PETITION: Boycott Stonewall Movie

Variety reports:

“A historically accurate film about the Stonewall Riots would center the stories of queer and gender-noncomforming people of color like Sylvia Rivera and Marsha P. Johnson,” a MoveOn petition reads. “Not relegate them to background characters in the service of a white cis-male fictional protagonist.” The trailer for Roland Emmerich’s film about the 1969 Stonewall riots just debuted online on Tuesday, but it’s already sparked controversy among the LGBT community for its portrayal of the start of the gay-rights movement. The preview presents a white man as the centerpiece of the movie, showing a character named Danny (Jeremy Irvine) arriving in New York City, where he meets the gay community on Christopher Street and is radicalized by his experiences with them at the Stonewall Inn. A MoveOn petition aimed at director Roland Emmerich, himself openly gay, urges those who sign it to boycott the movie “for erasing the contributions of of-color queer and gender non-comforming activists.”

So far the petition has over 14,000 signatures.

UPDATE: Director Roland Emmerich has responded on Facebook:

When I first learned about the Stonewall Riots through my work with the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center, I was struck that the circumstances that lead to LGBT youth homelessness today are pretty much the same as they were 45 years ago. The courageous actions of everyone who fought against injustice in 1969 inspired me to tell a compelling, fictionalized drama of those days centering on homeless LGBT youth, specifically a young midwestern gay man who is kicked out of his home for his sexuality and comes to New York, befriending the people who are actively involved in the events leading up to the riots and the riots themselves. I understand that following the release of our trailer there have been initial concerns about how this character’s involvement is portrayed, but when this film – which is truly a labor of love for me – finally comes to theaters, audiences will see that it deeply honors the real-life activists who were there — including Marsha P. Johnson, Sylvia Rivera, and Ray Castro — and all the brave people who sparked the civil rights movement which continues to this day. We are all the same in our struggle for acceptance.

  • Jake

    For fuck’s sake.

    • Gerry Fisher

      I love you folks who can say it in much fewer words. Not my gift, but I *do* so appreciate. 🙂

  • Gustav2

    And Christians and Jews should have boycotted every Cecil B DeMille movie made on Bible stories. Yes, it’s not a documentary, it’s Hollywood.

    • Herald

      Historically Braveheart is a disaster. But it did get many people to dig into Scottish history and renew their pride.

      Hollywood does not do documentaries and most always butchers the story of what really happened.

      • Reality.Bites

        And documentaries often do that too.

        • Herald

          All histories have their own slant on events, people, etc. which is why if I am studying something I like to compare and contrast several sources. One way histories slant things is by what they leave out!

          • Reality.Bites

            Yes there’s that, but there’s also the need to compress and simplify in addition to any bias on the part of the story-tellers.

          • Polterguest

            It’s interesting because everyone on the queer tantrum side of the matter think Silvia Rivera’s slant on events is the gospel truth (discounting other narratives) and her slant has changed quite a bit over the years.

      • Oscarlating Wildely

        “Historically Braveheart is a disaster.”

        But makes Mel Gibson’s Passion of the Christ look like research at MIT.

      • ZhyKitty

        One of my best friends in all the world is a Scotsman from Edinburgh. He comes every couple of years and stays with me for a month, and has done since we were kids (early 20’s)….so his entire American experience has been whatever is going on in my life at the time, sometimes in rather dangerous situations/neighborhoods, etc with all kinds of illegal activities taking place around him, which he never participates in but has on many occasions delighted in being witness to.
        He loves America because of this, but to say that his idea of what it is to be American or to live here has been hideously distorted would be an understatement…..much like trying to understand Scottish history or William Wallace via the movie Braveheart, which offends my friend so much that I have literally listened to hours upon hours of his opinions on the matter over the years, to the point where I genuinely wish I’d never watched it with him all those years ago.
        Of course, one cannot blame him for how he feels about it, especially since we Americans evidently went over there and put a statue of Mel Gibson as the character right near the actual William Wallace monument, which infuriated the common people….most certainly, my friend was offended.
        He thinks upper class Americans, none of which he has ever met on his visits, since he is always with me, are evil capitalist assholes who think the world revolves around them and in general doesn’t like America or Americans, except for the poor folks – though he himself is not poor – that he never gets to meet when Americans visit Edinburgh because people like us can’t afford to travel.

        My point to this long winded post was that nearly all things are distorted via point of view, but we almost always only notice this when it’s a distortion we personally don’t like.

    • another_steve

      That’s a good point, Gustav. It doesn’t purport to be an historical documentary; it’s your typical Hollywood extravaganza, complete with perfectly manicured actresses and actors.

      Personally, I’d like to see a “disclaimer” at the beginning of the movie — something to the effect of “This film is a fictional retelling of the Stonewall riots and is not intended to be a literal account of actual events.”

      • Gustav2

        “…and the names have been changed to protect the guilty.” 😉

    • Nexus1

      So Asian people should have been OK with Mickey Rooney playing Charlie Chan? Or all the other Asian and Native American characters and historical figues portrayed by White actors in film for the past 80 years? And despite what some fundamentalist want to believe the Bible is not a history book. The movie ‘Avatar the last Airbender’ had a big controversy because two of the main characters were people from the Arctic and of a darker skin tone, they were thought by most viewers to be Inuit, but they were portrayed as and by Caucasians in the film and tons of fans of the series were pissed about that, so even with a modern and undisputedly fictional story a large part of the fandom and perspective audience didn’t like Hollywood whitewashing the characters. When a group is not represented in media and especially film that much they tend to get rather upset when the chance to see someone like themselves in a story that should include them in a role of prominence is taken away or when they are relegated to the background. There were actually people who got upset about the all Black cast version of Steel Magnolias a couple of years ago as well, so yep people do get upset about the racial makeup of fictional stories and that outrage can come from all races and groups.

      • Adam

        One of the kids who was thought of as “white” in Avatar was actually Native American (and clearly is if you look at pictures of him). But he was considered “too white” by the social justice warriors.

        • Nexus1

          The characters I was referencing were Katara and Sokka and the actors that portrayed them were Caucasian. The ethnicity of the actor who portrayed Aang was not the subject of my comment nor the outrage from Airbender fans. Also his Native American heritage wasn’t part of his bio nor did the studio feel the need to mention it until the controversy about the characters being whitewashed erupted. This wasn’t about being ‘social justice warriors’ as you put it, but about people who were fans of a show not liking the characters races and a huge part of how they were portrayed being changed because Hollywood didn’t think they could sell the movie with kids of color. The fans wanted to see a live action representation of an epic series, what they got was a bunch of executive decisions that the world wasn’t ready for Asians in prominent roles. Just as many fans of the Fantastic 4 are unhappy with the younger version of all the characters in the upcoming movie, Airbender fans were upset with the characters being altered in such fundamental ways in deference to racial bias. They just wanted the story to retain it’s essence and that’s hard to do when you change who and what the characters were. So were the people who were mad at the all Black version of Steel Magnolias ‘social justice warriors’?

      • Gustav2

        We can’t get Congress to look like America. I worry more about that than fantasyland.

        • Nexus1

          Tell that to the kids who would like to see themselves represented in the media they consume. Tell that to their sense of self esteem and value. Lack of representation in media and entertainment has a harmful effect on people, whether we like it or not. The thing is our media does have an influence on our politics. Do you think we would have a Black President if White America wasn’t used to seeing Black people on television? Do you think the Civil Rights movement of the 1960’s would have been as effective if not for Black faces on TV shows and in movies? Our media is a reflection of our society. The more it mirrors our reality the less people put up barriers to one another. They become more willing to at least give each other a chance when they encounter someone different than themselves. Familiarity, even the allusion of familiarity breaks down some of those barriers. Any tool to that end is useful. To dismiss such a huge vehicle to that end is foolish in my opinion. The makeup of our Congress doesn’t have as immediate an effect on the way Americans think as out film and television industry does. It may not be a reality we may be proud of, but it is still our reality. ‘Fantasyland’ had opened eyes and broken down barriers. As a minority we need ‘Fantasyland’ to reach the majority group, since there aren’t enough of us to personally touch those we don’t live near. A large portion of our society is unconcerned about politics, it doesn’t reach them and doesn’t influence their thinking, but TV and film does. To dismiss it is to be brush aside a massive tool of change over the last 80 years of our society is a big mistake.

          • Gustav2

            Television and movies are no longer the only media. Big Hollywood will always sell the fantasy people buy. We have so much more now. We should not rely on it for change or our voice.

          • Nexus1

            Hollywood still reaches the most people and often the poorest and most vulnerable. It still is the biggest tool, the fact that there are more tools out there doesn’t change the fact that the biggest hammer can still be the most effective.

          • Gustav2

            It is losing the Thor sized hammer. I am optimistic.

  • KQCA

    I’m just happy a film has been made about this story.

    I would say, that there will be plenty of opportunities for other filmmakers to tell the story in their own way. Filmmaking is about storytelling first, from the director’s artistic POV. If this film claimed to be a documentary, it would be a different matter.

  • Andrea_Rae

    What is the label Joe always uses? Oh yeah, infighting is funny.

    • Dramphooey

      That’s for the other side. The label for this one is NowWhatNotAgainI’mNotWithThesePeople.

  • MickinDetroit

    oh good, I was afraid there’d be nothing to be outraged about this morning…..

    • GunnaHurt

      I’m really ready to remove the T from our too-long acronym anyway. The Trans community will use the gay community’s political power when necessary, but the Trans community hates gay people as much as Christians do. They’ll happily stab us in the face every chance they get. Seeing the angry rants about how they dare to include a “cis white guy” in a movie they feel should be cast entirely with Trans “WOC,” it’s clear they really do hate us and are looking forward to broader Trans support so they can vote to bring back prop 8 and DADT and DOMA.

      • Roy Biv

        wtf?!?!

      • Polterguest

        They really do hate us and they really have no idea of the history they are talking about. They sure do love their mythologies.

      • BrandySpears

        Typical cissy whining about those mean trannies.

        • GunnaHurt

          I don’t think they’re mean at all. I think many of them are just crybabies. With all the complaining about how “cis white men” (their goto boogyman) don’t get their history “right.” How many trans film makers have made a Stonewall movie? How many have written a play? Written a short story? A comic book? I mean, you want your stories told, tell them yourself. This is a white gay man using a fictional character and we see the story through his eyes, but from what I understand, he’s not really a leader at all. And according to people who’ve actually seen the movie.. he doesn’t throw the “first brick.” The roles of trans women, black people and lesbians are all shown. It’s just seen through the eyes of someone who isn’t real so he can be in many places and witness as much as possible. It’s a script writing device that’s used all the time. Have you seen JFK? Evita? Selma? World Trade Center? The Help? They all had invented characters so we can see the story through their eyes. You don’t like it? Make a movie, play, story, comic book, radio play, puppet show yourself.

          • Roy Biv

            Cis white men is the boogeymen.

            They were hauling cis gay men to jail not too long ago. Bashing them in the streets. Stopping them from marrying…etc.

          • GunnaHurt

            I think you mean “cis white straight christian men.” Let’s not forget Matthew Shepherd was a cis white man. They’re not all bad guys, you know.

    • Gerry Fisher

      🙂

  • Time Warper

    Fuck this white gay male bashing bullshit. Did any of the fools attacking this movie bother to pull their heads out of their asses to see Marsha P Coleman and Ray Castro are in the movie? Or bother to look at the pictures from that night, which clearly show a majority white male presence?

    • Dramphooey

      I don’t like the way cis has suddenly appeared in this thread used as a pejorative.

      • medaka

        It often is.

        • Polterguest

          It almost always is.

      • doninkansas

        I find it be all the time. I am a man, period. if the trans folks want to label themselves, they are free to do so. I do not appreciate their labels for me.

