CINE 245: David Shukhin Blog Post #5 - Paris is Burning

         April 6, 2024

Film name: Paris is Burning

Release Date and Studio: 1990, Miramax

Director: Jennie Livingston

Main Cast: Pepper LaBeija, Kim Pendavis, Dorian Corey, Venus Xtravaganza, Willi Ninja,

Freddie Pendavis

Plot Summary: The documentary is structured using bits of interviews with various drag queens in the New York City underground scene. The interviews are edited together with scenes from “The Ball” a drag competition that draws in the gay community from all over New York City. We learn about the queens’ personal lives and what the scene and ball mean to them. The ball ends and a few years pass by and the underground scene starts getting media attention. A few of the interviewees, such as Willi Ninja end up receiving mainstream media attention and success, while many are left behind in an underground scene that starts feeling less like a tight knit community.

Prompt:  In approximately 350-400 words, please reflect on the relationship between the formal aspects of filmmaking you have observed (such as camera work, mise-en-scène, organization of the syuzhet) and the documentary. How has the director chosen to film this documentary - and, more importantly, how does its film style contribute to/enhance/challenge our understanding of the matter under interrogation here? Consider as well: How does realist filmmaking provide us a view into this important subculture? Can this film be trusted for ‘authenticity’? Why or why not? Please also address the subject matter specifically - in what ways does the crafting of this documentary relate to the culture being investigated? How does it contribute to our understanding of that culture? Is that culture being represented fairly? Ethically? 

Jennie Livingston’s documentary Paris is Burning is filmed in a very raw style. It consists of hundreds of handheld camera shots, quick cuts, and spontaneous events. Many of the shots are underexposed and have lots of grain, but this low production value makes the documentary feel truly authentic. Interviewees are mostly placed in dressing rooms or their houses, the mise-en-scene being crucial to transmitting their identities in a visual way that supplements their narration. 

The syuzhet is constructed using these interviews and it gives off the impression that the drag queens are finally given an opportunity to tell their own stories without any filtration or editing. Although at times we are able to hear Livingston ask questions, this doesn’t make it feel like she is intruding on the drag queens. Instead it helps remind us that these are real stories and real people we may not usually hear speak. 

The editing style complements this as it jumps between an ecstatic series of quick cuts that throw us into this other world juxtaposed with long shots of the drag queens just talking. Pauses and moments of silence are not edited out and this allows us to connect much more with the drag queens because it recreates the feeling of being in the room with them. We can no longer turn away from them or ignore them as we are made to sit with their stories and the uncomfortable truths of the injustices they face.

Although I can see how parts of the documentary may be considered performative, and it may feel like the structure is designed in a way to provoke the strongest emotional response, I mostly felt that it was observational. Watching it I felt like a fly on the wall, observing the events unfolding and still being allowed to form my own opinions on the matter. The stories themselves were enough to evoke an emotional response, and there was not much of a need for Livingston to interfere with them. Livingston’s role was simply to piece the stories together in a way where they reveal a fuller and more objective view of the subculture as a whole. This ends up addressing a wide range of experiences of the gay community, and exploring the effect of intersectionality on one's identity and sense of belonging within that community.