Stonewall movie.

[uwsman2]

Saw it today. Not a great film. A bit awkward and stiff at times. But a lot of it is historically accurate, actually, if one gets past the Hollywood convention of invented characters. The cast is very diverse, and I don't think it downplayed the centrality of street people, minorities and trans people. It's not a documentary. Don't expect a documentary and you might enjoy it.

[+ deej]

http://33.media.tumblr.com/fa265a36425e13682317666c2d8a66ff/tumblr_nn2a86lg8y1st09qzo2_r1_250.gif http://33.media.tumblr.com/c4522dd9312d54a1eb9fd1376f03f328/tumblr_nn2a86lg8y1st09qzo3_r1_400.gif

 

Obviously a bad casting choice.

 

No fucking way I'm sitting through a few hours of a movie with this guy in it.

 

Magic Mike, anyone?

 

After you throw him out, send him over to my place.

[Irtwo]

...that they couldn't simply calculate that they could make a good movie based on the actual characters who drove the story - lesbians, drag queens, and transgendered, most of whom were not white.

 

Just to note, there are different view points on this. I would like to hear Thickornotatall's comments on this article, since he appears to know Stonewall bar at that time.

 

http://igfculturewatch.com/2002/03/07/the-myth-of-a-transgender-stonewall/

[+ stevenkesslar]

Just to note, there are different view points on this. I would like to hear Thickornotatall's comments on this article, since he appears to know Stonewall bar at that time.

 

Here's another possible gay myth that I love:

 

http://clatl.com/atlanta/did-judy-garland-start-a-riot/Content?oid=9463581

 

I actually remember the day Judy Garland died. I was a kid, and it was after Mass, and my Dad always got the paper, and I was reading a story about her under the headline "Judy's Borrowed Time Ran Out," if I recall right. I have no idea why I remember that particular story. I had no clue I was Gay, nor did I know Garland was a Gay icon, nor did I know anything about the Stonewall Inn. But somehow that particular moment is particularly memorable to me.

 

This is actually partly what I love about being Gay. At the risk of sounding maudlin, we go for irony, and satire, and tragedy, and the underdog, whether it is Judy Garland or a sad looking drag queen. Which is not to say Garland wasn't a tough woman, or all drag queens are sad cases. But we are definitely not like the Tea Party crowd that likes to wear the funny White Founding Father hats and act all principled and moral. We embrace life as it is.

 

I actually wonder whether that will be true in a century, if LGBTQ life continues to "normalize." Some of the appeal of Garland and "Over the Rainbow" could be that we had to hide who we were. But if that's some part of LGBTQ culture that goes away or is diminished, it's not a great loss. And whether it's fiction or not, our history can uplift the myths about the Judy Garlands and the transgendered warriors. Does it really matter whether myths are true?

[body2body]

I came out in 1970, and got involved in the Gay Liberation movement right from the start. One of the discussions you heard most frequently was whether we should suppress Drag Queens, Transexuals, and effeminate men from appearing at demonstrations. There were always "normal" looking guys who could "pass" ( in the parlance of the time), who did not want obvious Queens to be on display as part of the movement. When we founded a Gay Students Union at my University, one our first actions was to found a speakers bureau to send panels to speak to classes, and other student organizations. There was a huge battle within our organization about who would be acceptable to send out to represent us. It was a very turbulent time. When it was mentioned that the Stonewall riots were largely fought by drag queens and Transexuals, some people did not want to believe it.

 

On one hand I'm glad that so much has changed, and the strides our community has made. When I see two young guys, or young women walking hand in hand, and being affectionate it makes me smile. By the same token, young people today are so ignorant of what life used to be like, and the efforts, that have been made by so many men and women to achieve the freedom that so many take for granted. Some of those people were ones we would be very uncomfortable around today.

[body2body]

Not to hijack this thread- but Stonewall wasn't the first action of this type. The police abuse of gay people in other parts of the country were causing a incidents in Los Angeles and San Francisco. Here is the account of the events at the Black Cat Tavern in the Silverlake neighborhood of L.A. 1967:

 

The bar was established in November 1966.

