This post assignment is rather open-ended. In at least two fully-developed paragraphs, I would like you to reflect on a moment or scene in the film Paris is Burning that you found particularly provocative, problematic, eye-opening, or just plain interesting.
What is it about this scene that caught your attention? Are you unsettled by this scene? Are you empowered? Are you confused? Are you distressed? Are you entertained? How do you feel about how this queer subculture is represented in this documentary? Did you find it controversial, like so many people often do? Did you have a different reaction altogether?
Whatever you choose to address, be sure to describe the scene, analyze it, and explain your reaction. I would also like you to include the specific minutes in the film in which your selected scene takes place!
Please complete your post by Tuesday at 5 pm.
Rather than choose one specific scene, per the open-ended nature of this assignment, I would like to discuss a few different instances where femininity in both cisheteronormative and queer manners is discussed, critiqued, or bought into. As mentioned in the film, the balls began with drag queens trying to look like Las Vegas showgirls and evolved to have an array of categories where everyone, no matter their looks or their talents, could find a place to fit in and shine. As time went on, the balls expanded to be more inclusive of everyone: at the start, “everyone wanted to look like Marilyn Monroe.” Around minute 21, there is a discussion of realness; realness is essentially a measure of how well you pass, making your illusion perfect. Later in the film, they discuss the theme that everyone “wants a pussy” because they want to be treated better. But women are often mistreated and abused so this dream may seem like nothing more than a fantasy. This thought process adds to the narrative of realness, contributing to the ideology of passing as a confining obstacle.
In minute 47, they discuss the ways in which you can manipulate a man with your femininity, using your looks and your act to achieve your goals. Later, Brooke and Carmen Xtravaganza discuss sex changes (relating to and citing notions of both lag and realness) explaining it as having the ability to close the door to the closet and having no more skeletons. I found this part to be very interesting seeing as it seemed like a sex change was being referenced as a way to disavow your queerness and acquire a sense of cisheteronormative “normalcy.” There is a sense of pride in being queer, but also, through the borrowing of white, cisheteronormative culture and the rebranding of it in balls, there is a sense that being black and queer makes you feel less than; a sense that you have something else to live up to. At the end of the film, they discuss Venus being murdered and say that it is just a part of “being a transsexual in New York City” — this posits that the risk of dying is just an aspect of living as your true self.
In sum, the narrative of femininity is certainly not one exclusive to cisheteronormative culture. The film does a great job of including the trans narrative and perspective but many individuals included and interviewed espouse stories of aiming to pass and conform to succeed. There has certainly been progress up to the point at which this film was produced (as discussed previously) concerning the inclusivity of all genders, sexualities, and body shapes. But there is certainly still an emphasis on fems, womanhood, and passing. In this film, and in this era, it seems as if femininity is a facet of life, dangerous yet desired.
The scene begins (37:09) with a view of a voguing battle, where individuals begin to employ exaggerated attitudes and gestures to outshine and shadow their opponents. This adds a fascinating and difficult aspect to the dance form as it is used for both celebration and subtle competition. The technique of voguing in “Paris is Burning” acts as both a compelling form of self-expression and a weapon for shading within the ballroom scene. Voguing is more than simply a dance, it’s a language, a method to communicate, and frequently, a subtle, clever insult. The scene highlights the essence of voguing as performers many of who belong to various “houses,” demonstrate their abilities through a sequence of positions and motions inspired by fashion magazines and runway models.
This component of voguing was particularly eye-opening for someone inexperienced with the ballroom scene as I was unaware of the onstage repertoire that was exchanged through movements. The ballroom’s use of shade through voguing adds a subtle depth that I believe portrays the complexities of interpersonal interactions inside the group. I was impressed by the sheer creativity and perfection demonstrated in each position and motion. This moment leaves me in awe of the ballroom culture’s bravery and talent as it becomes evident that voguing is more than simply a dancing style it’s a transformational and liberating art that forms narratives and identities inside the community.
The scene at 42:00 that starts with “This is… white… America…” caught my attention and confused me. It basically starts out with a summary of how everything that is successful in America – or is seen as successful – is centered around being white and whiteness. All the money and power are centered around White America, to the point where even the television that minorities watch is mostly about white families or minority families that fit into the “White America” mold.