    • Gerry Fisher

      I read one “activist” (“reactivist”?) say, “…but they’re too far down in the cast list.” [insert eye roll]

      Again, not a documentary. Again, not a fictionalized story based primarily on Coleman or Castro (though that is worthy of civilized critiquing).

    • DaveW

      No, that would stop the martyr complex

      • bdsmjack

        And why does the term always sound like it’s being blubbered out from a “cis gendered” little girl?

  • Rebecca Gardner

    Does this fall under the #InFightingIsFun hashtag? For fuck’s sake. *rolls eyes*

    • JT

      The hook seems to be similar to the one in the 1995 film: new boy to NYC gets radicalized by his experiences. The director claims he’s used a diverse cast. It would be hard to judge without seeing it. But it is fiction, after all, presumably with the larger purpose of making people aware of anti-gay oppression.

    • Whitewash

      The movie title is a bit odd. I would not have called it Stonewall. Maybe it would have been better to call it “Stonewall-ish.”

      • Eebadee-eebadee-thatsallfolks

        I’ll wait for Stonewall VII: This Time It’s Personal. Cue helicopters swooping away from giant fireball explosion.

        • Whitewash

          Tickled

        • Oscarlating Wildely

          And the White House getting blown up. And the Statue of Liberty’s torch falling into the Hudson. And Donald Trump becoming a Rhodes Scholar.

          • Dramphooey

            Actually Donald Trump running for President is comparable to the others.

          • Oscarlating Wildely

            …and may well be the result should he be elected….

        • Gerry Fisher

          That actually could be fun. Like “Sharknado.”

          • Dramphooey

            Twinknado based on someone’s comment about a little, white twink.

          • Rebecca Gardner

            Sharktopus vs. Werewhale.

          • David Walker

            I could see sitting through the 40+ minutes of commercials and promos to watch that one, Rebecca.

          • 2karmanot

            And add Pervi Porpoise

    • Andy King

      The white LGBT community has a problem with racism because white people in general have a problem with racism. This isn’t about whiny babies demanding complete historical accuracy, it’s about representating people of color who are (extremely) often left out of historical narratives to make a more palatable story.

      To get a sense of why POCs are upset by this, imagine if the main character was a straight boy and nobody thought that was weird because “it’s just meant to be a movie”.

      • Corey

        As a black gay man, I agree with the sentiment; however, I have learned to not look to the LGBTI community as an “extended family” somehow but rather as a collective to fight for our specific mutually beneficial rights only.

        • Roy Biv

          I completely agree with you.

          The LGBTQ community is as frazzled as any other other groups out there.

          The only thing that unites is our common struggle against homophobia and heterosexism. That’s a strong unity but other than that, it’s every clique for themselves.

          And yeah, even trans struggles aren’t as supported within the LG community.

          • Corey

            Bingo. It is the least common denominator – a strong one – but nothing more than that.

        • Estrafalario

          Yeah, I hear you. Self preservation is a good thing. But I also think this is about changing landscapes. Most of the white commenters here don’t realize the growing numbers of QPOC and the time for this shit is coming to an end — the constant erasure of our history.

          • Polterguest

            You need to realize it’s not just your history. The Gay Rights movement didn’t start with Stonewall and Stonewall itself has been mythologized and lied about to satisfy “queers” for far too long and far too much. The photograph above looks quite a lot like all the photographs I’ve seen from the riots.

          • Bigger Picture

            I think these posters are referring to a broader observation not narrowly based on the poster for the film.

          • Polterguest

            I think you’re giving them away too much credit.

          • Estrafalario

            Or just basic human respect to hear someone out and not dismiss out of hand.

          • Estrafalario

            Honey, when it’s history that only values white representation or erases people of color, that’s NOT my history. And truthfully it isn’t yours either. It’s a myth concocted by White people to repeatedly place themselves at the center of things. But if you’re fine with it, live in your bubble.

          • Polterguest

            You have reading comprehension problems. No surprise there. I wrote it’s not “just your history.” But thanks for playing.

          • Estrafalario

            Hilarious. Your reply to me and then claim I was the one who initiated the “playing.” SMH.

          • Polterguest

            Whatever you say. Your fluid perception and assertion of reality is totes adorbs.

          • Estrafalario

            snicker.

          • scottrose

            I never heard of a commercial movie being centered on its star before.

      • Gerry Fisher

        1) This is a work of fiction. 2) The pics from this movie look *more* diverse than the archival news pics posted to this blog a few days ago. 3) There was a Stonewall movie made 20 years ago with a non-Caucasian lead, and it didn’t do well at the box office. 4) Is it fair to go at a fictional piece with the same demands for accuracy as you would a documentary? 5) Is it possible that you can’t fully judge the racial and gender politics of this movie until people have seen full screenings? (In other words, it’s possible that they whitewashed the trailer as a way to draw mainstream crowds into a movie that has some diversity.)

        • Jimmy

          There’s no doubt that Emmerich went out of his way to consult with activists and bent over backwards to ensure a diverse crowd. But you can never satisfy a mob like this. No, now they insist that a homeless Black crossdresser named Marsha Johnson was the key player in the riot. The only problem is that there isn’t a shred of evidence to support that. There’s no photo placing Johnson at Stonewall, no police record, nothing. That entire story is based on Johnson’s own unsubstantiated claim and it conflicts with the Village Voice report at the time. But these folks need the hero to be a “person of color” because if he isn’t then the event doesn’t “belong” to them. If a pic emerged of Johnson throwing a brick, I’d accept that and I wouldn’t feel robbed of anything. But then, I’m not as enlightened as these “queers.”

          • Roy Biv

            It’s interesting how you almost use “queer” as pejorative by the context of your comment.

            I identify as gay by the way.

          • Estrafalario

            Given his other terms, I don’t think he’s interested in hearing from “us people”

          • Joe knows who I am.

            There’s no almost there. He’s simply just an asshole. Likely from Breitbart or somewhere on the right attempting to stir things up.

          • John

            I agree with you. Over the years anyone over 70 living in NY claims to be a Stonewall Vet and everyone was the one who threw the brick. This includes Stormé DeLarverie, Ivan the Terrible, Tree and Johnny Pool.

          • Estrafalario

            “a mob like this”
            “these people”
            “these “”queers”””

            I think you were looking for the Klan rally. It’s two doors down.
            SMH. Seriously.

      • RyanInIllinois

        How do you know how the movie actually tells the story when all you’ve seen is the trailer? Or have you attended an advance screening of the full film? Not attacking you – just wondering if you have seen more of the film than I have.

      • DaveW

        Making it about a straight street urchin caught up in it would be interesting, no faux outrage here. It’s a story. Instead of trying to censor, why not add to the discussion and make the movie they want.

      • DaveW

        You people call us racist so often it’s like chicken little. Martyr complex.

        • Cut It Out!

          DaveW, you are going to the extreme. Cut and paste below anywhere where you see the word racist from the post

        • Joe knows who I am.

          But ya are Blanche. Ya are!

      • Dead Giveaway

        Social Justice Warrior in action. These perpetually offended people are never happy, no matter what is done.

      • aschops

        It was clever of you to make this all about POC’s (misguided) grievances. You know this is not what that only – it’s also about trans people feeling entitled to wash gay history off gay men.

    • Polterguest

      Personally I’d like to thank the queer “activists” for giving me a reason to be sure and see this movie.

    • David Walker

      1. This reminds me of the pre-opening and first couple of days of “Cruising.” We (The Tribe) protested that based on trailers and word-of-mouth (ie, gossip) and “we’re not all like that.”
      2. This is different from OMM demanding something be taken off the air without actually seeing it how?

      • Reality.Bites

        Well slightly different in that encouraging people not to view something is not the same as trying to get it pulled from distribution, which is what OMM does.

      • AJD

        Different also in the sense that OMM’s protests are based on antigay animus, whereas the objections to “Stonewall” are based on the view that it perpetuates Hollywood’s tendency to whitewash history.

    • GarySFBCN

      1. I need to see the movie before I get upset. But there have been many boycotts of movies by the gay community before the movies were released: Cruising, Ender’s Game, Basic Instinct and others. So the standard that people need to see the movie isn’t something that we usually do, so please don’t impose this rule upon POC.

      2. POC and those of us who support them – we have the right to boycott whatever we want. We have hardly moved forward with any of our rights without a lot of well-channeled anger.

      3. Anyone who doesn’t acknowledge racism, especially among gay men, is either blind, ignorant or racist.

      4. The idea that ‘queers’ changed the history of Stonewall to satisfy some leftist and/or inclusive objective is bullshit. I’ve read extensively about the event and took a few LGBT history classes and read newspaper articles from that time (disgusting as they are). Those who say that there were no drag queens ARE indeed lying. Every photo of groups of people I’ve seen of the event are at least 50% people of color. 50% when POC were what – 20% of the total population.

      • AJD

        Thank you. I agree completely.

      • Dramphooey

        The first sentence of number one is a helluva strong point.

      • Prion

        Your Ender’s Game boycott comparison doesn’t hold up since that was not because of the content of the movie, but rather because of the asshole anti-gay bigot writer/producer. No one needed to see the movie to know his history.

        Having said that, I recently bought a used Ender’s Game DVD for $1.50 and still wound up overpaying for that piece of crap movie.

      • Capritaur

        Yet we group people into those who are POC and those who aren’t, those who support POC and those who don’t, as if these are discrete categories of people with mutually exclusive sets of struggles. This kind of divisive rhetoric is toxic to the discussion and amounts to saying that if I don’t support POC the same way you do, I must be one of those who don’t support POC at all.

        I agree that the idea “queers” somehow hijacked the history of Stonewall is bullshit, but so is this reclaimed and reconstructed notion of “queer” that inexplicably excludes “cis” gay men and lesbians, who nonetheless exhibit a broad spectrum of gender expression.

        All who participated in Stonewall were queers, which included drag queens, transvestites, transsexuals, lesbians, social misfits, homeless people, and, numerously, cis white gay men. The last time the latter was categorically separated from the former, they were called, respectively and with complementary badges, Homosexuellen and Asozialen.

        • GarySFBCN

          The problem is that there is no consensus regarding ‘queers’ and many in the gay community want nothing to do with trans people or men in drag.

          • aschops

            many in the gay community want nothing to do with trans people or men in drag.

            Do you know how trans people – especially those of the autogynephile type – feel about drag? Ever heard of the Alternative Glasglow Pride?

            They only ever count drags as one of their own when doing so gives them a chance to claim Stonewall as being all about them.

      • David Ehrenstein
    • GunnaHurt
      • Estrafalario

        That gif immediately had me imagining the NRA approved version. Some weird gun nut Inglorious Basterds/Sound of Music hybrid. With music.

      • Princess Lardass

        “The hills are alive…

        …with the sound of gunfire!”

      • ZhyKitty

        I laughed so hard I peed a little.
        Gonna have to wash my bedding….totally worth it.

      • 2karmanot

        Go Gurly Guns!

  • Jeff Chang

    The film itself says:

    INSPIRED by a true story.

    Thus is it different than

    BASED on a true story

    Or

    The TRUE STORY of

    • KQCA

      There ya go, exactly. I guess the protest is coming from the type of viewer who would believe the story of Jack and Rose is factual in “Titanic” (1997). (?) I don’t know why so many people still believe that if it appears on TV or film, it must be true.

      • Gustav2

        As with my comment on DeMille, many think it is an accurate telling of the Bible…if there could be one.

      • Michael Rush

        my father took me to see Bonnie and Clyde when i was 6 and i got upset because i thought the people were dying . So maybe it’s the mental development of a 6 year old to not be able to separate fiction from reality .

        • KQCA

          That is a really nice story….both parts…little guy trying to figure out life and dad bringing his son to the movies. That’s a nice image.