 

Police raid and LGBT demonstrations

Two months later, on the night of New Year's 1967, several plain-clothes LAPD police officers infiltrated the Black Cat Tavern.[3] After arresting several patrons for kissing as they celebrated the occasion,[4] the undercover police officers began beating several of the patrons[5] and ultimately arrested thirteen patrons and three bartenders.[5] This created a riot in the immediate area that expanded to include the bar across Sanborn Avenue called New Faces, where officers knocked down the owner, a woman, and beat two bartenders unconscious.[6]

 

Several days later, this police action incited a civil demonstration of over 200 attendees to protest the raids. The demonstration was organized by a group called PRIDE (Personal Rights in Defense and Education).[7] The protest was met by squadrons of armed policemen.[3] Two of the men arrested for kissing were later convicted under state law and registered as sex offenders. The men appealed, asserting their right of equal protection under the law, but the U.S. Supreme Court did not accept their case.[8]

 

It was from this event that the publication The Advocate began as a newspaper for PRIDE (Personal Rights in Defense and Education).[9] Together the raid on the Black Cat Tavern and later the raid on The Patch in August 1968 inspired the formation of the Metropolitan Community Church (led by Pastor Troy Perry).[10][11]

 

These events pre-dated the Stonewall riots by over two years.[8]

[Rod Hagen]

Wasn't this movie, like the exact same story, out in the late 90s?

[+ stevenkesslar]

Wasn't this movie, like the exact same story, out in the late 90s?

 

Yes. I saw it years ago. It wasn't memorable, either. Now we get two movies made about us, neither of which are all that good.

 

I think I'll stick with the revamped and 3D version of "The Wizard Of Oz." A friend of mine treated me to that recently, and it was really enjoyable. Just hearing Judy sing "Over The Rainbow" gives me a good dose of gay, whether she actually caused Stonewall or not.

 

Here's another pretty balanced article I just found that quotes several people that actually were present at the original:

 

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/sep/25/stonewall-film-gay-rights-activists-give-their-verdict

 

There's lots of grounds for irony and compassion in this, I think.

 

First, Stonewall wasn't Stonewall. As was mentioned above, it was one of a series of bar closings. Perhaps it lit a fire in a way others didn't, but the whole idea that Stonewall is somehow THAT BIG and all these other events mean nothing and are long forgotten is drama. It's all part of our history.

 

Second, the director, Roland Emmerich, is probably proving he's a better filmmaker than most gay activists are. Here's one quote from the article above by a former Gay street youth: "This story really needs a series, because each character needs to be developed more." Really? Somehow, I feel like Roland Emmerich might have judged correctly that most Americans who spend at most 2 hours watching the destruction of the planet by a new Ice Age or aliens probably won't go spend 6 hours watching a series of tender portraits of Gay street youth. The film sounds deeply flawed, which is what I would have expected from a Director of disaster flicks, but it doesn't really turn history on its head.

 

Third, the reaction to the film says everything about where we are at today, and very little about where we are at in 1969, when anybody and everybody in the LGBTQ rainbow was mostly considered a pervert and criminal. Here's a quote from the article above that I think really nails that point: "While Stonewall wasn’t as gut-wrenchingly terrible as I expected, it was a disappointment in many ways, mostly because Emmerich felt he had to have a generic, “straight-acting” white dude from Indiana as the protagonist so straight people could “feel for him.” But thanks to the Stonewall Riots, most straight people know a gay person and can sympathise with a gay character. As the movie’s production values painfully make clear, this isn’t 1969 – mainstream audiences can (and should) deal with the kind of complex, diverse LGBT characters television has been churning out for the past few years."

 

Fourth, to sum it up, the main criticism of the movie is it focuses on a pretty white twentysomething, to the exclusion of everybody else. Hmmm. Didn't we have a debate earlier this year about something like that? You guys probably learned your lesson and are way into the diversity thing now. Good for deej and me, since we get the pretty twentysomething boy all to ourselves. We'll let you know how it goes.

