Paris Is Burning: Ethics of Representation and Cultural Appropriation

Introduction: Personal Investment and the Ethics of the Documentary Gaze

Jennie Livingston's Paris is Burning remains one of my favorite documentaries. As my interest in subcultures and documentaries grew simultaneously and exponentially over the past few years, I frequently had to consider and analyze the ethics of representing others. However, before my research on the perception of Livingston's documentary — which shines a light on one of the most influential subcultures — I had never felt guilty for being a fan. It was after reading feminist activist bell hooks' critique of Paris is Burning that I realized the issue of representing the Other begins with the act of "othering" itself. It is not uncommon for a documentary filmmaker to assume the role of someone penetrating a community, looking from the outside in. But is there no possibility of a non-voyeuristic approach when representing others? How can the filmmaker prevent cultural appropriation?

Bell Hooks' Critique: Whiteness, Femininity, and the Outsider Perspective

Bell Hooks argues that, "Within the world of the Black gay drag ball culture she [Livingston] depicts, the idea of womanness and femininity is totally personified with whiteness. What viewers witness is not Black men longing to impersonate or even to become like 'real' Black women, but their obsession with an idealized, fetishized vision of femininity that is white." Livingston is able to offer this portrayal through a number of different means. The most effective, of course, is by utilizing the subjects of her film to voice such opinions. For instance, one of the featured characters in the documentary, Venus Xtravaganza, unequivocally asserts: "I would like to be a spoiled rich white girl. They get what they want whenever they want it, and they don't have to really struggle with finances."

As compelling as such a quotation is, the viewer must remember that context and connotation frame everyone's speech. Moreover, a documentarian cannot include everything he or she films and includes only that which best conveys the documentarian's viewpoint. It is these two facts that are largely responsible for the situation hooks describes, in which Livingston is accused of approaching her subject matter as an outsider looking in. In her critique, Hooks underlines the importance of the audience perceiving the documentary as raw truth rather than Livingston's version of the truth: "Since her presence as white woman/lesbian filmmaker is 'absent' from Paris is Burning, it is easy for viewers to imagine that they are watching an ethnographic film documenting the life of Black gay 'natives' and not recognize that they are watching a work shaped and formed by a perspective and standpoint specific to Livingston."

Audience Responsibility and the Director's Invisible Hand

That being considered, the audience is just as responsible as the filmmaker for keeping in mind the presence of the filmmaker. That presence is not only illustrated by the audio Livingston chooses to insert within her film but also by the imagery she utilizes. The viewer needs to recognize that "Livingston's directorial presence is evident, for example, in the insertion of images from magazines and footage of white businessmen to illustrate the fantasies of drag queens" (Cvetkovich). As such, it is equally important that audiences are educated about what they are exposing themselves to. It is not reasonable to take any form of art as a perfect mirror of truth, or to expect it to be so — which is why, as the audience, we should feel responsible to investigate further.