          • Michael Rush

            it sounds like a nice story BUT ….. note to parents Bonnie and Clyde ( 1968 ) is not suitable for a 6 year old . ( i almost went into details about my childhood but i stopped ! )

          • Reality.Bites

            I was thinking of pointing that out, but I didn’t want to be the one to crap on someone else’s childhood if they thought it was good!

          • KQCA

            I understand what you mean.

            My parents ran an Ozzie and Harriet home with a H.H. Holmes interior.

        • Estrafalario

          Nice. So you’re equating POC concerns about the constant erasure of our presence from history as the actions of 6 year olds. Thanks for clarifying that.

          • Michael Rush

            your comment makes NO sense !!! but your self righteous excitement level is really high so you get points for that . .

          • Estrafalario

            Nope. To equate concerns about representation to his story of his not understanding movie “reality” because he was a six year old. yeah that’s an equation.

          • Michael Rush

            you’re like a first year college student trying to make every conversation about rape culture when they learned what rape culture was last week .

          • Estrafalario

            Wow. So now I merit a power up to freshman level. Predictable. And you cued in a knock on “rape culture.” Hilarious.

          • Michael Rush

            the victim mentality doesn’t stop with you .

          • Estrafalario

            Wow. You’re good with the Breitbart speech. “Victim mentality” “rape culture” Wanna go for “culture of dependence” or “political correctness”?

          • Michael Rush

            if you want to have a discussion about POC concerns start one , don’t jump into a conversation that has NOTHING TO DO WITH POC concerns act like a victim .

          • Estrafalario

            So sorry. It’s just so hard to contribute after the nutritional bonanza of your childhood Bonnie & Clyde story.

          • Polterguest

            Your alleged “reality” is a myth in itself.

          • Estrafalario

            Nope. It’s rather well documented. You may want to crack a few books.

          • Polterguest

            Whatever you say. *eye roll*

          • Estrafalario

            Ooh. *eye roll*! What’s next? A gif file? I can’t wait. Your linguistic skills are AMAZING.

          • Polterguest

            Stop acting like a 6 year and and you’ll stop being treated like one.

          • Estrafalario

            Thanks for proving my point directly.

          • Polterguest

            LOL. There, there, little one.

          • pablo

            Also, Bonnie and Clyde were genderqueers of color!

      • pablo

        More racist, white washed history! Everyone knows that the majority of the victims of the sinking were black transwomen!

        • KQCA

          It was Illuminati. You know, the guys who sell lightbulbs.

  • HoneyBoySmith

    I’m reserving judgment about Stonewall 2015…but, I thought Stonewall 1995 did a fantastic fucking job!

    • HoneyBoySmith

      Also, for those who never saw the 1995 treatment, here’s the trailer:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMN_YpOT_ko

      • KQCA

        Thank you for posting this. I hadn’t heard of this film. I’m going to look it up and see it.

      • KQCA

        The 1995 version is not on Hulu or Netflix (although the 2015 trailer is on Hulu). Do you know where I may find the 1995?

      • Rod Steely

        Wait a minute! There are white people in that movie. How dare they!

        • Roy Biv

          That’s not the issue, nice strawman.

        • Jesse

          Lol Oh god. SHHHH.

      • KQCA

        HoneyBoySmith, I came back and searched through this long, long thread of comments (OMG at the length and the heated discussions) to find your comment here. . just wanted to thank you again for recommending this film. I did find it and was able to watch it tonight. I agree, it was very well done, acting and scripting included. I looked up Nigel Finch after the memorial slate appeared at the end of the film. What a tragedy that he didn’t get to see this work in completed form. What a great swan song for his legacy. I don’t know very much about the Stonewall riot except the 2 or 3 sentence description it is always relegated to when referenced (“A group of drag queens had enough and pushed back against the cops”). After seeing the 1995 film I am definitely motivated to research and read up on Stonewall. Thanks again!

    • KQCA

      Thank you for mentioning the 1995 film; I have not heard of it before. I will check it out.

    • KQCA

      The 1995 version is not on Hulu or Netflix. Do you know where I may find it?

      • HoneyBoySmith

        It “might” be on YouTube in several parts. If it were on YouTube, the quality wouldn’t be great…but, it would be there.

        It might even prominently feature the Mattachine Society.

        • KQCA

          thx…omg.. you’re a well of info. I need more friends like you.

        • KQCA

          Yep, you are right; it’s there…in parts. Thanks so much!

      • John P.

        It’s on Amazon for purchase

  • Guest

    I think it’s a mixed bag, but my hope is that since so many people have never heard of Stonewall that since this movie is coming out, and since it’s generating conversations about Stonewall, it’ll at least start people on a learning journey.

    Here are some photos from the Stonewall Uprising documentary:
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/photo-gallery/stonewall/

  • John P.

    Ridiculous. It’s a piece of fiction, Hollywood fiction. Most if not all on the petition signers haven’t seen the film. Would I like something historically accurate? Yes, but I don’t expect it. Remember that many of the participants in the riots were in fact white males.

  • Craig Howell

    David Carter’s new book on Stonewall pretty well establishes that Sylvia Rivera was not there.

    • Time Warper

      Didn’t Marsha Coleman say that back in the day?

  • Nathan

    how dare a white cis-gender person be allowed to be on film

    • Guillaume Giovanni

      what’s wrong with white gay men?

  • Oscarlating Wildely

    But if Hollywood is not accurate, what will I base my history papers and reports on? Moreover, I am so glad that we’re seeing so many films that cover this important event– so why don’t we just keep trashing this one as we could always go to the oodles of other ones that are playing? Oh, and when I’m not seeing it, I’ll be certain to look for that flying angel that’s hanging out in the Village– Tony Kushner told me that she was there.

    Sometimes, the perfect really is the enemy of the good.

    PS: Jeremy Irvine is yummy. His response (and btw, Johnny Beauchamp in Penny Dreadful was gorgeous as a trans* character in late Victorian era and JRM may as well be adopted as the “you mean he’s NOT bi!?” poster child of the year):

    To anyone with concerns about the diversity of the ‪#‎StonewallMovie‬. I saw the movie for the first time last week and can assure you all that it represents almost every race and section of society that was so fundamental to one of the most important civil rights movements in living history. Marsha P Johnson is a major part of the movie, and although first hand accounts of who threw the first brick in the riots vary wildly, it is a fictional black transvestite character played by the very talented @vlad_alexis who pulls out the first brick in the riot scenes. My character is adopted by a group of street kids whilst sleeping rough in New York. In my opinion, the story is driven by the leader of this gang played by @jonnybeauchamp who gives an extraordinary performance as a Puerto Rican transvestite struggling to survive on the streets. Jonathan Rhys Meyers’ character represents the Mattachine Society, who were at the time a mostly white and middle class gay rights group who stood against violence and radicalism. I felt incredibly nervous taking on this role knowing how important the subject matter is to so many people but Roland Emmerich is one of the most sensitive and heartfelt directors I’ve worked with and I hope that, as an ensemble, we have not only done such an important story justice but also made a good movie as well.
    Jeremy

    • another_steve

      As I suggested in another comment, I think all would be well and good between the community and the filmmakers if a “disclaimer” were shown at the beginning of the film — something to the effect of “This film is a fictional retelling of the Stonewall riots and is not intended to be a literal account of actual events.”

      • Rod Steely

        Did you finance the movie? If so please go ahead and tell them what they should put into their film.

        • another_steve

          Well don’t filmmakers and their financiers have just a wee bit of an obligation to be honest with the public?

          Just an eensy-weensy-itsy-bitsy obligation, Rod?

          • bdsmjack

            How are the filmmakers being dishonest? They made a movie that reflected their perspective of an historical event. You don’t like it? Make your own movie that reflects your perspective.

          • another_steve

            Oh stop it, bdsmjack That’s typical “bully rhetoric” you’re employing there.

            When you release a movie with the understanding that 98 percent of the unwashed masses don’t have a fuckin’ clue as to the historical context, it behooves you to at least include a disclaimer (along the lines I’ve suggested elsewhere in this thread) explaining that this is a fictional dramatization of an historical event.

            Is that so difficult?

            Is my idea so perverse?

          • Rod Steely

            Have you seen the film? Folks are basing all of this outrage on a trailer. I’ve been reading what the writer, director and star of the movie have said and I think it’s best to give them the benefit of the doubt because they are the ones bringing this movie to the public. It’s not like this film cancelled out a competing film about Stonewall.

      • Dramphooey

        That appears in every movie’s credits: the bit about the characters being fictional yada yada yada.

      • Gerry Fisher

        “Don’t put this plastic bag over your head, because you could suffocate.” “The liquid inside your McDonald’s coffee is very hot and may burn you if you spill it.”

        • Oscarlating Wildely

          “The liquid inside your McDonald’s coffee is very hot and may burn you if you spill it.”

          Respectfully, Gerry, that one is a little more intense. https://www.caoc.org/?pg=facts

          The photos of her burns are even worse than this description.

    • Dell Jksyn

      so in other words, “I’m white, and am represented in the movie so fuck all your concerns!”

      • Oscarlating Wildely

        Not quite. More: the images as recorded in photographs from the time appear to be replicated but even if they were not, the fact remains that it’s a film that is an artistic interpretation, not a carbon copy of reality.

      • Gerry Fisher

        No, we’re saying that you’re attacking a fictional movie on scant evidence (judge a book by its cover?), and you’re reacting with a ferocity that might not be helpful. Full-screening reviews will be available very soon; why not “be concerned but wait for it” instead of going right to a boycott and lecturing?!

        • Dell Jksyn

          again in other words, “simmer down P.O.C. you’re behaving as we typically expect you to behave. why can’t you just let things be? You’re harshing my buzz of superiority.”

        • Dell Jksyn

          My Ferocity is who I am and who this LGBT community has encouraged me to be.

          I’m too black;
          I’m too fem;
          I’m too masculine;
          I’m not dark enough;
          I don’t make enough money;
          I make too much money;
          I don’t wear the right clothes,…

          and the list of reasons for exclusion goes on and on and on.

          Nope, not saying this is my experience uniquely, but what I am saying is as a P.O.C. who lives in a city where I’m consistently (and often forcefully) reminded I am not of the preferred demographic. I see this, my very white husband sees this, and most folks with whom I share my life see this.

          You don’t and have not lived my life, so to sit from the comfort of your chair and attempt to diminish or deflect my truest reaction is disingenuous to say the least. I am not ashamed nor am I apologetic about who I have come to be in the face of covert and overt racial ostracization within a community I have supported through my time money and my mere existence. My reaction is mine to have, and obviously, yours to judge: neither is right nor wrong, they just are.

          So, while you may feel and or believe my words are projections of my inner feelings/self you are more than welcome to embrace that thought. But know, I am the product of your inability to empathize with your fellow man. I’ve had enough and I’m not going to take it any more.

          • Capritaur

            Ignoring a reasonable question, creating a straw man out of an incidental word, and launching into a buzzword-crammed opening statement, it’s like last night’s Republican primary debate was never over.

          • Dell Jksyn

            ^^ Example #34,567,654,451,985,096 ^^
            My feelings mean nothing.

          • Capritaur

            Not to me as soon as you decided to say nothing constructive to the conversation.

          • Dell Jksyn

            ^^ giggle ^^
            #34,567,654,451,985,097

          • In other words, a rat-bastard.

          • Adam

            you’re clearly insecure as hell.

      • DaveW

        I don’t feel represented, it’s a story. Stop projecting, it’s childishly obvious! You just put your words in our mouths

        • Dell Jksyn

          yes, i did.

    • Gerry Fisher

      >Sometimes, the perfect really is the enemy of the good.

      I’ve loved this saying for decades.

      • Eric in Oakland

        >Sometimes, the perfect really is the enemy of the good.

        I’ve loved this saying for decades.

        Unfortunately, it is very often true.

    • ZhyKitty

      I too loved Johnny Beauchamp in Penny Dreadful.