 

http://33.media.tumblr.com/fa265a36425e13682317666c2d8a66ff/tumblr_nn2a86lg8y1st09qzo2_r1_250.gif http://33.media.tumblr.com/c4522dd9312d54a1eb9fd1376f03f328/tumblr_nn2a86lg8y1st09qzo3_r1_400.gif http://38.media.tumblr.com/41f07cd57f8aefbd532e6568f6a06c7f/tumblr_nn2a86lg8y1st09qzo1_r1_400.gif

 

Seriously, the reaction to the film is causing a reaction in me. This is arguably really apples and oranges, but it reminds me of the ton of abuse that was directed at leaders of the LGBTQ community in California back in 2008, when we lost the state vote on same sex marriage. While it may be true that a bunch of really good people whose strong suit was practicing law were in fact a little out of their league when it came to running a statewide issue campaign, it floored me how harsh our own community was to its leaders, simply because they had the audacity to try and fail. It doesn't surprise me that Emmerich would be out of his league telling a story like this, and might have failed, but ironically the way he chose to tell it led to a debate that will likely raise more awareness than the movie itself will. Good for him!

[bigvalboy]

Very well written Steven, and much to contemplate.

[fedssocr1]

This review is from MetroWeekly in DC

http://www.metroweekly.com/2015/09/the-trouble-with-stonewall-roland-emmerichs-latest-disaster-movie/

 

The reviewer is very much a film buff.

[+ purplekow]

Steven, I enjoyed reading your evaluation but I must say, that young boy with the big dick in the green briefs got most of my attention.

[MontrealSucks]

Why can't people just take the movie for what it was... a fictionalized version of an actual event. Did Jack Dawes really exist on Titanic? No... James Cameron took an actual event in history and used it as a backdrop for a fictional story.That is basically the same thing that was done here. The events around the Stonewall Riots was used as a backdrop for the story of the farmboy from Indiana.

 

Sure, Emmerick could have been a little more accurate in his depiction of the events, but as we all know (or should know) fictional accounts are not usually the most accurate. If you want an accurate account, find and watch a documentary.

 

I watched the movie more as a view into gay life of the late 60's and found it entertaining.

[+ FreshFluff]

I think these reviewers are expecting too much of Hollywood. Many movie and television shows about minority groups (African Americans, Jews, Hispanics) typically feature stars with cookie cutter, WASP-y features. Tonyko can chime in, but I assume that's so a middle America audience can identify with the character. Even HBO's the Normal Heart starred Mark Ruffalo.

 

The movie may be terrible, but that's a different issue.

[Dave]

I saw Stonewall recently. I was simultaneously disgusted by the liberties it took, the credit it took away from the activists that I've heard about and known, and the stereotypes it utilized - on multiple levels, even down to the protagonist's midwest house details.

But - I was also happy that the story of Stonewall was being told. It's a turning point in LGBT history. I am proud to have had it touch my life, and I hope those who don't know of it learn about it in their pursuit of understanding LGBT rights worldwide.

 

I hope the clients whom I've previously taken to The Stonewall Inn get to see the movie. Yes, it's rubbish on many levels but hey, it's our rubbish... (just kidding). What I mean is, even though it's a bastardization of our story... it's still has an essence of being our story.

[Kevin Slater]

Why can't people just take the movie for what it was... a fictionalized version of an actual event. Did Jack Dawes really exist on Titanic? No... James Cameron took an actual event in history and used it as a backdrop for a fictional story.That is basically the same thing that was done here. The events around the Stonewall Riots was used as a backdrop for the story of the farmboy from Indiana.

 

Sure, Emmerick could have been a little more accurate in his depiction of the events, but as we all know (or should know) fictional accounts are not usually the most accurate. If you want an accurate account, find and watch a documentary.

 

I watched the movie more as a view into gay life of the late 60's and found it entertaining.

 

Sure, but in that case I would prefer the movie to be titled something other than Stonewall (and Titanic for that matter). That tittle implies to me that the movie is going to attempt to more or less tell the story of the Stonewall riots, not simply a melodrama set against the riots as a backdrop.

 

Kevin Slater

[LADoug1]

Vanity Fair: "Turns out, Stonewall is perhaps even worse than some feared it would be—more offensive, more white-washed, even more hackishly made. It’s so bad that it’s hard to know where to begin a catalogue of the film’s sins."