And I’m confused as to why in the Ballroom scene there is such an emphasis placed on trying to replicate that image. Why is looking enough like White America that you could pass as one of them the end goal that wins the prize? There’s such an importance placed on being part of White America, where all the power is vested and associated. But it’s the very same White America that would probably look down on the Ballroom scene as a whole. It seems strange to venerate a system that actively looks down on you. Or is it that the importance is only of capturing the image of that White America with its wealth to the point where they would be unable to distinguish the real from the fake? That passing off as one of them and accepted in society is the end goal?
There were many things about the film “Paris is Burning” that caught my attention. Having seen the film many times when watching with the young adults I mentored during my 14 years of running my non profit, this time was different. I found that watching it over the weekend I was watching from a different perspective. I used to watch it through their eyes but this weekend found myself watching from my own perspective, really understanding the trials and tribulations those within the film were facing.
One of many scenes that stood out to me was the scene where Pepper LaBeija talks about the hows and whys so many young LGBT youth flock to her as a mother figure. This scene stood out to me because the same reasons LeBeija mentions why the kids flock to her were primarily the same reason the youth within my organization would flock to me. Being thrown out of their homes for coming out or being beaten by family members for coming out. Or even needing the right guidance on how to come out are some of the reason the youth would come to my organization and see me as a father figure just as I’m sure where the reason members of the House of LeBeija especially the young ones would see Pepper as that mother figure.
The scenes with WIllie NInja also stood out to me due to my relationship with the House of NInja. If I was to go with the reasons other scenes stood out to me I would be writing a novel so I’ll end my post now. 🙂
A scene that I found to be rather eye opening was around two-thirds into the film, where they navigate the topic of sex-change. It’s a topic touched on throughout the film but it gets a moment to be really explored with two opposing views on the subject. Pepper LaBeija discusses his opposition to undergoing a sex change, commenting that the world is harsher towards women, and that there are many who fall into the “trap” of undergoing a sex change and seeing minimal benefits. Meanwhile Venus Xtravaganza states her desire to undergo a sex change operation. In this conversation she ties it back to her being an escort and how some of the men who use her service request sexual favors, relating this to how a husband and wife may have sex so that she may request a favor of him. To me, this calls back into Willi Ninja’s discussion on the power of femininity. How much power women have over men due to their inherent femininity and differences from men.
I find these two views fascinating. Pepper LaBeija’s view has some merit, as it generally is harder to exist as a woman during the time of the documentary’s production to even today. However I find his point of rejecting or advising against it for others due to his own perceived lack of benefits to… certainly be a choice, one that I disagree with. Meanwhile we have Venus and Willi whose arguments together sort of contradict this sentiment. Both showing the power in femininity and using it to one’s advantage, whether it be for romantic endeavors or financial ones. We have an example of a sex-change positively impacting one’s life with Octavia St. Laurent, who has a scene on the beach where she expresses her feeling of liberation after undergoing her sex-change operation . She is a real woman and feels the most comfortable she has ever been. I find this discussion that the movie brings up to be quite a thought provoking and fascinating one, especially when you factor in outside opinions.
The movie Paris Is Buring , is such a powerful movie in which it depicts the lifestyle of gay people in the city of New York. It exhibits the struggles and aspirations alongside entertainment. Something very interesting that everyone should be aware of is the scene in which the orgin of a ball is introuced( 4:26). A ball is where gay people would gather together and have competitions under one roof. People would get trophies and incentives. The movement is about the ball circuit and how each person involvement has brought one another to other gays people’s life.
A ball is very important to the Gay community. Furthermore throughout the movie it was evident people spoke out and expressed their feelings and emotions about the balls. The following was eye opening due to the fact that people were really strongly connected to such a large movement as a simple ball. “It feels like a wonderland”(4:51) , “you go in there and you feel 100% right being gay”(4:53), “a ball is a form of entertainment”. The ball overall is as close to reality as the community was going to get (5:21). They thrive and rush as they escape to a movement as a Ball. It’s also very empowering to see how one person can be called a “mother” to so many people due to the fact that most don’t have mothers any more due to them being who they are Gay. Secondly, the way they watch over one another and protect their own gives a sense that the “mother” role many obtain is deeply connected to so many people because there is love, family, happiness, love and contentment.
