Paris is Burning
Like a lot of people, toward the beginning I didn't think much of Paris is Burning, but as I went deeper and deeper into the documentary a lot of red flags started popping up.
I am trying to be more introspective and ever since I watched Seaspiracy I started to make myself pause and see what actually is going on. Like Seaspiracy, Paris is Burning brings good effects. It lets people experience queer culture and open their eyes to what queer culture could be; more specifically ball culture.
The problem with this, and this goes a little into my moodle post, is that it's too surface level. Because the director is trying to capture everything she isn't able to focus on what truly matters. Like we've said in class, she isn't part of the culture or the experience so how could she document ball and queer culture in its truest form.
One of the sadder moments in the film is the children interviewing at night. Although it is a part of what happens and should be acknowledged, I don't think it was acknowledged in the right way. The interviewer acted surprised at every answer and everyone else treated it as a joke. I think this didn't allow the kids a space to truly talk about the struggle and their feelings were only surface level. At the same time, whatever they did portray started to lose its power whenever it was used as b roll (or however you say it).Looking back at the film we see the shifts in ways of thinking. The world has begun to acknowledge the wholeness of being queer. And how there isn't one category. One thing that the film did well was highlight that not everyone in the ball was trans. It showed the fluidity of queerness and its definition when it touched on stories of trans women and gay men.
Lastly, I wanna touch on a part that kinda struck me. When they were interviewing drag queens that had participated in balls since the beginning they talked about the changes that they've seen. One of the biggest aspects of ball was creating art from the gowns and outfits made. It was another layer of expressing yourself. And then they touched on how its shifted from this art form to a competition of designer.
I guess this documentary left me with a lot more questions than answers. I don't really know how to end this so I will say that even though this is VERY controversial I hope in the future documentaries learn from other's mistakes and try to deliver a more accurate portrayal. and pay everyone that is in it.


I agree with you first statement stating that at first we might not have noticed some of the red flags in the film but after listening to our discussions it was evident that there were many. I agree with you points at the end as well. We can definitely educate ourselves on the mistakes this director made to avoid making those mistakes again in the future. ~LJ
ReplyDeleteHey, this is Angela C. I want to say that I agree, how could Jennie Livingston truly document ball culture when she isn't a part of the experience or the community. I really loved how many of the people being filmed actually appreciated the limelight and the camera capturing who they really are, despite there being lack of a queer lens. By queer lens I'm really talking about Jennie Livingston identity and those in our class making it very known that she is not queer. Her lack of queerness emphasis how her questions and directing were very surface level.
ReplyDeleteI'm at the end of my response, and don't know how to end my comment. Sooo, ill end with saying that I love how detailed your blog post is Fannie! Keep up the great work!