 

I was on the fence about seeing the movie having heard bad things. After this review comment I know I'll pass.

[marylander1940]

Vanity Fair: "Turns out, Stonewall is perhaps even worse than some feared it would be—more offensive, more white-washed, even more hackishly made. It’s so bad that it’s hard to know where to begin a catalogue of the film’s sins."

 

I was on the fence about seeing the movie having heard bad things. After this review comment I know I'll pass.

 

More on this

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wcUtZsRXlQ

 

[Bearofdistinction]

Here is a look at the movie posted on our PBS site. The author discloses that he had offered to speak with the movie's makers to give his remembrances of what had led to the riots and what happened after.

 

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/art/stonewall-movie/

 

Thank you for sharing the article TBT --- I do recommend Marc Segal's Book -- and if you are not familiar with any of his work for the LGBT community I suggest that you

Google --- The John C. Anderson House in Philadelphia - the first public/privately funded partnership to create "LGBT Friendly" Sliding Scale Fee -- Senior Housing.

 

The Sunday NYTimes did an excellent piece around the ground opening.

[TruthBTold]

Thanks Bear. I will definitely check it out. I am sure the Philadelphia item will prove useful on many different levels.

[liubit]

Yes, I understand all the misgivings about the film and its historical accuracy, but Jeremy Irvine is just soooooooooo damn f**cking gorgeous....Well, sorry, I am shallow, shallow, shallow :rolleyes:

[marylander1940]

New York City marks 50th anniversary of Stonewall riots

[+ Charlie]

I don't know how I missed this old thread when it was new, but marylander's revival of it today caused me to read through it again, so there are a couple of things I would have responded to if I had read it when it first appeared. Like @thickornotatall, I lived not far from the Stonewall, but I wouldn't have been there that night, because it was not one of my regular watering holes. Friends started calling me about it the next morning, so I looked in the NYTimes, and there was a very small article about it, basically a police report. As the riots grew the next few nights, there were more news articles, still not large, and then things quieted down and it disappeared from the mainstream news. It wasn't really until the anniversary march the following year that it started to be treated by the media as possibly a seminal event in gay history. But it was definitely perceived as a big deal immediately by the established gay activists, and sparked a lot of serious community organizing, especially in NY.

 

I had been part of the Philadelphia activist community in the mid-1960s, so I was friendly with early leaders like Frank Kameny and Barbara Gittings. I have mentioned elsewhere that I never saw Frank without a coat and tie, even on a hot night in a gay bar. He insisted that when we took part in any kind of gay rights demonstration, the men should wear conservative office attire and the women should wear dresses; Barbara didn't like that, but she did it. Stonewall changed that. When I went with a busload of activists to the state capitol in Harrisburg in the early 70s to lobby legislators, I noticed that I was one of the few participants who still wore a coat and tie. When I went into a senator's office with Mark Segal, the receptionist automatically addressed herself to me; Mark quickly made it clear which of us was actually going to be the spokesman.

 

I probably didn't read this thread when it was new, because I never went to see the movie; I guess I didn't miss much.

[+ WilliamM]

The sounds like Mark Segal .

[+ azdr0710]

I never saw this much-maligned movie mentioned upthread......but it seems the much-better PBS "American Experience" production hasn't been mentioned here in the forum......it came out just a few years ago and you can get it through Netflix and/or watch it via the PBS American Experience website if you're a PBS "Passport" member -- or something.....

 

https://www.pbs.org/video/american-experience-stonewall-uprising/

 

 

very low-quality (voices modified, frame limited) version of the full doc available at youtube.....yes, that's Mike Wallace narrating a 1960s-era TV documentary titled "The Homosexuals" around 3:30-4:00......not linking it because, for some reason, the link locks on an apparently underage kid....search "stonewall uprising" at youtube and look for the 1:08:03 choice....again, it's very low-quality......

 

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=stonewall+uprising

Edited June 29, 2019 by azdr0710

[fedssocr1]

The PBS film is excellent. I think it's about 10 years old now. Although because of the lack of contemporaneous visuals they do end up using the same photos over and over. However the interviews with people who were there are great.