      • Oscarlating Wildely

        and the Tristan und Isolde scene— you know the one…damn!

        • ZhyKitty

          Oh yes, I DO know the one!
          *Fan-flick*

          I really love Penny Dreadful.
          The imagery alone makes it worth watching, as it is so beautiful – and at times, so very titillating….but then you add in the writing and the acting and it’s just…it’s magnificent. It is a symphony for the senses.

  • Michael Rush

    i just found out that Inglourious Basterds was
    not as fact based as i thought it was .

    p.s. the director of this film , Roland Emmerich ,
    did a terrible job with Godzilla ( 1998 ) so no
    need to boycott just don’t see it based on the
    fact that it isn’t good .

    We also have to be grateful that
    Milk ( Gus Van Sant 2008 ) was as good as it was .
    was that seven years ago ? ugh .

    • LovesIrony

      I felt the same way about Ratatouille

      • Michael Rush

        you forgot to say ” spoiler alert “

      • Snarkaholic

        Ratatouille WAS fiction…I’ve NEVER seen a walk-in refrigerator so neatly organized!

        • Oscarlating Wildely

          And those pots! Who the hell arranges pots like that?

    • Oscarlating Wildely

      “Inglourious Basterds was not as fact based as i thought it was”

      No ways! Next thing you know you’re going to tell me that it’s spelled incorrectly.

      • Michael Rush

        thay spelt it like they ment two .

    • pablo

      But Milk didn’t depict Harvey as the black transwoman he was!

      • Michael Rush

        You must have seen a different movie than the one I remember .

  • robirob

    It’s a Hollywood movie for crying out loud. The best thing would be for audience members to watch a documentary about Stonewall before or after they watch the Hollywood blockbuster version. Maybe Emmerich should include his own documentary (or one of his choosing) about Stonewall in the DVD or Blu Ray release.

  • Bj Lincoln

    In the picture above there are only 4 non white men in the crowd and no Queens. That does not represent the real crowd that night or any night at Stonewall. While I am not happy about this fact, I am going to watch the film. We have not had this story told on film and I can’t condemn the entire film based on the lack of color or queen in the trailer.

    • Time Warper

      Actually yes it does. Look at the pictures. Most of them were white males and it was illegal to wear more than two articles of opposite sex clothing, so there were no roaming packs of drag queens or trannies that just happened to be hunting the streets that night to start the whole thing.

      • MattM

        That you call them trannies and also stereotype POC leads me to suspect you’re a bit of an asshole.

        • Reality.Bites

          Oh no. Not just a bit.

    • rkwright

      You need to check it again, I count at the least 10 non white individuals. And the image above doesn’t purporte to show the entire crowd and all involved. It’s a movie still, they’ve been using them for decades now. None of those bitching about this movie have ever seen it. Reminds me of the religious right when they boycotted The Last Temptation of Christ without having even seen it. How people can call for a boycott of something they have no idea of what it contains, is beyond me.

  • Time Warper

    Burn all the copies of Brokeback Mountain! Those are heterosexuals in gayface! Then we’ll march over to the SyFy network and demand they fire Luke Macfarlane. There can’t be an openly gay man cast as a heterosexual action hero! Oh wait……….

    • aschops

      Gyllenhaal heterosexual?

  • AJD

    I usually hold those radical queer, gay-white-men-are-evil-oppressors, SJW types at arm’s length, but I’m afraid this is an instance where I agree with them. Time and again, Hollywood has whitewashed non-history and characters or trotted out endless variations on the white-savior trope. The fact that they are taking a seminal event in which trans people, drag queens and people of color played not only a significant but a leading role and making it about a little white twink from the Midwest is pretty offensive. And I don’t accept as an excuse that it’s fiction or that it’s only inspired by a true story. It’s racist bullshit, pure and simple.

    • Time Warper

      It isn’t racial, it’s homophbia. Most blacks and hispanics are homophobic and won’t go see a movie about fags. So the white angel gets played up a bit because that’s who is going to pay to see the movie. But again go look at the pictures from that night. The vast majority were white gay men. And no one was walking around the street during that time in transition or in full drag. It was illegal and hey would have gotten their asses beat and arrested and the cops would have never made it to the bar.

      • Roy Biv

        It’s racist. White people are only comfortable watching “themselves” on the big screen.

        God forbid, every once in a while, they cheer on a non-white protagonist.

        • Dramphooey

          You mean like every Will Smith movie?

          • Reality.Bites

            We were supposed to be cheering for Will Smith in Independence Day, Men in Black, etc., etc?

            Wow, now I’ve got to go back and rewatch all his movies. I kept rooting for the aliens. 😉

          • Roy Biv

            Will Smith is the perfect token black celebrity.

            He’s fun. Not aggressive. Almost always plays the good guy. White audiences love him.

            Any non-white actor that doesn’t play the Hollywood race game gets blackballed. Look up Monique. Lucy Liu.

          • Polterguest

            Mo’nique overestimated her value and also refused to do the work in promoting films she was in that everyone else does as a matter of course (because she thinks she’s a special snowflake.)

          • Roy Biv

            Will Smith is trotted out like a good token should every time someone dare criticize Hollywood racism.

            Thankfully, that’s changing with no thanks to people like you.

          • Dramphooey

            So those are token films that don’t make any money?

          • Roy Biv

            Don’t ask a question you know the answer to. It wastes all our time.

          • Dramphooey

            You mean “don’t ask a question that you don’t have an answer to.”

          • Roy Biv

            No. I just assumed better of you. I was wrong.

            Those token films are successful, that doesn’t negate the racial struggles non-white actors and predominantly non-white casted movies fare in Hollywood when it comes to distribution and production.

          • Dramphooey

            One thing you can assume about me is I don’t insult people just because they had a response to a comment I made.

          • Roy Biv

            You’re right. No insults. Just extremely caustic comment meant to incite like asking a question you may or may not have known the answer to then insinuating I wasn’t going to follow up.

          • Gerry Fisher

            I don’t think that Hollywood has digested the success of, say, the Medea films, the ones Ice Cube made (I like “Barbershop”), and the recent success of things like “Precious” and (especially) “Empire.”

            Part of it is that there’s a huge black audience for attending films in theaters. Another part of it is that most (not all) white filmmakers *suuuuuuuck* at portraying a viable black or brown protagonist 1) realistically, 2) in ways that don’t offend black and brown audiences, and 3) in ways in which they can draw in a large, white audience to make beaucoup $$$ (and, yes, when white audiences get large, racism plays a factor).

            I think “Empire” is most intriguing, because it was a racial cross-over hit that didn’t pull punches with the subject matter. Part of that is the youth appeal. Now, let’s see if they can do that with a topic other than hip hip.

          • Roy Biv

            I agree.

            Predominantly black movies always get pegged as black movies so other audiences are less keen on watching them.

            But crossovers are starting to happen. Like Kevin Hart movies or 12 Years a Slave.

          • Gerry Fisher

            12 Years was awesome. I’m curious about the box office for that, though. I’ll go Google it.

            (FWIW, I wish that movies like “For Love and Basketball” and “Akeelah and the Bee” could have been much, MUCH bigger financial successes. I also thought “Real Women Have Curves” should have drawn in more money. Part of the issue is that these movies often get marketed “small,” and it’s hard to break them out “bigger” after that.)

            OK, “12 Years” was made for $20 million, and it made $57 million domestically” (not counting international sales or rentals). Would it be fair to say “solid but not blockbuster”?

          • Gerry Fisher

            Soooooo…refocusing this movie is going to fix Hollywood’s racism problem?

            It would be interesting, in a few years, to get someone like Lee Daniels to tell another Stonewall story from a completely non-Caucasian angle. I mean, would you have trusted Roland Emmerich to portray a black or Puerto Rican protagonist in a skillful and faithful way? Be careful what you wish for…!

          • Roy Biv

            No, the problem is huge and systemic. But it’s a start.

            Just as Stonewall was just a start to the decades of struggle that follow afterwards.

            Just as Barney Frank was a start to more openly gay politicians.

            Just as The Birdcage is just a start to more movies showcasing gay marital “bliss.”

        • Oscarlating Wildely

          I personally would certainly not mind some Django- unchained, leather bound, or otherwise.

        • Gerry Fisher

          Yes, it is racist. Now, would you, as a business person, put up millions of dollars to make a movie and not factor that into the equation?

          I’m not talking about a philanthropic donation. I’m talking about a business decision.

          • Roy Biv

            Of course, it factors into the equation because capitalism and racism is intertwined.

            That doesn’t mean we can’t take a progressive approach like, for example, casting a big name PoC celebrity like Denzel to star in the title role. Provided he says yes. He has already starred in a pretty powerful movie centered around gay causes. It’s honestly Oscar bait. But given the director…

            You see, one can take a progressive approach without necessarily jettisoning the money factor.

      • Estrafalario

        Yeah, your polling on Hispanics and homophobia is dead wrong. Why don’t you check the Pew polls on this for the last 10 or so years.
        But stick to your generalized stereotypes.

        • MattM

          Subscribing to stereotypes is much easier than thinking. Can you blame them?

    • Dramphooey

      “Little white twink?”

    • Estrafalario

      Thank you. I mean it’s becoming an ongoing thing. If Hollywood had it’s way they would’ve placed white actors in the Birmingham Jail. What we’re talking about is whiteness as default position. And not only is it problematic, in some cases it’s historically inaccurate.

    • Gerry Fisher

      There was a statement released by the star of the film that said that part of the story is that his character is taken in (“saved”) by a very diverse set of street kids. This could be a case in which the trailer decided to market one way but the actual plot of the movie bends another way.

      Political correctness aside, do you think that if they made Coleman or Castro the primary fictionalized character that it would have been a better fictionalized story? Especially given that the movie they made 20 years ago used a non-Caucasian lead and it failed at the box office? (I do understand that there are no easy answers to those questions. What bugs me most is that the reactivists aren’t even asking the questions. They are just so *right* about how a fictionalized, commercial enterprise should fit both history and their political agenda perfectly, when, in reality, it might turn out that the movie fits it all reasonably well.)

      • DaveW

        That’s a thoughtful point of view.

    • DaveW

      It was clear to me it’s about his story which is not a leader in the riots. People want a different story told, fine. Doesn’t negate this one.

      All they are doing is telling us the story they want told, we don’t want to see-if the people then acted like the complainers here that claim to represent them, no thanks.

      It’s called shooting yourself in the foot.

    • John T

      Let’s wait and see if the little white twink is actually the protagonist hero or if he’s just a pretty focal point for the plot to pivot around. Like the new Mad Max movie in which the story was told through his perspective but the action was mainly led by Charlize Theron’s character and the other female characters. I don’t have high hopes for Stonewall, but I’ll reserve judgment because I haven’t seen it yet.

  • Eebadee-eebadee-thatsallfolks

    What’s needed is a basic understanding that, unless we’re talking about live documentary footage, films necessarily do not represent historic reality. But I guess that would be asking too much.

    A film is always a work of art that says more about the director, screenwriters, actors, etc. that create it than it does about its supposed subject. Stonewall will be no more and no less “historic” than Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter.

  • Larry Gist

    Oh for fuck’s sake just go enjoy the god damned fucking MOVIE….

  • CJAS

    If you though that this film was going center around anything other than a “white cis-male fictional protagonist”, then I’m surprised at you. The presence of people of color as “background characters” exceeds my expectations. Remember, we demand your invisibility, silence. (See the comments here.)

    • Time Warper

      Well feel free to make your own version. I’m sure Oprah, Tyler Perry or any of the other black millionaires in the music industry, NFL, or NBA will be glad to fund a movie about fags.

      • CJAS

        Thanks for perfectly illustrating my point.

    • Dramphooey

      Hey, don’t dis your cis.

  • Frank Dash

    Oh brother.

  • Paula

    Some people are never happy.