There are numerous film moments that I absolutely love. The way Jennie Livingston captured their vibrancy and glory with close shots of Dorian Corey in her dressing room and Angie Extravaganza in the corner of the blue-lit room, along with scenic shots on the pier, and Willi voguing as the sun outlines his figure. A specific sequence that caught my eye was the discussion on white America within the white America category, featuring Octavia Saint Laurent, Pepper LaBeija, and Willi Ninja sharing their desires. Starting at 39:29, Ninja expresses his future aspirations: he wants to become a famous choreographer, dancer, and singer to spread voguing globally. He aims to take his house out of the country to promote the power of voguing and have others embrace it. Following this, LaBeija speaks about the exciting life she has lived despite not being rich. If she were wealthy, she couldn’t imagine hoarding money but would rather share it with her loved ones, envisioning them all on a plane to Paris. We’re introduced to Octavia directly after the white America scene, sitting in a kitchen and professing her dreams of stardom, desiring the wealth that accompanies it—just enough to feel stable and content. The narrative explores her gender identity and her goal of becoming a ‘full-fledged woman’, transitioning to her bedroom adorned with posters of various supermodels and superstars, specifically Paulina Porizkova. Octavia expresses how being photographed next to her would make her the happiest woman in the world. All of them express a longing for money, not just for the wealth itself, but for the opportunities and capabilities it represents, craving more than they’re able to achieve within the confines of societal expectations. The ballroom provides them with a platform to express their repressed identities and establish their names on a smaller scale but within a vastly different atmosphere, as hinted at in the white America scene. In the real world, your proximity to whiteness determines your level of freedom and your chance at ‘public happiness’ and opulence. They convey the message, ‘You own everything, everything is yours’, as they strut in attire representing assimilation into white spaces within their queer subcultural setting. Like any other category, it’s a character study on the subject, while also highlighting how black queer individuals are often compelled to adjust their identities to fit into these spaces while desiring these luxuries simultaneously.
One scene that I found particularly interesting in “Paris is Burning” is twelve minutes into the movie when Pepper LaBeija speaks about how balls are changing, saying that “in their time it was about looking like las Vegas showgirls wearing back pieces, feathers, beads but then the 70s came in they wanted to look like movie stars like Marilyn Monroe etc but now they want to look like models.” I found this scene particularly interesting because throughout the movie they constantly speak of the changes that the ball continuously endures. Going from a time of showgirls to embedding categories (split into demographics of the participants). The addition of the categories is what changed the balls making it more inclusive so that there was something there for everyone. Now everyone can participate and that “is what kept them all coming” (Paris is Burning, 12:17). I thought that it was very interesting that the Ball surrounds a community of inclusivity. By adding the categories it reached out to a wide range of queer people not only Drag queens but other types of shapes and looks. Not only this but
Another scene that caught my attention was when Pepper LaBeija speaks about being the mother of the house La Beija and being this gay motherly figure, especially to others who are going through a hard time, have been rejected by their families, or just need advice. This was very empowering to see how they have built a group of support and love around the ball. It makes one realize that this isn’t just a ball to some. This is family, friends, and a community of support.
The moment of the film I chose was when the topic of ballroom categories was being discussed. I don’t remember the persons name, but they talked about how Ballroom categories started by emulating models, showgirls, and movie stars, but gradually encompassed more categories so that if someone didn’t fit those categories they could still win awards. The scene was a voice over describing how standards and categories changed in the ballroom scene, while many different people danced and performed in different categories. It caught my attention because of how the person talked about the evolution of ballroom culture. I think the different performers juxtaposed the more heteronormative beginnings of ballroom culture that adhered to classic beauty standards.
It was also interesting to reflect on how ballroom expanded itself and its categories to further accept people who didn’t adhere to heteronormative standards of beauty. I think the process of rejecting beauty standards to further include people was really interesting, especially when the person narrating specifically mentioned how as ballroom progresses, there would seldom be events where everyone was included. The idea and images of events where almost everyone was valued and participated was really powerful. The minutes were 12:00 to 13:10
The scene begins at minute 59:03 with Pepper LaBeija expressing how she feels about people who do a surgical sex change. She starts off by telling the audience that she is man who dresses like a woman and that she only knows what it feels like to be a man dressed as a woman. She list reasons such as not having a menstrual cycle and never being pregnant for why she believes that she could never know what it feels like to be an actual women. Pepper then goes on to say that she believes that sex change is not a good idea because it is permanent. She adds on that people who get one are “taking it too far”. Another point she makes on her stance is that women get treated horribly already. Therefore, the people who undergo a sex change likely won’t find the results they sought.
