Within chapter 10 of Film Art, Bordwell and Thompson explore the various methods of conducting documentary. They explain how categorical documentary focuses on a general group or phenomenon, while rhetorical documentary aims to promote a pre-determined message. Crucially when it comes to the review of Paris is Burning, our authors’ differentiation between subject and viewer-centred arguments gives credence to the possibility that this film is in fact promoting a voyeuristic approach to ballrooms. Ultimately Paris is Burning uses elements of the rhetorical approach in documentary to show the conflict between the zeitgeists (subject-centred arguments) & personal accounts or testimonies (arguments from source). Livingston uses these rhetorical devices in order to relate the personal emotions of performers to the audience (a viewer-centred argument). Ashley Clark’s review of Paris is Burning takes the stance that the film actually applies an incredibly reductive and teleological approach to portraying the Harlem ballroom scene. In producing a documentary that explains contemporary attitudes by spotlighting personal accounts and contrasting them to societal generalities, it is easy to assume that the filmmaker is more interested in how such a phenomenon arises rather than for what societal demand. This is likely why Clark argues that the film resembles an “anthropological foray”. I have to say as an anthropology minor, using this framework makes a great deal of sense considering the overlap between ethnography and categorical documentary, and leaning too heavily towards the categorical side raises the risk of making a film that more closely resembles an academic ethnography than an LGBTQ+ empowerment film. In the end, the rhetorical message in Paris is Burning could be tainted by the application of exposition that more closely resembles categorical documentary filmmaking.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/jun/24/burning-down-the-house-debate-paris-is-burning