    • Roy Biv

      Cause some people still have more struggles to overcome than just marriage equality.

      • Oscarlating Wildely

        And why fight housing discrimination, job terminations, public accommodations, medical decision making abilities, funeral arrangements, rates of youth suicide, heternormative curricula, lack of political power and presence, and a great deal of other issues when we can complain about a trailer?

        • Roy Biv

          Are you incapable of walking and chewing gum at the same time?

          Because I, personally, can fight more than 2 issues at a time…and uh, also walk and chew gum at the same time.

          • Oscarlating Wildely

            False analogies, cliches, and attacks. I do hope your advocacy is better than your ability to argue.

          • Roy Biv

            Perfectly fine analogy.

            I can advocate for more inclusive Hollywood “gay” movies by signing the petition and write letters to my congressman supporting fair housing legislation.

            Please, in order to improve my analogies, pray tell elaborate on where my former analogy was lacking.

      • Gerry Fisher

        Just can’t deviate from your pre-scripted narrative, can you? It’s just soooo important to be right.

      • Paula

        I’m talking about a movie trailer. See, you just proved my point completely. Take a chill pill.
        If you don’t like the movie, don’t watch it.
        There are some things in life that you just don’t have control over.

        • Roy Biv

          If the Stonewall rioters took a chill pill, we’d all still be getting hauled off to jail.

          What’s always overlooked is that Stonewall isn’t the first or the last example of racially biased casting in movies so it’s not just “about a trailer.” This spans decades and will likely continue unless people throw digital bricks at Hollywood every time it happens.

          Thanks to social media, it’s actually getting heard.

          • Adam

            I like how you’re comparing complaining about a movie trailer to people legitimately rioting for change.

          • Roy Biv

            I like how you completely missed that the boycott is to make a change in decades old Hollywood racism.

  • rkwright

    I think the people complaining might need to look at all the images from that actual day. Seems that the film might reflect the actual images from the event.

    • Gerry Fisher

      Actually, IMO, the film looks more diverse. So, is the diversity of the film “fictionization”? [ducks the incoming bricks]

    • BrandySpears

      If you think the Stonewall Riots happened on one single day, you don’t know what you’re talking about.

      • ChitownKev

        as someone has said, perhaps some of the other rioters were already locked up, hospitalized, etc…

        • aschops

          Or perhaps we should shape our perception of the protests after the known evidence, instead of just hoping the evidence is wrong.

      • aschops

        Who said those photos depict one night only? If you have more evidence of ‘other nights’ with other protesters, just produce them.

        • BrandySpears

          What does the phrase “from that ACTUAL DAY” mean to you?

          • aschops

            That the poster doesn’t know that the protests unfolded for several days? Because the search term he used doesn’t itself imply any temporal limitation, so there’s no reason for the results to be restricted to one day.

    • Polterguest

      this, this this. Thank you.

    • John T

      Well, your screenshot of a Google image search (that happens to include a film still from “Looking For Langston”) totally convinced me!

      • aschops

        Material evidence counts for nothing – The Narrative transcends such white cis-normative concepts as proof. Only our gut feeling of outrage and slighted righteousness counts.

      • rkwright

        It actually was t from the Google. I went to a Stomewall Riot webpage that had a block of images. They implied they were all from the days of the uprising. I downloaded the picture a few days ago. Thanks for letting me know. But, the Langston shot aside, there were and are a lot of images from that six day period that show the diversity of the crowd, but also show there were a lot of white people at the riots too, and just because people don’t see that reflected in the trailer certainly doesn’t mean it isn’t in the film. Trailers are rarely if ever, a good barometer of what is actually I’m the movie. I stopped basing my opinion off of trailers when I was 16 or 17 and realized it never really told me what was the movie. But now there is no more Siskel and Ebert At The Movies to tell me more!!

  • fuow

    I have a rather radical, perhaps totally impractical suggestion to make:
    Why don’t we all wait until we have actually seen the movie before commenting on it?

    • Dramphooey

      Party pooper.

    • Gerry Fisher

      Ohhhhhh…stop being so grown up!!!

    • ChitownKev

      That would take away all the fun of the vitriolic discussions here at JMG…it’s what we DO!

      • Steven Leahy

        lol so true

  • Six Pins Delores

    “The courageous actions of everyone who fought against injustice in 1969 inspired me to tell a compelling, fictionalized drama of those days centering on homeless LGBT youth, specifically a young midwestern gay man who is kicked out of his home for his sexuality and comes to New York, befriending the people who are actively involved in the events leading up to the riots and the riots themselves.”
    I understand Emmerichs point. Using the above as a movie title would require several marquis.

  • Time Warper

    I’m offended by the upcoming production of The Wiz. They are blackwashing the story of a little white girl and all her white friend. Boycott it!

  • greenmanTN

    I’m not asking this as flame-bait, but hasn’t it been proven that Sylvia Rivera was NOT at the Stonewall riot, that in fact she was in police detention at the time? In some ways Stonewall is like the Woodstock festival, in that if all the people who CLAIM they were there had actually been there, the event would have been hundreds, if not thousands, of times larger than it actually was.

    Make no mistake, I DO believe the Stonewall riot(s) was/were a seminal moment in the quest for gay liberation, a flashpoint for much of the activism that came later. It’s hugely important. I also believe that historic truth and accuracy need to be applied, and without accurate documentation we need to be wary of those who want to claim ‘authorship’ of it to serve their own personal or political agenda.

    From what I’ve read, street kids (aka LGBT homeless youth) WERE involved, as were butch lesbians and drag queens (which were quite different than the “full-fledged” drag queens of today, given the laws about ‘cross dressing’ at the time). They were all marginalized people, and they ALL deserve our honor and respect, but no one group should claim exclusive responsibility for the event to exclusion of all others. It was a flashpoint for a GROUP effort.

    Am I wrong?

    • Oscarlating Wildely

      She was definitely living at the time on the Christopher St. docks–oodles of LGBT homeless youth were– and was clearly a figure in organizing after the event, most certainly. I do think that you are correct however, in that there were questions if she was indeed present at the time of initial confrontation, although of course, the aftermath went on for some time, including her valiant organizing efforts.

    • Steven Leahy

      I don’t know whether she was there or not but YES I think the point of your post is absolutely on target. All this bickering over a film no one’s seen yet over an event that wasn’t documented the most thoroughly in a time in which some of those commenting weren’t even alive much less there is pitiful and serves no good purpose.

  • metrored

    Is is bad that I just assumed the movie would be white/cis-washed? Should I have had more faith in the movie industry? They still haven’t made a movie about gay men where no one dies at the end.

    • Jeff Chang

      Gay films are a niche market as the LGBT population is about 5%. Thus the amount of money dedicated tends to be based on dramatic and tragic films as a romantic comedy with two gays as the leads does not relate well and would preform poorly.

      • metrored

        Romantic comedies aren’t the only kinds of films that don’t kill off their protagonists. Plenty of, dare I say most, dramatic and even tragic films see their main characters survive to the closing credits. That the mainstream film industry could not conceive to a telling a story about gay men that does not require one of them to die is a reflection on how they see us.

        • Jeff Chang

          Yeah, but Action / Adventure / Drama between two male lovers does not appeal to the mass market. It’s like having a McDonald’s in non tourist India with only beef burgers. Know your markets

          • metrored

            Just because a movie is about a gay character doesn’t mean it is about gay relationship. Philadelphia wasn’t about Tom Hanks relationship with Antonio Banderas. It was about his lawsuit and professional relationship with Denzel Washington. Still the people making it decided that nobody is going to care about Tom Hanks’ character unless he dies at the end. What is it about dead gays that is so appealing to the mass market?

  • Toasterlad

    I’ll confess to being woefully undereducated about Stonewall, but everything I’ve seen about this movie, from the very first image, has raised a warning flag.

    I realize films are an industry, and primarily exist to make some people money. But if that’s all you want, go ahead and make Transformers 5. If you’re going to take an event of historical significance and portray it in a serious manner, it behooves you to treat the primary players with respect. Casting a young, white, masculine, good-looking straight boy as your lead does not inspire confidence.

    • David From Canada

      Well then honey, you can make a new Stonewall movie, wearing a gaudy dress, a big pink hat, and red Dorothy shoes. You get to throw the first brick, and then as the police come to take you away, you courtesy to the crowd. Satisfied?! Go for it! Now practise that ever-so-cute courtesy!

      • Roy Biv

        A few months, in the US…I could have just as easily said, “marry whomever you want, wear a dress if you’re a man, with a big pink hat. And you can even say ‘I love you’ but don’t call it marriage.”

        That’s honestly what you sound like.

      • Toasterlad

        Not sure what your point is. Are you angry because I don’t think the movie looks like it’s a fair representation of the landmark gay liberation event?

        • Don’t take the comment from David from Canada seriously Toasterlad. Just shrug it off. The only way some people know how to express themselves here is to personally attack others at a shrill and personal level Ignore it.

      • shivadog

        Courtesy?

        • John T

          Canadian smartphones autocorrect their insults to be more polite.

          • Reality.Bites

            I like to hope that David is, as he says, “from” Canada and no longer infests my home and native land.

            You know, like Ted Cruz.

    • Toasterlad this is an honest question. Many people, including LGBT people I talk to, especially younger ones under 25, are not sure what Stonewall is about. If this movie ends up being made and distributed, it would raise awareness at some level. Now my question is would it be better if it is never made — and end up glorifying young white masculine hunky males (Jeremy Irvine is fit), or would it be better simply kill the film by threatening a boycott? Perhaps the boycott itself would be of benefit in raising awareness of the role of trans and people of color at Stonewall. I am not sure. I dont think you can say “well, let them make another big -budget movie that is correct” because I do not think will happen anytime soon. I am undecided on the issue, and I see the point of people who are offended by the film. But what do you think?

      • Toasterlad

        I agree that presenting the event is important in and of itself…but the MANNER in which it’s presented is of importance, too. To answer you’re question fully, I’d have to give a REALLY long dissertation on how easy it is to become comfortable with the fruits of someone else’s victories, and how mildly alarmed I am to see so many younger gay people taking their freedoms for granted….and how hollywood’s white/cis-washing of our history is subtly repugnant, no matter how well-intentioned and/or profit-driven.

        You’re right – as all of the people complaining about the negative reception this trailer’s getting – that it’s not fair to hold this movie responsible for educating a generation about Stonewall. I just think many people feel like it’s a missed opportunity, however, to present a truer version of our incredibly diverse history, not to mention our community. We are, all of us, by society’s standards, complicated people, and reducing our cinematic face to yet another young, cis, white male feels rather facile.

        I’m not encouraging people to boycott the movie, but I hope it does what you suggest: encourages people to learn more about Stonewall and the early days of the gay civil rights movement. This comment section has already done that for me, so I’d have to agree that the movie is at least good for that.

        • Thank you so much for your reply, I appreciate it. It is helping me figure this out.

  • Sean Williams

    I’m sorry, is this a petition about a movie TRAILER?

    • Gerry Fisher

      mmm-hmmm!

      I’m trying to remember if we began boycotting “Cruising” and “Silence of the Lambs” before or after full screenings. I don’t recall.

  • Dennis

    So the “Internet Mob” is up in arms and urging a boycott over only a three-minute trailer? Seriously? I guess we didn’t have anything to be offended about this week.
    Chill out people and take your Xanax.

  • KT

    It’s funny, when Joe posted on this topic yesterday most of the commenters seemed upset at the whitewashing. Now today most of the commenters seem outraged at the outrage. It honestly seems like an entire different group of readers today than yesterday.

    • Dramphooey

      Frankly, it does depend on the time of day. I know I didn’t take part in yesterday’s discussion.

