I really enjoyed watching Paris is Burning this week. Before class today, I had no idea what the film was about, and when I learned it follows the ballroom scene in NYC, I was extremely excited to see what the documentary had in store. I’ve been a big fan of the show Pose since it came out, so a documentary on ballroom at its prime sparked my interest.
While watching, I kept thinking back to the intended audience of the documentary and how it might have been perceived back in the 80s and 90s. At that time, the AIDS crisis was devastating the gay community, taking countless lives and bringing a stigma around the culture. I like how Paris is Burning didn’t shy away from the harsh reality of ballroom by emphasizing that many people were homeless, making money by selling their bodies, and even not eating, yet they still came to the balls. It really is a beautiful view on humanity, that even when living is close to impossible, the desire to step into a fantasy of opulence and express oneself lives on. I feel like this also allowed the viewer to connect with the people in the film because we all know the wish to ‘dress-up’ into a life that is better than the one we have. It was especially impactful hearing of the personal dreams and hopes of the women in the film. Their desires were so simple and relatable with their main wish being for happiness and security in life. It also again made me see the beauty of the ballroom culture as an escape from reality and a life that many of them may never escape. After the film, I actually looked up how many of the people documented have died and only three are living with the rest passing away due to AIDS, violence, or drug addiction.
This time period in NYC was extremely dangerous for transgender and queer people as they explained in the documentary. They had next to no voice to defend or help themselves with majority of the crimes going unsolved due to the little care from the public. When it comes to the question of if Jennie Livingston is a voyeur for documenting and profiting off of this film, I have mixed feelings. Obviously, I am in no place to diminish the exploitation the actual people and culture portrayed feel and I do believe there is a large problem when it comes to turning subcultures into mainstream media. As the article from the Guardian addressed, Madonna famously created her song ‘Vogue’ and deemed herself the ‘queen of Vogue’ yet she gave no credit or respect to the actual founders and cultural background it came from. I think Paris is Burning was impactful for the time, giving a voice to the unheard and ignored, however, as the article explained, it seemed to move farther from the actual community it represented as it gained success. This is obviously an extremely nuanced conversation on who gets to tell other’s stories and it can bring up complex questions around ethics and ownership. However, I have not heard of any backlash towards the show Pose and it is often celebrated for bringing so many wonderful trans-actors into the limelight. Still, it is almost 30 years between the release of Paris is Burning and Pose which I also think brings up an interesting question of why so much time went by before ballroom reached mainstream media again. Livingston actually helped direct one episode of Pose in season 2 which again I find interesting if she was originally seen as an enemy to the culture and community in the past.
Overall, I enjoyed this film, the provocative and harsh reality of being queer in NYC but also the human desire to achieve one’s dreams and happiness brought a new light to the culture and taught me even more about ballroom.
I thoroughly enjoyed reading your post, Victoria. Your research on Jennie Livingston directing an episode of “Pose” perfectly ties this conversation together. While “Pose” and “Paris Is Burning” both capture the same era, there’s a striking aesthetic difference between them. Setting aside the resources of an Emmy-winning show compared to a low-budget documentary, “Paris Is Burning” just offers a far more raw and unfiltered portrayal of humanity. I, too, sympathized with the happiness the LGBTQ+ community found in ballroom culture. Owning and strutting to their “fantasy”—one often shunned by people during the AIDS crisis—and being met with adulation and applause could give them the confidence to weather those very people. I am sure the documentary brought light and levity to that community when it came out, especially because it did not sugarcoat or censor anything in the way a studio-backed film might have to. Lastly, your point about Madonna gaining fame from “Vogue” is a great example of the fame that the ballroom attendees aspired to, but were systematically barred from ever achieving.
Hey Victoria,
I loved reading your insights about the film and its cultural significance at release and still holds today. I thoroughly enjoyed your insights about how this film was released during the aids epidemic and how this piece could have been used to help humanize the victims of the disease. The film showed how aids was not a dangerous mutation linked to the horror of homosexuality but instead a side effect of the horrible home conditions and even homelessness that many of these people were forced to endure. This reminded me of the documentary We Were Here, which I watched in high school, a documentary that focuses on the aids epidemic from a very personal level, showing the people impacted by the disease and the resilience and comradery of the community in the face of public rejection.
I also found your insights about the cultural appropriation vogueing has faced over time to be extremely interesting. Recently, people have been latching on to former cultural aesthetics regardless of their relation to that culture, whether due to a form of fascination or associative nostalgia. Your insights made me question the morality of this practice; vogueing culture comes with a lot of adversity and negativity that only the people truly in that culture fully understand, so is it morally right for others to latch onto their cultural aesthetic? Furthermore, this raises the question of Livingston just making this film as she is very detached from this community both economically and culturally. Finally, your insights link back to a scene that stood out to me while viewing the film. In the scene where voguing is starting to hit the mainstream, and they have a professional news crew coming to document the subculture, no one from the community is interviewed; instead, only old white folk don’t understand what vogueing is, showing how even in the news documenting the community doesn’t respect their culture.