Paris Is Burning: Race, Gender, and the Director's Gaze

Introduction

Paris Is Burning achieved the status of controversy when it was released as a documentary offering a white perspective on the Black and Latino drag world. It is important to understand that Jenny Livingston, the director of the film, is a white lesbian whose sexuality and race had a significant bearing on the way the film was made and presented.

The Drag Ball Subculture and Its Subjects

The film documents the lives and dreams of drag performers at balls organized to assess the degree of "realness" in the drag experience as presented by the performers. Competitors are judged on how convincingly they perform: they must walk and act as fashion models would on runways while representing their respective Houses. These Houses offer a sense of belonging to the gay and transgender community of New York City.

Starring performers known as Venus Xtravaganza, Willie Ninja, and Octavia, among others, Paris Is Burning is a commentary on the subtle amalgamation of race, gender, and class that affects everyone in the Houses in some way. This marginalized section of society is presented mostly through the lens of a white lesbian woman who has been accused of depicting certain "female" characters in ways that serve her own perspective rather than theirs.

The White Director's Gaze and Ethnographic Authenticity

Even though most of the film takes the form of interviews with its leading characters, there is a sense of authenticity missing at times because the ethnographic depiction nonetheless emerges from a white perspective. As bell hooks argues:

"Jennie Livingston approaches her subject matter as an outsider looking in. 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 from a perspective and standpoint specific to Livingston. By cinematically masking this reality — we hear her ask questions but never see her — Livingston does not oppose the way hegemonic whiteness 'represents' blackness, but rather assumes an imperial overseeing position that is in no way progressive or counterhegemonic."

Conclusion

Thus, while the concept is original, the depiction is not. For some reason, Livingston has been unable to remove herself completely from the documentary. It is essentially her work, her view, and her interpretation of what she saw during the seven years that she worked on the film. To give Livingston the benefit of the doubt, one might note that she never anticipated the film becoming a major success. She is not a trained film student but was simply drawn to a subculture she encountered and chose to bring it to light. The subject matter was genuinely hidden from mainstream view, and many found it intriguing — which is a large part of why the film achieved the prominence it did.

The inability to remove oneself from a documentary is something that comes with experience. With more time in the field, Livingston would likely develop a better understanding of how to stay completely out of the frame so that her influence is neither seen nor felt. Nevertheless, the film's lasting controversy serves as an important reminder that the identity of the filmmaker is never incidental — it shapes every frame of the story being told.

Reference
Bell hooks, "Is Paris Burning?" Z, Sisters of the Yam column (June 1991).