      • KT

        I have to say I’m disappointed in the responses to this post. Most everyone on here today is reacting like a Fox New watcher to LGBT news, saying people are overracting and whining nd getting outraged for no reason. But many people are upset at yet another movie staring a white male, especially since there were so many great stories of people of color they could of told. I get other people are not bothered by it but they can be a little respectful of those who are. Sorry, not ranting at you, just replying in general.

  • Raising_Rlyeh

    This really doesn’t seem to be the type of movie that Roland Emmerich would do. His films tend to have explosions and destroying the planet.

    • johncAtl

      He’s done other types, but movies with explosions are usually the ones that make the most money.

    • medaka

      explosions and destroying the planet.

      That’s what LGBT people do, right? What’s not to like?

  • Roy Biv

    I usually agree with most of everyone on this board except this issue.

    What commenters are missing is that this could have been a rare opportunity to showcase non-white queer protagonists in a major Hollywood picture except, once again, it’s fallen to the same old racist Hollywood trope of white-washing.

    All the sarcastic lamentations of “oh no cis, white people in a movie” are COMPLETELY IGNORING or FORGETTING that nearly every single movie and tv series, let alone a gay-centered movie features a white, cis man. God forbid a gay themed movie without an attractive white male lead gets made.

    I hope this movie is as disastrous as a typical Roland Emmerich movie.

    • Estrafalario

      I think this is like talking into a white wave. It’s more indicative of Joe’s comment thread than anything else. Sadly. The commentary here seems to be “shut up people of color. It’s only a movie. Move along.” Not even the barest ability to listen or think about the larger ongoing patterns here.

      • Roy Biv

        Sadly, you’re right.

        I always feel supported when it comes to larger gay issues on joemygod but the vitriol and ambivalence in these comments always presents itself once an issue like this comes to the forefront.

        • KT

          I just don’t understand it though -its like a complete 180 from the comments on the Stonewall themed posts yesterday. And the atmosphere just seems a bit meaner than usual.

        • Estrafalario

          I do wish there were more diverse places online. Like a Queer Ta-Nehisi Coates online. His comment threads are ASTOUNDING and diverse and very educational. But these stories always seem to reveal a census of sorts for who’s actually in this “community.”

          • Roy Biv

            I don’t always agree with Coates either but yeah, I agree. haha

            Sounds like a good blog niche. =p

    • DaveW

      You don’t get the business model. What you want will only happen if the market for movies changes. Don’t blame Hollywood for not telling these stories. Blame moviegoers.

      • Roy Biv

        Ugh…boycotting is one way to change the market for movies since Hollywood won’t make movies that don’t make money…and increasing visibility for a movie like “Dear White People” creates a market that Hollywood refuses to acknowledge.

        • MichaelJ

          Rather than boycotting mainstream movies that are said to fall short in terms of diversity, I think the more important thing to do encourage people to view and support more independent films that aren’t following formulaic business models. And not just fictional narrative films but also documentaries, foreign films and ones not specifically focused on LGBT people. Not all independent films, of course, are perfect in terms of diversity or their treatment of gay people (and not all of them are good), but by creating a demand for these films more of them will be funded, and more new directors with talent will get to develop second and third films. With many of these films now available on cable TV and streaming networks such as Netflicks, few people are limited to what is showing at local theaters.

          • Roy Biv

            Can do both. I’ve watched many a good Indie movies on my netflix and some in theaters.

    • brian

      From my understanding this film doesn’t present itself as a documentary. It’s entertainment. People buy tickets to escape reality, be entertained and often, to view beautiful people. Should you not understand that, do not spend your money to see this product.

      • Roy Biv

        Hey, let’s get a straight guy to play the lead and give him a romantic interest!

        It’ll be much more entertaining for straight audiences.

        That way we can get the outside of the “gay” movie category which historically doesn’t make that much money.

        • Gerry Fisher

          Fair and helpful comparison, IMO. It reminds me of how I felt seeing “Mrs. Doubtfire”: “Straight cross-dresser–who is not, NOT a drag queen, mind you, but is doing it for a very good, het cause–is taken in and ‘saved’ by his cute, harmless, lovable, gay-male side kicks.” Not quite the same movie going experience as seeing “Torch Song Trilogy.” (That does drag us back into the topic of the difference between the highly targeted, independent movie versus the “mainstream” or “blockbuster” categories. No pun intended by “drag us back in,” but I’ll take it.)

  • bambinoitaliano

    Won’t you people think of the children!! I think the protestors do have a point. Most of the members here know about the history of Stonewall and this movie is just an entertainment piece with little commitment to the accuracy of the event. The younger generations do not get their history lesson going through microfiche in the library. Whatever they watch from movies and google and wikipedia are facts. Hence the protest. The film maker can always add on the at the end of the movie before the credit roll to highlight Marsha P Johnson, Sylvia Rivera and Ray Castro and their roles in Stonewall.

  • GunnaHurt

    Ugh. The crybaby “what about me” people are too lazy to make their own movie or write their own play but being an armchair hashtag terrorist is a fun hobby. seeing all the angry Trans women on Facebook throwing hysterical fits about how “what REALLY happened…” When nobody actually knows what really happened… This is why the gay community will never really be a community. Some people are too busy desperately trying to find someone to yell at.

    • CB

      Agreed. And you could say this about virtually any faction in this fragmented country right now. It speaks to a larger cultural issue that is high self-reverential and too easily outraged, noisy and inactive.

      • KT

        People are legitimately upset because they never see people like them on screen. The average American can’t exactly start their own movie company either. The only way to get Hollywood to list is with our wallets or social media.

    • Toasterlad

      There were people who were actually there who are still alive. I imagine they know what really happened.

      • GunnaHurt

        the problem is that most of their stories conflict. It all happened very fast, late at night, most had been drinking, nobody was there taking notes. You don’t know when you’re living through a pivotal moment in history and probably won’t make sure to see exactly what’s happening. You can only report what you saw, not the order of events. Add to that all the people who claim they were there and weren’t…

        • Toasterlad

          Agreed, certainly…but I think you can take all the existing accounts and create a more-or-less “canon” record. I obviously can’t say whether or not the movie’s done a good job with this. I’m just alarmed that the casting of Jeremy Irvine as the lead doesn’t seem to suggest it.

          • GunnaHurt

            Why not? He’s not a historically pivotal character, he’s just the one whose eyes we see the story though.

          • Toasterlad

            IF he’s presented as the audience surrogate, watching and reacting to these people making history, that would be fine. But I suspect they’re positioning this non-historical, non-pivotal figure to be the young, white, cis male hero of the film – and, therefore, the movement.

          • Based on what? The trailer? Trailers don’t really tell you much — they’re hooks, nothing more.

  • DaveW

    Oh please. Make your own movie then. It’s like the neighbors who think they own the view over your property. Buy the view of you want to control it.

    Don’t go see it, fine, but instead of whining, do something, like this producer is n

    • My sentiments exactly — rather than trying to dictate what others create, make something yourself that suits your criteria for “acceptable.”

      And then everyone else can attack you for your “revisionist history.”

    • Roy Biv

      I doubt the people who support the petition will watch it…and they’re convincing others of not seeing it to.

      If you don’t like the petition, stop whining, stop reading the comments and go do something else.

      • DaveW

        Uh, no, thanks for suggestion but I take advice from credible sources.

        • Roy Biv

          I said that people who support this petition of boycott will not watch the movie.

          If you need a credible source to believe that, you need more than just a source.

    • aschops

      Oh please. Make your own movie then.

      This is against the feelings of some in the trans community that they have the right to employ our resources for their issues at the same time they appropriate our history and demonize gay men as privileged and agents of the cis-patriarchy.

  • Dell Jksyn

    I simply love these responses. Priviledge when attacked looks and sounds a lot like what is below. A majority of these comments are dismissive and are unveiled attempts to silence those who disagree with the powerful gay, white man.

    Why not just say what’s on your heart: “Fuck you P.O.C. we got marriage and don’t need your asses any more. So, let’s justify our righteous indignation by belittling the concerns of others. Hey P.O.C., why don’t you crawl back under the rock you came from. WHITE GAY POWER!!!”

    • medaka

      Oh dear.

    • DaveW

      Actually in situations like this (many similar not lgbt issues) its projection. Most of us have no issue supporting trans or race issues but in your frustration you make us out to be bad because we have progress. This movie is not the issue. Your community’s struggle is. Why push us off?

      Very childish of you.

      • Roy Biv

        No one’s making “you” out to be bad just because some of us want more PoC representation in a movie.

        Calling you out for being dismissive isn’t demonizing you. lol.

    • Jeff Chang

      If a discussion of stonewall excluded the trans / X element than perhaps. This is not a discussion, an article, nor a documentry. Nor has the film even been screened yet.

      Guilty until innocent seems to be the new SJW mantra.

      P.S. Did the mental defective that started this shit storm even contact the production company or director to get a differing account t?

    • Gerry Fisher

      >Priviledge when attacked looks and sounds a lot like what is below.

      Would make a great bumper sticker! /end-snark

      Look, I can understand what you’re saying, but to do so requires that I translate it to common English, then make some mental leaps, and ignore that you just slapped us. When you communicate like this, it causes the people who already agree with you to shout, “Yeah!!!” People who disagree or who don’t yet understand the issue fully will go, “WTF!!!” and dismiss you.

      You care so much about a worthy cause. And, IMO, you’re communicating in a way that won’t help that cause. We’re all not on the same page, yet. Social consensus hasn’t caught up to your political agenda (hey, I’ve been there and experienced that!). You could either judge the crap out of us because we’re slow and set yourself apart from us, or you can help bring your cause along.

      Ball’s in your court.

      • Dell Jksyn

        Wow Gerry, that actually made me think (no snark intended). You’re correct. Speaking through sheer anger and pain is not the way to welcome people into “my” world. You are 100% correct, Gerry.

        However, what should I do when I attempt to talk calmly and educate folks (and yes, it does happen) and they refuse to listen. I used to work for a national LGBT foundation. We had a staff of nearly 40 people. four of us were P.O.C., and less than 10 were women. The foundation called a meeting of national LGBT “leaders” to talk about where the movement should go next. ALL THE WOMEN AND P.O.C. in the room wanted to talk about discrimination in the community. Every gay white man in the room only wanted to focus on marriage, and one proudly exclaimed, “I don’t want to hold hands and sing Kum By Ya!”

        It is through these experiences I am reacting. But I am not allowed to react as a true human because it’s off putting to the audience I’m trying to reach. No offense Gerry, but I’m sick and tired of trying to care for white folks’ feelings when a vocal minority don’t care about mine and the silent majority won’t even begin to speak up in our defense.

        Let me be completely honest. At 42 years old, I’m fed up completely with the manner in which women and P.O.C. are treated. We all stand on soapboxes and other platforms to share our frustration, but we are consistently met with “it’s not that bad,” or “you have everything you need,” or some other placating statement. After so many years of this, I have become numb with anger and resentment.

        No, I don’t believe all whites believe one thing or another about racial issues. Nor do I believe that all women or P.O.C. hold the same or similar thoughts or beliefs around racial issues. So, yes, I need to work on my delivery, agreed. In the same vein others really need to work on empathizing with what’s going on.

        I’m certain you’ve had an argument with someone you know or like or care about. At what point will the straw break your back because you are not being heard?

        I would, however, like to reference a huff post article which I feel really summaries a few points I feel strongly about: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/11-things-white-people-need-to-realize-about-race_55b0009be4b07af29d576702.

        Thanks again, Gerry, for “putting me in my place” in a somewhat caring way.

        • Estrafalario

          I’d recommend finding and reading Samuel Delany’s recent interview in the New Yorker. He was being asked about racism in science fiction. His closer is applicable to this general conversation and time.
          We’ve grown sick of this repeated shtick when it comes to white-washed culture. And our numbers are growing to the point where the market *actually* *has* to pay attention to our opinions. A lot of white people (not saying all) aren’t used to that and some are actually scared of it. And Delany’s ender is beautifully put.

