Although I was
reluctant at first about watching Paris
is Burning, after reflecting on the movie for a few days I discovered I was
actually fascinated and even somewhat interested in the ball culture. Then, after
reading chapter nine of the Bell Hooks novel, I found myself thinking about the
movie even more. There were two specific parts that were included in both the
movie and book that caught my attention.
First
of all, the movie portrays balls in a very positive light. Several of the
queens emphasize the importance of having the freedom to “become anything or
anyone you want.” Furthermore, they mention that the balls are “not a take-off
or a satire,” but are real-life. The queens are able to actually be themselves
in a comfortable situation in which they won’t be mocked by white society. The
book, too, mentions this aspect. “…identity is always perceived as capable of
construction, invention, change” (p. 145). It would appear as though the balls
provided homosexual African American men with the opportunity to become
themselves and express themselves freely, which was very important for them at
the time.
Another
fact I found interesting that was present in the movie and the book is the fame
and glamour of the balls. However, the movie praises the glamour and stardom
while the book shows a differing opinion. In the movie, the balls are described
as putting people close to fame and glamour and allowing the queens to “live
the fantasy.” Many of them seem to enjoy this aspect of pageantry in the balls,
and numerous scenes display the glamourous queens performing. On the other
hand, Bell Hooks notices and does not approve of the pageant-focused tone of
the movie. “Much of the film’s focus on pageantry takes the ritual of the black
drag ball and makes it spectacle…spectacle functions primarily as entertaining
dramatic display” (p. 150). This caused me to question the motives of the
movie. I initially assumed the movie was depicting an accurate representation
of the balls as part of the documentary-like style, but I can also understand
where Bell Hooks is coming from. The movie certainly was ‘entertaining dramatic
display’ that many people thought was “amazing,” “marvelous,” and “incredibly
funny” (p. 149). Did the movie miss its mark, then, as being informative and
eye-opening towards the ball culture? Did it instead simply become a pageant-like
spectacle that audiences could laugh at?
If the movie didn't have the entertainment factor, would it be as successful as it was? Even if portrays ball culture inaccurately, it still sheds light on a group of people that had been largely ignored. I wonder if people would have gone to the film if it wasn't funny/entertaining. Would it be wrong if the film did both-- if it was informative but also funny? I know it's wrong to laugh at the subjects of the film, but at least their message was being heard in some way.
ReplyDelete