Paris is burning: documentary analysis and cultural significance

Paris Is Burning

Discuss the film's introductory material -- Were you provided with background or introductory information to orient you about what you were going to be viewing? If not, did it pose a problem in your understanding of the film?

In the documentary film "Paris is Burning" there is little in the way of an opening that includes any background or introductory information. The film opens in New York in 1987 which is displayed in lettering in the initial opening of the movie. It then proceeds to offer a quote and then portrays a "ball" and then rolls into an interview with Pepper LaVasia who speaks about being the "mother" of the house who rules with a soft glove. It does give some information that explains some aspects of the "ball" from different perspectives illustrated through interviews yet there is little context provided from a narrator or other sources. Give the culture that this documentary is focusing on, I did not personally think that this detracted from the film in anyway. Even with the assistance of a narrator, it would have still been difficult to understand the culture. Therefore maybe it was best just to let the participants describe the "ball" and what it means to them to let the films viewers build a picture from this.

2) Music/sound -- Was there any music during the film? If so, what kind, and what role did it play? Did it enhance the scene (or scenes) where it was used? Did it distort the film in any way?

There was music in the background in the film that played at different times during the film. It seemed to be used mostly in transitions or music played in the background of ball scenes. It had an enhancing effect though it was not that prominent. It was necessary to give the viewers a taste of the music that the subculture listened to so that they could understand this element of this culture. I did not feel it distorted the film at all.

3) Narration -- Was there any type of narration describing the scenes? If yes, how did it provide you with information you found useful? If not, how would narration have helped?

There was no narration describing the scenes in "Paris is Burning." Rather the participants described different aspects of the ball and the culture themselves. I think in this film the lack of narration worked well. It let the viewer form their own opinions of what they were seeing without any guidance. Since most of the viewers were probably unfamiliar with such cultures, the lack of narration made the film thought provoking.

4) Native voice -- Did any members of the group being filmed actually speak for themselves (with subtitles if necessary)? Would the film have been improved if you had heard from them? How?

Yes, the entire film portrayed members of the group speaking for themselves. They were undoubtedly prompted to describe certain aspects of the group and the culture, however they certainly told their stories from their perspectives.

5) Ethnographic information - Did the film give you enough background information to sufficiently understand the culture or group of people being filmed, including a satisfactory understanding of their cultural practices, where they live, how they live, etc.…

In my opinion, the director provided a fairly comprehensive amount of information about the group and their culture within the time restrictions inherent in the film. The culture is at least a few generations old and is quiet diverse so there was undoubtedly much that wasn't covered. However, I think the film does a good job of providing an introduction to the group and their culture.