As a part of the New Queer Cinema movement of the 1990s, Paris is Burning by the independent director Jennie Livingston introduced the members of NYC's drag ball scene to the big screen in a way that was meant to educate mainstream white heterosexual audiences about that subculture. Despite its intent to inform, however, the film is not without its issues. Today I'd like to focus on feminist author and theorist bell hooks and her argument that Paris is Burning transforms the "ritual" of the drag ball into "spectacle."
In her essay on Livingston's documentary, hooks asserts that, "Ritual is that ceremonial act that carries with it meaning and significance beyond what appears, while spectacle functions primarily as entertaining dramatic display" (150). The camera's gaze captures all the glamour and athleticism of the ball contestants as they do their thing at the Imperial Lodge of Elks, but when it comes to the personal lives of those same individuals, we don't learn much about them outside of their relationship to the ball scene. When we do, in the case of Venus who is a classically pretty light skinned woman, the story ends in her death which is still ultimately framed as spectacle. That a young, beautiful, white-passing girl who claims to want nothing more in life than to be adored and spoiled dies is a tragedy but one that does not need further investigation or explanation according to the film.
I believe part of the reason behind Livingston's presentation of ball culture and its participants as spectacle rather than ritual has to do with her intended audience. It's pretty safe to say that the documentary is aimed at "outsiders" who want to look in on a marginalized subculture they're not a part of, i.e. cisgender heterosexual white people belonging to the middle and upper classes. In order to capture the interest of that particular audience, Livingston packs the film with images of lively, glitzy drag balls meant to elicit "oohs" and "aahs" from viewers. Another tactic she uses is the repeated message that these Black and brown queer people aspire to become their white cishet counterparts because as we said in class, white audiences typically want the media they consume to somehow relate back to whiteness.
The depiction of spectacle is a key aspect of Paris is Burning and likely contributed to its commercial success. This film goes to show that even when watching documentaries which are meant to inform, mainstream audiences want to be entertained, even if entertainment comes at the expense of omitting the true complexity of the subject matter.
I think your observations on the "spectacle" of Paris is Burning are very thought-provoking. It's frustrating to see how the potential of an informative documentary that could give respective credit and power to the community is lost to the "easy way out" of making it easily marketable and exciting.
ReplyDeleteDocumentaries are a complex genre of film because yes it's goal is to inform but without entertainment, people are less likely to view it the whole way through, thus less able to benefit from the educational aspect of it. Documentaries still require this sort of "shock value" to keep the audience engaged but yeah, you're right, it sucks that falls at the expense of the subjects.
ReplyDeleteHi Holly! I enjoyed reading your blog entry. I agree with Ben that your analysis of the use of "spectacle" is thought-provoking. Bell hooks' article made me view the film in a different light. This makes me think about this week's Moodle Question about mainstreaming of queer culture and its consequences.
ReplyDeleteI really agree, but I also think it has to do with the tendency people have to treat cultures outside of our own as a spectacle. That's one of the major draws of tourism in nearly ever country. People see something they aren't apart of and the only way you can reconcile that feeling of being an outsider is either by turning it into a spectacle or learning enough about it you could argue for being apart of the community. The latter rarely works and takes so much more effort so why not point and gawk at the pretty new thing you don't understand?
ReplyDelete