I believe that this is a problematic stance to take and it does grasp how a lot of transphobic people feel. To put the idea of being a woman in a narrow category of having a menstrual cycle and pregnancy is very inconsiderate. There are women who were assigned female at birth that do not experience these things due to health reasons. This is not what makes someone a women. At the end of the day gender is a social construct so it is way more complex than a cycle and the ability to give birth. This is an example of the also oppression directed towards trans people towards trans people in the queer community. It okay to want to be a woman and dress like one but as soon as you undergo a sex change now you’re “taking it to far”. I can understand the concern for children getting a sex change at a young age but to degrade the entire community is very problematic.
At around 12:00 in the movie where the man is describing how balls have changed over time from when he first started going to now was an interesting scene to me and also a scene where I could see how it’s a controversial movie. Specifically, I found the information about how they went from being more drag queen centered to being more toned down to emulate movie stars and eventually models to be interesting because today it seems like the drag that’s the most mainstream and also the most heavily politicized and policed is the kind that he describes as similar to Vegas show girls so it’s interesting to hear that while balls origins align with that, there evolution veered from that path. I also think it’s interesting because throughout the movie balls are described as escape spaces from the harsher realities of life as a Black gay man and especially for those experiencing poverty or houselessness since the more over the top look is presumably more expensive and less accessible to achieve compared to the movie star or model inspired entries so a space that has a history of being safe for those most marginalized has now become the most lucrative for the more privileged.
Thinking back to the conversation we had surrounding audience and purpose of the last movie we watched, I also found the 12:00 scene compelling in that the narration is clearly trying to explain balls to someone who doesn’t know much about them and I could see that being controversial for trying to make it palatable or making a spectacle out of it for entertainment of audiences other than Black gay men.
A scene that interested me was when Octavia Saint Laurent presented her bedroom wall (45:10). What intrigued me was not so much what was said but instead more of what was seen. The posters on the wall reminded me of a child who has pictures on the wall with careers or people they want to pursue or aspire to be. It reminded me of a stolen childhood, having a room that reflects a specific gender or career that you’ve always longed for but never was able to have due to being the opposite gender (the gender not desired) or not being the beauty standard. The scene itself was provocative to me as a reader as well. The cast had a way with words and I analyzed those words. I was able to put myself in her shoes and consider “if the lives of queer individuals are toilsome like this now, imagine the 80s-90s”. I didn’t find the film controversial, but I did feel as though these individuals were striving for a white, cisgender, and heteronormative idea of what it was to be a woman or to present as one.
This movie is a fitting representation of a queer subculture. Even if people disagree, they cannot deny the queer people in this film their identity and right of representation because they are queer and they found an outlet through voguing and ball. Most importantly, the film represents community. There were categories and prizes for different people in the same community, illustrating the extent of inclusion this culture had. Queer individuals had to rely on inner circles where you could be yourself without the help of family, friends, or money. There were little to no outlets for self-expression. These problems have been consistent throughout history but solutions have evolved to something only decent enough. People have more, wider spaces to express themselves but there are still laws and crimes against queer and trans people today. It is films like these- a camera focused on a face of someone a part of the community, willing to speak and express raw thoughts and emotions- that provide a more genuine form of representation.
