This insightful critique came to mind as I reflected on why whites could so outspokenly make their pleasure in this film heard and the many black viewers who express discontent, raising critical questions about how the film was made, is seen, and is talked about, who have not named their displeasure publicly. Too many reviewers and inter viewers assume not only that there is no need to raise pressing critical questions about Livingston’s film, but act as though she somehow did this marginalized black gay subculture a favor by bringing their experience to a wider public. Such a stance obscures the substantial rewards she has received for this work. Since so many of the black gay men in the film expresses the desire to be big stars, it is easy to place Livingston in the role of benefactor, offering these “poor black souls” a way to realize their dreams. But it is this current trend in producing colorful ethnicity for the white consumer appetite that makes it possible for blackness to be commodified in unprecedented ways, and for whites to appropriate black culture without interrogating whiteness or showing concern for the displeasure of blacks. Just as white cultural imperialism informed and affirmed the adventurous journeys of colonizing whites into the countries and cultures of “dark others,” it allows white audiences to applaud representations of black culture, if they are satisfied with the images and habits of being represented.
– Bell Hooks, “Is Paris Burning?”
This passage follows a direct quotation of Patricia Williams’ critical comments on “taking a walking tour of Harlem” on Easter Sunday. Williams argued that the assumption of a “neutral” gaze from the privileged observer is not rooted in the willingness but the inability of others to make their displeasure heard. The selected paragraph serves as a continuation of Williams’ observation and argument. While services and ceremonies in Harlem were mere “quite a show” in the eyes of the guide and a group of white tourists, white audiences enjoyed the pageantry of the drag ball in Paris is Burning as an entertaining spectacle. In both cases, the pleasure of the privileged outsiders is outspokenly expressed, while the “displeasure of others” is unheard. After affirming Williams’ argument of the assumption of neutral gaze, Hooks then provides a brief counterargument and refutation in this paragraph. Many reviewers see the film as a celebration of the black gay culture, but Hooks argues that the film is in fact a product that pleases the white consumer appetite as a result of a current trend. This paragraph is indeed a review of Paris is Burning, but the intended audience is not only those who have watched the film. Hooks is writing to make the “displeasure of others” heard, but more importantly, she is writing to remind everyone to interrogate their assumed, privileged position of innocence before appropriating other cultures.
The “key” of this passage is that it makes Hooks’ argument and opinion on Paris is Burning clear. She started the article by broadly discussing the issue of sexism and racism; then, she gave a brief, critical comment on Paris is Burning before providing great details on the production of the film, primarily focusing on the director. It is not until this paragraph that she explicitly reviews and critiques the film and even the audience. The “lock” of this paragraph is that I think I need more clarification on her refutation. She questions the intention behind having diversity on screen as trying to please the white consumer appetite, but she does not comment on the effect of bringing a marginalized culture to the public. Does she think that bringing the culture to a wider public has no positive effect at all?