        • Toasterlad

          I’ve never bought the “more flies with honey” argument. Straight people used to tell me that all the time when I would loudly demand my rights…as if the tone of my argument had any bearing on whether or not withholding my rights was wrong.

          There is a value to level-headed, rational, patient discussion…and there is a value to rude, angry rhetoric. We would not have gotten as far as we have as a community without both approaches.

          If someone tells you you’re “hurting your case” or “turning people off”…nine times out of ten, that person wasn’t going to be influenced by you anyway, regardless of your “tone”.

          • Dell Jksyn

            Well,.. :o)

    • aschops

      Priviledge when attacked looks and sounds a lot like what is below.

      People – priviledged (sic) or not – lash back when under attack, especially when the attacker is moved by narcissism and self-indulgence, and the attack itself is unfair against the target.

      And if you think gay issues are dead after marriage, then the one who’s privileged is you. I seem to remember that one can still be legally fired for being gay – but not for being “POC”.

  • Bobby

    Some people simply can’t be happy or understand that story telling is personal and subjective. Get over yourselves and wait to see the movie before judging it.

  • David From Canada

    The LGBT Community is slitting its own throat with all this criticism, and now the petition, about the movie “Stonewall”.
    Hollywood makes so few gay themed movies, period, and now with all this outcry, they’re going to make even fewer.
    People who cut off their nose to spite their face end up being disfigured and shunned.

    • Polterguest

      Well that’s the problem from inviting queers and trans into the community of gay males and females.

  • Webslinger
    • TJay229

      Chile… I get so damn tired of Hollywood only showing Gay as “White men” its not.

      I live for the Omar and Jamal types. Fuck QAF gimme Noahs Arc

      • Webslinger

        We are all looking for the MIRROR to reflect our lives…sadly Hollywood is FIRST about money

  • BrianQTD

    Make a film about politics and you get a political response. Yes it’s a fictionalization. But why fictionalized in THIS way with THIS protagonist telling yet another young gay white man’s story? Lord knows there’s been a shortage of them! This community has problems with race and invisibility of people of color. The creators of this film decided to do more of the same (QAF, Will and Grace, The Normal Heart, Brokeback Mountain, etc.) when they had other options.

    If find the back and forth here interesting. On the one hand: look at the pictures, see there are mostly whites there (appeal to accuracy). On the other hand: it’s an interpretation; it doesn’t have to be accurate. If it doesn’t have to be accurate why not exaggerate the role of people of color and trans people? THAT kind of “inaccuracy” is never allowed?

    • DaveW

      Its entertainment to make money. Want your own vehicle? Who is stopping you?

      Like people expecting athletes to be role models. Get your own role model if you need one!

      • BrianQTD

        Then you don’t mind people saying don’t see a film that doesn’t represent them? See the thing about making money is that people can decide where to spend it and persuade others not to spend it on things as well.

    • Dramphooey

      I’m not sure there is much of an “et cetera” to your list.

    • Toasterlad

      Agreed, though I’m more concerned with the fact that this particular young gay white man appears to be completely, if you’ll pardon the term, “straight-acting”. I was really, really young when Stonewall happened, but I grew up in the 70’s….and even a good decade after Stonewall, it was REALLY rare for a guy that could easily blend in to straight society to be out, let alone associated with something like Stonewall. That’s why the heroes hailed at the event were the drag queens and the butch dykes and the femme dudes…the people who had little choice but to live out and proud.

      I think there’s value to be gained from showing an outsider’s perspective on that world, and if the movie goes that route, it could be great. But if the movie’s going to try to sell handsome, straight Jeremy Irvine as the hero of this event…that’s a much tougher sell.

    • This movie is made to make money for the investors, who are dropping millions to see this produced. and for the theater chains who will run it for a percent of the cut. It was made this way to sell tickets. It is not being made to tell the truth, or to be used as a platform for emerging actors. And Jeremy Irvine is a hot actor, and he was selected as a draw. All Hollywood is is about making money. Also, Stonewall is interesting subject matter and gay rights have some panache right now. That is it. Its all about cash. If someone says “it was made to help LGBT rights this is pure BS. My guess is the people producing it– and the investors — will have no clue why there is a backlash emerging. My other guess is we will never see a movie on positive LGBT matter made in Hollywood for a very long time if the boycott is successful.

      • BrianQTD

        Defenders of Hollywood whitewashing always resort to “it’s about money” but when those who are adversely affected try to mobilize financial power to change what’s “profitable” it’s the PC police. The fact is that it’s the content of their protest that offends (demand for more POC representation). It has to be; otherwise why condemn those who are saying we won’t spend money on these things?

        • If you think I am defending Hollywood white washing, I am not (not sure if you think I am or not). I am just stating how movie production and distribution in capitalist Hollywood works. In a truly benevolent society, films would be produced for the common good, and to get truthful messages out. But this is not America 2015. Hollywood is brazen this way, since so many films- especially “message” films – lose money at the end. I think it stinks actually.

          • BrianQTD

            I t was a general response inspired by your comment not directed at you specifically. Sorry I gave that impression.

          • No you did not now that I read it, sorry if I had a bad reaction — but I have been so ripped apart on these pages for not agreeing with the thought police, I tend to be defensive at times. No worries!

          • Circ09

            No, this isn’t about needing common good, truthful messages in media. I’m all for fantastical tales. In a more benevolent society so many white (usually straight) people wouldn’t hold the purse strings or be hired as content creators to reinforce their own world view. There is no shortage of other talent or stories to be told. And there is no shortage of people willing to watch product that is reflective of the majority of other people in this society. There is a massive shortage of people willing to spend money to make that product and study after study shows that their reasoning is based on false premises.

          • Excellent points thank you!

      • Reality.Bites

        And sometimes – not often enough, but sometimes – it works the other way.

        http://www.flickeringmyth.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/article_post_width_michael_b_jordan_human_torch.jpg

        • Reality Bites, you may have a point here, and I hope you do. I am just very jaded on Hollywood and our money is everything economic system in general. Don’t get me started on how I see the US economy screwing everyone over but the super rich.

    • Jeff Chang

      STFU and watch Noah’s Arc.

      • BrianQTD

        No.

  • Michael Hampton

    Isn’t Emmerich the same guy who made some of the shittiest movies of all time? Godzilla? Independence Day? Come on. Was anyone really expecting it to be good? He is one of the Misfits of Science for craps sake!

    • Estrafalario

      I was shocked he got the nod to make this film. But I’m even MORE shocked that gay white Hollywood is coming out in his defense, as if he’s a priceless auteur worthy of the benefit of the doubt. His films are crap. But history is also history and this looks like tripe.

      • Michael Hampton

        It’s a movie made by a straight man as an attempt to pander to the gay community and make some money off us.

        • John T

          For what it’s worth, Roland Emmerich is openly gay.

          • Michael Hampton

            Oh god. That’s right. He is one of ours. That’s somehow worse.

  • Estrafalario

    Perhaps the more cleansing tack is to ask, What are the best documentaries on Stonewall?
    Because this looks like tripe.

    • Oscarlating Wildely

      “What are the best documentaries on Stonewall?”

      Duberman, Martin (1993). Stonewall, Penguin Books. ISBN 0-525-93602-5

      • Toasterlad

        Thank you.

      • Estrafalario

        Duberman’s great. I’m curious if he’s weighed in on this film yet. Knowing him I can’t imagine he’d be happy with it.
        But I meant film documentaries.

        • ChitownKev

          Now THAT I would like to hear…reading some of the commentaries of the people here who were there or who have actual secondhand info has been helpful.

          Knowing that when stuff like this is released it’s less about the history itself but more about today is helpful too…

    • Is there a chance Cinemark and Regal and other major movie chains will pick one these documentaries up and show it nationwide — in place of the new Stonewall movie ? If enough people want to see them, there is – but I am not sure anything like this has ever happened before.

      • Estrafalario

        Just the fact that the explosion-blockbuster director made this leads me to believe it was Hollywood wanting a big showy movie about Stonewall. Don’t know what the algorithm is on these things but I doubt they’d replace it with an old documentary — although it’d undoubtedly be a more educational experience.

        • I do not think a new big budget flick on Stonewall will be produced if the boycott is successful — and the investors lose money. This will become a toxic subject area in Hollywood. Anything that generates boycotts becomes toxic. Producing a flick outside of mainstream subject matter (people want to invest in JJ Abrams / superhero type movies) is a risk — I heard Rob Reiner speak about how anyone who makes a movie starring people over 60, for example, has a hard time raising cash these days. I hope I am wrong.

          • Estrafalario

            I’m not opposed to a boycott if it means smarter movies, although I take your point. There was a problem with the Chavez movie, which had a hell of a time getting financing — had to go international because Hollywood (no surprise) didn’t want to finance it. And there was some discussion of the under-writing of the female roles in the film. Some argued that bringing it up was dooming the chance of other films on the subject, but the truth is that the film didn’t get made because of Hollywood but IN SPITE of it. The $$$ just wasn’t there to support making it and it was pieced together.
            That said, it was a good film. But there’s still a chance for a good film about Stonewall and even the Mattachine Society (earlier Mattachine , Harry Hay etcetera). But those are going to be smaller better films. I think there’s something about making a blockbuster film and losing more in the process.

    • kipper
  • Martin

    I’m not boycotting the film and I can’t wait to see it.

  • Gigi

    Let me get this straight (as it were), there’s a call to boycott the movie but no one’s even seen it yet. We really are mainstream now. We’ve become the One Million Moms.

    • Webslinger

      TRUTH…

  • Chris

    Yes, please let’s all demand that this fictionalized version of events represent history exactly as young trans people would like. It’s a classic fish out of water story, not a documentary. I can’t wait to see it. Being old enough to have been around and in NYC in those days, I look forward to this film. A boycott, based on a minute of trailer, because it doesn’t represent your vision of the events during those days is unfortunate, but par for the course. Rather than see a film in it’s entirety, reactionaries rule, and spew nonsense, even going so far as to mangle the English language (transwomyn, really?), in an attempt at activism. Sad.

  • BrandySpears

    The same buffoons that screamed their faux outrage over the Iraq War movie American Sniper without having seen it are now criticizing others over a movie who haven’t seen it. Can’t make this shit up!

  • Octavio

    As I noted earlier, the trailer appears to show the cast of FAME putting on a show. Sure, I haven’t seen it. But everything benefits from being retooled by adding a smashing opening number and a marbling of catchy show tunes. Right?

  • medaka

    Yo! New Cis/Trans thread y’all. Another white people movie!

  • Most of the young people who I speak to under 25- gay or straight — have no idea what Stonewall is about. They may have heard of it but are not sure, and have no idea how hard LGBT people had in 50 years ago. This movie, far from perfect, and produced to make money and earn profits off risky investments, would at least get the word out. And the hot young star Jeremy Irvine is a draw– even if he in inauthentically cast. He is a young romantic male lead (with girls in other flicks) and is in 5 other films this year . If the boycott is successful, and if mainstream theater chains do not show it, a victory will be won for realism and honesty. And many here will celebrate. But at what price? Will another big-budget film on Stonewall ever be made with distribution outside of some art houses? I think not. I predict that this boycott is going to scare major chains from carrying the flick — especially if protest threats emerge. But for many, this will be a victory, and perhaps they are right. I can see the point off people protesting the film, but I think it would be better if the movie were made to at last let people know what Stonewall is about – even imperfectly.

    • Roy Biv

      The price is that Hollywood is much more amenable to the LGBTQ community than before and we’ll see another, hopefully better movie than this.

      And yes I’m judging from the trailer but I’m also judging the from the director.

      Maybe Stonewall will explode at some point during this movie.

      • I hope you are correct and my jaded attitude is wrong. I really do.

    • Circ09

      There are not enough people willing to boycott to even be a blip on theater chains’ radar. Calm down.

