Paris is Burning is a film about queer people of color directed by a white lesbian. This fact evokes the convoluted emotions behind conflict of authorship: who has the right to tell what story? I disagree with a white person making the film, but agree with giving queer people of color a platform to express themselves and tell their stories. Jennie Livingston’s queer identity certainly helps.
At the center of Paris is Burning is its portrayal of a very real queer phenomenon: chosen family. Balls are their family gatherings and there are family units within the community, blood relation not required (for example: The Xtravaganza Family). Like a nuclear family, there are parents and children and a shared last name. I don’t know about director Jennie Livingston’s personal life, but I do know that, as a lesbian, the concept of chosen family, of assembling a unit of support in which there are no blood relations, is something she may be able to relate to.
The Balls see the participants working through multiple categories, perhaps the most fascinating of which being a sort of anti-drag drag. While voguing and sequins are in abundance, one category forgoes the glitz and glamour in favor of ‘passing’. That’s the point of the category: ‘passing’ as cisgender and/or heterosexual. While lesbians aren’t known to favor extravagance and flamboyance, everyone in the queer community experiences more privilege when they learn how to ‘pass’.
I’m on board with a queer person directing a movie about queer people and their niche within queer culture, but uneasiness comes with Jennie Livingston’s race. She is also not a trans person. The intersectionality between race, sexuality, and gender is where the conflict of authorship lies. It’s not ideal that a cisgender white person directed a film about queer people of color, but at least the story is told, and by another queer person.
Film, Gender, Sexuality / Spring 2020 
Hey there,
I really appreciated you bringing up the topic of the authorship of the film. This is something that shouldn’t go unnoticed when viewing the film and needs to be held accountable. With the director being a white cis-gender lesbian, why would she want to make a movie about a community she’s not fully part of? Does her “majority” stance in society (being white) effect this film and how the participants act in the film? I think it does. She clearly exploits them; trying to make drag ball seem more cruel and competitive than it actually is. It’s about a community, a family, an escape.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi there! While I also noted the criticism made against Livingston in particular for her very involvement in the film, I will turn the conversation on it’s head and raise the point that Livingston has said that she does identify as a gender-fluid person. This fact makes me wonder how really valid it is to call her a cisgender person or critique her for existing outside of the trans community when that might not even be true. On the subject of passing, certainly Livingston “passes” as a woman but does this reality of her passing as feminine invalidate her identity. Recently, I have become skeptical of many of the arguments against the film and against Livingston in particular, as I find they do not frequently adhere to any formal sense of intersectionality. As liberal as past scholars have made themselves out to be, many still hold on to very rigid and close minded ideas on trans identity is and what gender exists as.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hello!
I really appreciated how you incorporated your own identity into this post. I too agree with the statement that ” at least the story was told, and by another queer person.” I touched on this point in my own blog post. You confront the, sometimes difficult, topic of authorship very delicately. You examine the truth of the situation and give your opinion on the matter very matter-of-fact. It is refreshing to read such a concise examination of this otherwise debated topic. While I do not know Livingston’s identity, as I see there is some discrepancy in that within the other comments on this post, I do know Livingston is a queer person. And although they cannot relate to the subject of race with the ball community, Livingston can relate to being queer in world that doesn’t make that easy. What I mentioned in my post was I think for films like this, and when analyzing authorship, you must look at the cultural context of the time period, and evaluate if it would’ve been possible for a queer person of color to make this film. I think this film was made because Livingston can pass/ or was identifying as a cis-gendered woman at the time.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi! Definitely grappled with a lot of the same thoughts. I’m happy that this film was made, but there are a lot of questions brought up when considering the fact that this was not written by someone from that community. It’s tough. Often, documentaries are made by an outsider entering a new world and taking the time to learn about that world and the people from that community. Much of the time that feels just fine, or even provides and added element of identification because the viewer is also often an outsider looking in. But with this sensitive of a topic, with such a marginalized/ostracized/persecuted community, it doesn’t sit well that it is made my an outsider, because we wander into the potential of spectacle. A key element to this doc is the idealization of “whiteness,” and it’s eerie to think about a white filmmaker behind the camera for those interviews. However, should the film never have been made? I’d like to think no, because it still is such a valuable insight into such a special community during a critical time. But I am not a part of that community, so I would like to leave the space for those individuals to have the last word.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Edit-accidentally wrote “written” when I made “made” hehe
LikeLike