Analysis Of Paris Is Burning

1474 Words3 Pages

Paris Is Burning is a 1990 American documentary film by Jennie Livingston about the the ball culture of New York City and the African-American, Latino, gay, and transgender communities involved in it. Shortly after the film was released, many criticized both Livingston and her work, including Bell Hooks and Jackie Goldsby. While Hooks and Goldsby both reach the conclusion that there are some things Livingston could have done differently, Goldsby's analysis is far deeper and less biased than Hooks’ which relies more on personal conjecture rather than factual evidence. I will first discuss Hooks’ argument about the issues of race as well as Goldsby’s slightly different argument about the terminology and imagery in the film. I will then discuss the similarities and differences between their arguments such as their focuses and their views on Livingston. Afterwards, I will conclude with my insight on both of their arguments and Paris is Burning.
To begin with, Hooks wrote a piece titled Is Paris Burning in her book Black Looks: Race and Representations. In this piece she does not only criticize Paris is Burning but she also criticizes Livingston, while focusing on race. For example, Hooks criticizes Livingston because she thinks that she should have acknowledged herself as a privileged member of the dominant white society. This is evident when Hooks states, “it is easy for viewers to imagine that they are watching an ethnographic film…and do not recognize that they are watching a work shaped and formed by a perspective and standpoint specific to Livingston” (151). Next, she discusses that the film did not interrogate “whiteness”, but instead celebrated it. For instance, she says “what viewers witness is not black men longing to imper...

... middle of paper ...

...ggests that “there would be no difference between her work and that of a black director” (152). I think that when Livingston says, “I’d love for a black director to have made this film,” she is simply stating that she doesn’t care who made it, but that she is just happy that it is out there for people to experience learning about this subculture (Hooks 152).
Thus, Hooks and Goldsby both reached the same conclusion that there are some changes Livingston could have made, but Goldsby's analysis is far deeper and less biased than Hooks’ which relies more on personal conjecture rather than factual evidence. First Hooks discussed her thoughts of them film about race. Then Goldsby gave her insight of the linguistic strategies in the film. Afterwards both articles were compared. Finally, a new criticism was made after watching the film and reading each previous argument.

Open Document