(25:27) What drew my attention most was the notion of family raised in the various descriptions of what a house is. It gestures to an interesting answer concerning what exactly the idea of family means to queer people. In a society that understands “family” in terms of individuals permanently joined through blood relation, a set up that frequently proves hostile to queer people, and, more pertinently, places the common nuclear family structure at the center of heteronormative life and the project of reproduction, both of which queer people are excluded from, the question is raised as to what a queer take on the notion of family looks like or if a “queer family” is even reliably feasible. The posited idea of a “family” as “a group of human beings in a mutual bond” (25:48), a bond, significantly, that is not formed through blood or marriage or any legal/documented qualifiers whatsoever, moves to rewrite what is even thought of when the idea of family is evoked, and provides a completely new basis for how a “family” is identified. It creates a familial definition that is predicated on personal, emotional connection and grants for the formation of more-leveled respect and care between members, unlike the top-down power dynamic heteronormative family structures function in. This is crucial in the creation of safe, accepting spaces for queer people. It also allows for greater flexibility within family units concerning hierarchy and even membership, another deeply necessary function for queer safety, unlike blood or legally-qualified family units, that suffer from hard-lined bonds such as genetic permanence, difficult legal processes in the face of seeking to split up, and overall social pressure to keep families together above all else.
It recalls the “praxis of love” Malatino discusses for me. The only thing that really kneecaps its potential in my mind is actually a source of normative approximation within the scene: approximation of capitalistic success. This struck me most in Pepper Labeija’s talk of envying displays of wealth and opulence around them while growing up (5:29) and subsequent describing of balls as a place where particularly underclass participants could live out their fantasies of having such lives. This desire, the competition that forms up around it, and the subsequent factionalism of houses is noted to “cause hate … between … individuals” (32:34), and such fissures significantly limit how much interconnectedness can flourish widely between individual scene members.
Instead of reflecting on one particular scene from the film, Paris is Burning, I’m choosing to reflect upon a section (around 21:00 til 30:00), in which they discuss the significance of the terms “mother” and “chosen family”. Nowadays, the term “mother” has become such a mainstream phenomenon, with many not knowing its true origins which derive from queer Black and Latinx people – predominantly from the ballroom scene of the late ‘70s and early 1980s-90s. The “Mother” or “Mother of the House” is essential to the ballroom – both physically and “spiritually”. On a more physical aspect, the “mother” is known for being the leader of a house – tending to the younger generations of LGBTQ+ people who sought housing, community, healthcare, and/or safety within the ballroom’s walls. The “mother” brought people of all classes and cultures together, in efforts of creating “chosen families” in light of many societal pressures and difficulties many queer individuals sought to escape during this time (being ex-communicated from loved ones, AIDS, etc…). The mother’s job was to create a sense of community, whilst also providing the opportunity for fame and glory. Serving as a mentor and parent to estranged queer children, the “mother” of the house became a spiritual figure for queer people to look up to, aspiring to be, impress, or latch hold of. In the story of Pepper Labeija, Labeija reflects on the reaction to his parents finding out he did ballroom, alongside his forms of self-expression (clothes, nails, etc…). Labeija opens up about the difficulty which took place during that time, ultimately leading him to the role of “mother”, helping other queer youth going through similar situations. We also see this during the “Xtravaganza Power” moment, in which both men talk about buying “Mother”, Venus Xtravaganza, her breasts to conclude her sex change. Venus also discusses the importance of a “chosen family”, as before turning 15, she left home and relocated to New York City to be able to perform freely. Upon meeting then-House of Xtravaganza founder, Hector Valle, Venus discusses the importance of Hector being the first gay man she’d ever met, as on her 15th birthday, Hector threw her a party – celebrating and introducing Venus to fellow trans-individuals and drag queens reaffirming her place and desire for her sex-change.
What caught my attention about this segment in particular was how mainstream the term “mother” has become, with people of my generation using the term for giggles and laughs, while not knowing of its substantial meaning and significance. I think the idea of ballroom culture is beyond amazing – it’s not only incredibly empowering, giving people a space of comfort and freedom, but also beautifully entertaining for those in attendance watching other queer folk perform and mingle in a space built to empower and flourish. I thought this documentary was entertaining, however upon doing further research perpetuated by this film, which is a documentary, I could understand why some took controversy with the documentary, meant to capture the lives of Queer POC, finding the film failed to accurately tell a story – which was captured by a white director and crew merely highlighting, grazing, stereotyping, and/or exploiting the ballroom culture instead of diving deeper into the problems many queer POC faced during this time – thus inaccurately capturing the real history of what made ballroom culture so prominent or significant. However, although this is not a great documentary, I would argue it’s important to take bits and pieces from this film to visualize what queer history is made of, some of the problems faced in telling these stories at a time when this was limited, and the roots laid down for queer movements/cultural significance brought about by queer POC. Considering I don’t know much about ballroom culture, I can’t say whether or not I thought the representation was accurate, however highlighting things like ballroom and house members stories/experiences/FOOTAGE are nonetheless important in preserving queer history, even if it fails to encapsulate what should’ve been there.
