Paris is Burning was a tragic movie in my eyes. Possibly this was caused by the fact that I could barely see or hear most of the film. But getting an impression of it, and viewing a fictional drag movie, Pricillia Queen of the Dessert, a few hours later has made me realize why I felt it was a tragic movie. In Paris is Burning the drag queens are only shown in drag. We never get to realize who they are as a person. Bell Hooks points out that at no point “...are the men asked to speak about their connections to a world of family and community beyond the drag ball. The cinematic narrative makes the ball the center of their lives.” I believe because these men are shown as living in a fantasy without a real grounding to their human side bell hooks feels like this.
I must admit that my viewing of Paris is Burning was a movie experience that I had a negative attitude coming in as a result of the article. It may have been more realistic to have us read film reviews contemporary with the article, then view the movie, then read the article. My viewing was a definitely prejudged affair. I was what I wanted to see.
But to respond to bell hooks criticism I must agree that Livingston made a film to exemplify the mastery of the feminine at a drag ball. In today's world the feminine is not mastered except by movie stars, and a few women. Business suits are man's suits with a feminine redressing. A majority of female faculty at Purchase and other institutions dress “masculine” by wearing pants and the like. In addition very few female students today dress in a dress anytime except for the most important of occasions. I must agree with Marilyn Frye that “...the mastery of the feminine is not feminine. It is masculine...” I would alter this and say that extreme feminine (that is extravagant dresses, and mastered feminine gestures) is a masculine trait. In the same way I would also say that women's business suits and even casual ware could be considered a liberal extreme on the masculine side.
By observing the blurring of gendered clothing we can also interpret the blurring of genders in society. One could argue that as female clothing has become more masculine and male clothing has become more feminine (ex. designer underwear, form fitting clothing, and an increased awareness of designers) that women have become more masculine and males more feminine. The sensitive male is an allowed cultural artifact. The masculine side of women is almost a norm in todays society.
What does this mean to Paris is Burning though? Much. (I hope.) Paris is Burning is an exhibition of totally feminine males. There is no balance of the masculine and the feminine. What I believe is happening in society, and is exemplified in the homosexual community is a natural blending of the genders. It is not yet totally socially acceptable for a totally masculine female or a totally feminine male to exist. Society is beginning to realize that each gender has natural qualities that are considered “feminine” or “masculine” and they suppress the qualities that aren't applicable to their biological gender. There is an awakening realization of the qualities of both genders within both genders. While in females this was especially exemplified in World War Two is apparent in the importance of women in all aspects of the workplace. For males this awakening has been a slower process. Males are still expected to be masculine, and hold their feminine side for specific times and places. This is the place for the phrase “getting in touch with your feminine side.”
What does it mean that women have almost unlimited access to the masculine qualities in society, when men have access to feminine qualities only at specific times? I would have to sum it up in the short phrase, patriarchy still exists strongly, despite the attacks it has taken in recent times. Men still need to act and feel masculine, and in many men's minds getting in touch with a feminine quality is an instant nullification of the masculine qualities they possess.
Gender is a fludic thing. It must exist in certain quantities at certain times. At a formal occasion for example a wedding, gender existence is a totally biologically enforced experience. But at say a movie, or a stage show, all ranges of gendered emotions are available to anyone. The behaviors required in a gendered society exist differently in each situation.
Perhaps bell hooks is totally wrong. Paris is Burning could be a film before it time. Exemplifying the male totally able to embrace his feminine side. Gender is something that historically has been guaranteed to change, and in the future will be guaranteed to change