019/06/paris-is-burning-documentary-drag-jennie-livingston-interview.
Accessed 8 Sept. 2024.
Hooks, Bell. Black
Looks: Race and Representation. South End Press, 1992.
.jpg)
You bring up some really good points, especially as minority drag as a spectacle to the outsider white audience. The film seems to show a lot of the good, extravagant moments and glosses over the negative ones. It really does make the performers seem unique and like circus performers, as you mention. But that action ignores the hardships that go on behind the drag curtain. Similarly, you talk about white privilege and it being the subject of desire for many of the queens. If dominant white culture gains the privilege, why would those struggling in poverty not want to adopt its culture in attempts to gain some of that privilege? You talk about this idea well, and explain how that culture can "benefit" someone. Not to mention, the lesbian white privilege of the film maker probably plays a role in the way it is depicted.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading your blog, and I think you have some great points on Paris Is Burning. I really appreciate that you brought up that this film was a casualty of the director being white and that it tries to appeal to white people. I agree with you, and I also think that it might not be what Livingston intended to make, but it feels like the film was created from a hegemonic white perspective. Also, I liked that you mentioned payment to drag artists in the film and that they were not treated as they deserved. There are things I like about this film, but at the same time, it is so complicated to think about. Overall, you did a great job, and thank you for your thorough analysis.
ReplyDelete