**I thought this documentary was informative, as someone who knows little on ballroom culture, as well as entertaining, however upon doing further research perpetuated by this film, which is a documentary, I could understand why some people took controversy with the documentary, meant to capture the lives of Queer POC, and finding the film failing to accurately tell a story – captured by a white director and crew highlighting, grazing, stereotyping, and/or exploiting the ballroom culture instead of diving deeper into the problems many queer and trans people/POC faced during this time – thus inaccurately capturing the real history of what made ballroom culture so prominent and significant. However, although this some find this not a great documentary, I would argue it’s important to take bits and pieces from this film to visualize what queer history is made of, some of the problems faced in telling these stories at a time when this was limited, and the roots laid down for queer movements/cultural significance brought about by queer and trans POC. Considering I don’t know much about ballroom culture, I can’t say whether or not I thought the representation was accurate, however highlighting things like ballroom and house members stories/experiences/FOOTAGE are nonetheless important in preserving queer history, even if some feel it fails to encapsulate some of that.
I thought it was really interesting seeing the descriptions of the ball participants for certain categories. In particular, the “banjee girl”. It was not a category of extravagant looks but rather just passing for normalcy. The announcer even describes it as something so ordinary as “taking her little baby brother to school”. This was really interesting to note because it speaks to a matter of belonging.
In the queer community there is a narrative in which one is supposed to be a caricature of themselves. Over the top and dramatic and glamorous. While other categories of the balls did speak to that and possibly fit that narrative, the banjee girl was just trying to live unbothered. There’s something very profound behind not wanting to be anything more than a girl running errands.
In “Paris Is Burning,” there is so much to be learned of ballroom drag culture and the implications of being a queer person of color in society. One of the ball scenes that particularly interested me was when someone incorporated stomping on an American flag into their routine. This is of course a symbolic action as a big “F*ck you” to a country that has left members of the ballroom community forgotten, excluded, and ultimately left to fend for itself with no help. It cannot be ignored that there is overlap in the drag and gay scenes, and Paris is Burning focused on a timeframe when AIDS was actively killing people in both. The American flag scene comes on right after an interviewed speech underlining the importance of POC survival in a white world. Earlier in the film, one of the interviewed queens said “When I grew up, black stars were stigmatized” and “Everyone wanted to look like Marilyn Monroe.” This comment on socially implemented beauty standards is ingrained in whiteness being at the forefront of what was considered acceptable, beautiful, “right”. Stomping on the United States’ symbol is a reaction to the pain of a country that does not care about queer people, does not care about people of color, and specifically implicates the intersection of the two as “wrong”.
A bit after the flag-stomping scene (I believe around 40 minutes in) is a scene that begins with the chilling statement “This — is — White America.” The film then discusses that society is upheld by success, money, power, all explained as pillars of whiteness. There was little room for deviation from whiteness in active society, which is why it was so important for ballroom culture to exist as proudly POC-led. The character of the “banjee girl” had been discussed, the prototype of which was hood, NYC-based, Nuyorican in origin. The banjee girl was a face unacceptable in the world of white power and money; it was made clear in the interview that she had a place, and that place was the projects, the streets, tricking, being loud in every way that defied what she was “supposed” to conform to. Early on in the film, one of the interviews was someone who aimed to show “the world that I could be an executive — if I had the opportunity.” The “opportunity” was reserved for those who fit the schema: rich, white, from an upstanding background, probably not queer. The films asserts that even queerness was less of a hurdle to overcome than being Black or Latinx. In a world that was never made for you, you have to fight tooth-and-nail any way you can. People defied the notion of being “wrong” by forming families, houses, putting on their shows for their community instead of society at large, since it was shutting them in a dark box in the first place. That’s why I enjoyed the scene of stomping on the American flag during their ball routine so much: it was a direct protest, declaring “You may not want me, but I certainly don’t want you either!”