Paris Is Burning is a 1990 American documentary film by Jennie Livingston about the ball culture of New York City and the African-American, Latino, gay, and transgender communities involved in it. Shortly after the film's release, many criticized both Livingston and his work, including bell hooks and Jackie Goldsby. While Hooks and Goldsby both come to the conclusion that there are some things Livingston could have done differently, Goldsby's analysis is much deeper and less biased than Hooks', which is based more on personal conjecture rather than hard evidence. I will first discuss Hooks' argument on racial issues, as well as Goldsby's slightly different argument on the film's terminology and imagery. I will then discuss the similarities and differences between their arguments, such as their focuses and opinions on Livingston. Next, I will conclude with my own insights into both their topics and Paris is Burning. For starters, Hooks wrote a piece titled Is Paris Burning in his book Black Looks: Race and Representations. In this piece he not only criticizes Paris is Burning but also criticizes Livingston, focusing on race. For example, Hooks criticizes Livingston because he thinks he should have recognized himself as a privileged member of the dominant white society. This is evident when Hooks states, “it is easy for viewers to imagine that they are watching an ethnographic film…and not recognize that they are watching a work shaped and shaped by Livingston's specific perspective and point of view” (151). Next, he explains that the film did not question “whiteness,” but instead celebrated it. For example, he states that “what viewers see are not black men wishing to rage…middle of the paper…suggests that “there would be no difference between his work and that of a black director” (152). I think when Livingston says, “I would love for a black director to make this film,” she is simply stating that she doesn't care who made it, but that she's just happy that it's available for people to experience learning about this subculture (Hooks 152) Therefore, Hooks and Goldsby both came to the same conclusion that there are some changes that Livingston could have made, but Goldsby's analysis is much deeper and less biased than Hooks' which is based more on conjecture. rather than personal conjecture. Hooks first discussed his thoughts on films about race. Then Goldsby explained the film's linguistic strategies. Finally, a new criticism was made after watching the film and reading every previous topic.