      All this is likely to do is give this film more publicity. And hopefully more ink so discussions about representation can be had within our community and in mainstream. Those conversations are long overdue.

    • Reality.Bites

      Although it’s from a major director, it’s still a low budget film from a distributor of indy films. It’s not going to be playing the major chains regardless.

  • KaBoomBOX

    I’m not going to boycott a film that hasn’t been released yet. That said I’m not going to rush out and see this either. I’ll watch the 1995 version instead.

  • Joe knows who I am.

    People should not be gaining their history from film. Read a book.

    • Toasterlad

      I can certainly support that.

  • Chris Davis

    Oh great, here we go again, boycotting our own. Have we run out of real enemies already?

    • David Walker

      No. And what really pisses me off is that we seem to be taking a page from our real enemies. I get the representation problem; I don’t get condemning something from its advertising.

    • Roy Biv

      I sure as heck won’t support a movie just because it’s gay themed.

  • atrivialgirl

    Amazing how we’re the first to have our contributions pushed to the side for the gods of expediency
    .

  • Jimmy

    This is so wrong. There’s a group of people who have a quasi-religious belief that Stonewall was all about Black drag queens. It wasn’t. This was an historical event. There are photos, video and police records. There were a few drag queens there, but that’s it. 1000 people were there who were not drag queens. And most of the rioters were white. The Village Voice reported on the riot at the time and interviewed Seymour Pine, the detective who was in charge of the raid. He reported that there were 5 cross-dressers and that all of them let out and not arrested. The pictures show only 1 drag queen. The rest of the crowd is mostly male and mostly white. BTW, the same VV report indicates that the trigger event had nothing to do with any drag queen, but was resistance from a lesbian, so these boycotters are “erasing” women. But the worst thing is that thanks to these loons, this is how we have to discuss Stonewall now, by divvying up gay people and counting them by skin color. Fuck these racialist cultists and their boycott.

    • Estrafalario

      “racialist cultists” ?!?
      Wow. When did this become Breitbart?

      • KT

        I don’t lnow, this thread is amazingly disappointing today. I feel like this post was linked to from another site and all these new posters are commenting. This sites comments are usually nore civil -I feel like I stumbled onto Towleroad or Queerty.

        • Rose-Colored Glasses

          No, you haven’t. These sentiments have always been here. You have been more focused on marriage equality. This is no longer an issue so you are better able to see.

          • Roy Biv

            Yeah.

            A few years ago, Filipino boxer Pacquiao spoke against marriage equality, and you should have seen the the racism and xenophobia on that thread.

            Obviously, Pacquiao was wrong but whoo, this site felt like WND.

          • medaka

            .

          • Rose-Colored Glasses

            Look at the archives, medaka. Wow, you don’t know how to use your fingers..

          • medaka

            I know how to use my fingers, and I know his story inside out. He’s a macho Catholic politician boxer homophobic asshole.

            What’s your quibble?

          • Rose-Colored Glasses

            The point is not about the asshole Pacquias. It was about the racist and xenophobic response posts on this forum as a response to his homophobia. Did not not read that?

          • medaka

            I did and I recognized them as such.

    • BrandySpears

      Racialist cultists? Bryan Fischer, is that you?

  • Dramphooey

    Please boycott this movie. Han Solo and Chewbacca’s contributions are not even acknowledged in this iconic poster. And for Pete’s sake, Tarkin built the damned Death Star! Where’s his picture?

    • Reality.Bites

      What a perfect opportunity for me to plug http://www.jameshance.com

      He draws images of “Chewie the Wook” – reimagined Winnie the Pooh drawings.

      http://40.media.tumblr.com/23a22cf6087eb10707d42d4b9c86733b/tumblr_npgn8c9vU51qgthdfo3_1280.jpg

      • Dramphooey

        You’re my hero. This thread was bumming me.

        • Reality.Bites

          I just refuse to get upset about a movie that isn’t perfect. I got upset about Bender’s Game, because that was (would have been) enriching a bigoted piece of shit.

          I do want to mention that the acclaimed British film “Pride” uses almost exactly the same device – a newly out kid from the suburbs experiencing gay life for the first time.

      • Reality Check

        Looking away into fantasyland is not courage or strength. It is cowardice.

        • Dramphooey

          I think you mixed up “looking into fantasyland” with “logging out of one’s Disqus account to attack someone anonymously.”

          • Reality Check

            Wow. Doge the issue for petty details. Is Trump your hero too?

          • Reality Check

            …Dodge…

          • medaka

            I like Doge. I’m thinking 15/16C Venice. Embroidered silks and ermine whips. But that’s just me.

          • medaka

            I like Doge. I’m thinking Venice. Embroidered silks and ermine whips. But that’s just me.

          • Reality Check

            Cute…

        • shivadog

          Maybe a good proctologist could remove that stick from your ass.

          • Reality Check

            Yes, so that you can be bitch slapped with it – shit and all.

          • shivadog

            How cute, he’s all tough on the internet. You can leave me out of your scat fetish though.

          • Reality Check

            It’s not just the internet. I bet you would never say that mess to my face.

          • shivadog

            Says the guy on the internet who doesn’t even have a face.

      • robirob

        This looks adorable!

  • John T

    I think accurate representation of underrepresented minorities is important, and it sounds like the film was a missed opportunity, but jesus christ the movie hasn’t even been released yet!

    • Gerry Fisher

      This is one of the saner summaries.

  • Reasonoverhate

    I often hear the right talk about the “far left” or the “loony left.” I’ve always argued that those segments of society don’t really exist in today’s political spectrum or are so small they make absolutely no difference. This thread proves me wrong!

    • Doug105

      There has been one or two here that could only be called far left for years.

      • Estrafalario

        But racial issues are always a wild card on these boards. When that comes up it gets ugly and sort of revealing. I just saw someone use “racialist cultists” on this thread. Serious Breitbart level action.

        • Roy Biv

          SO TRUE. Lol.

          The sad part is that they don’t even see it.

          • Estrafalario

            #whitewave #whitepriviledge

        • Doug105

          Accusations on both sides get thrown around to much, all it does is poison the well, ending any discussion and tainting future ones.

    • Roy Biv

      It’s not loony to boycott a Hollywood film.

  • marshlc

    Is it reasonable for an artist to pick a viewpoint character? Is it reasonable for that character be one that the artist identifies with? One that the artist suspects an audience will identify with?
    I think those things are reasonable.
    If a film is to be an accurate look at a real event, then it is essential that the actual diversity of the event be portrayed. But it is not essential that the viewpoint character be anything besides what the artist wants him to be.
    They could have chosen to tell this story from the point of view of a reporter, a cop, a brick in the wall of the bar – anything. What or who is used as the viewpoint character is an artistic decision that may or may not be a wise one, but it has little to do with the accuracy of the story told.

    “Huck Finn” looks at slavery through the eyes of a white kid. Would it be a good thing for someone to tell that story through the eyes of Jim? Sure it would, but it would be a different book, and it’s not the book that Mark Twain chose to write, for reasons of his own.

    I don’t know if this movie is going to be any good or not, or if it is going to be accurate or not. But attacking it because of who the viewpoint character is seems to me to be madness.

    • KT

      Interesting points but here’s another to consider: in American cinema, drama a nd literature, how often is the viewpoint character a cisgendered white male? How often is it a trans woman of color?

      • marshlc

        Sure, that’s a problem.

        But if I were a cisgendered white male writer or director, I’d be a little leery of making my viewpoint character a transwoman of colour, for fear of being accused of cultural appropriation – an accusation that is sometimes justified. If I felt that I could not give that character an authentic voice – because of my limitations as an artist, because of my ignorance of her life, because of some other reason – I’d be better off having my viewpoint character be someone I could really see through the eyes of.

        Seems to me that the problem of lack of diversity is better addressed, on the whole, by making it more possible for marginalized people to tell their own stories – and for the rest of us to make sure that we are open to hearing those stories.

        • BrianQTD

          This is a good point. But it’s coming from a place of support and not “those trans and POCs need to just fall in line!”

        • Toasterlad

          Except that the history of the gay liberation movement is the history of marginalized people. We can’t afford to make the distinctions of race and gender that straight people do: we only succeed when ALL queer people are united, no matter what color, no matter what gender identity. Repeatedly presenting the face of our movement as a young, cis, white male serves to divide us and undermine the diversity which has always been our strength.

        • Exactly. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

      • aschops

        Regardless of the answer to the question posed by mashlc, why shouldn’t “a cisgendered white male” be the viewpoint character for a story based on an event led by a cisgendered white males?

  • greenmanTN

    In some ways I really don’t get the complaints, especially since very very few of the people who are complaining have actually SEEN the movie! As a general rule, movies use a main POV character, someone who the presumably mainstream audience can identify with, to lead them into the world of the film. Someone mentioned Titanic earlier and that’s actually a very good case in point. The ‘love story’ between Jack and Rose was just a means of allowing the filmmaker to follow them from First Class accommodations, to steerage, the boiler room, the hold, and all the points in between. The POV character isn’t actuallly that important, just a means to an end.

    Perhaps the fact that the POV character is a white boy from the mid west, kicked out by his family for being gay, is offensive to some people, but that character is just a starting point, a way to bring a more mainstream audience into the movie in a way that perhaps a Puerto Rican drag queen might not. Presumably this film wasn’t made only to be watched by a gay audience who wants a documentary, but for a more mainstream audience who need a more familiar point of entry.

    That doesn’t necessarily mean that People of Color, drag queens, or transsexuals and their contributions are ignored in the movie. He’s just “Alice,” as in Alice In Wondland, the vehicle through which the reader/watcher is taken to this formerly unknown place and time. And street kids DID play a part in what became known as the Stonewall riots and some of them may have even been kids from the Midwest kicked out of their families because they were gay!

    All I’m suggesting is that before you judge the film offensive you actually see it, give it a chance before you decide that this group, that group, or the other group was giving short shrift or ignored completely. Until you’ve seen it, and that includes myself, you don’t really know.

  • leastyebejudged

    Is in-fighting still funny ?

    • Bad Tom

      Sad, really.

  • Sean Taylor

    I have stepped in enough shit this week. I am not stepping in this. Have a fun discussion boys and girls.

    • Schlukitz

      As did I. LOL

      Like you, I am gonna sit this out.

  • Roy Biv

    Since so many on these boards are so interested in the financial success of this movie, what they really should have done is use a HETEROSEXUAL male as the POV for this movie and given him a female romantic interest. And a hot female lead might even draw out some unwitting straight bros to the movie.

    Historically, LGBTQ themed movies don’t make a lot of money since it’s ghettoized in the gay movie section of your netflix. Or just written off by most people who don’t want to be preached at.

    Isn’t it more interesting to see how straight people viewed Stonewall since it’s primarily straight people who are completely unaware of the gay civil rights struggle movement anyway?

    Just think about it. It’s much more of a fish out of water story than just generic rural gayboy gone to the big city to learn his sexuality. That’s 60% of gay produced movies already!

    It’s just a movie that appeals to the broadest demographic available. No one should complain. It’s artistic license.

  • jomicur

    Has Roland Emmerich ever made a movie anyone intelligent could take seriously?

  • TJay229

    “Black is BEAUTIFUL…”

  • Merv99

    Judging a movie by its trailer is pretty foolish. We’ve all seen movies that were nothing like their trailers. I can understand that seeing a trailer would raise questions, but it shouldn’t lead to conclusions about anything other than the trailer.

    From a practical standpoint, the plot device of bringing an outsider into a new situation can greatly simplify exposition and make it feel more natural and less stilted, especially in movies, which are usually more reliant on dialog over narrative than books are. That doesn’t necessarily mean the protagonist had to be a white midwesterner, but is a good reason for a relative outsider.

    Looking at the Confederate flag debate, it’s hard not to notice how mythologies form on all sides. Whatever view you have on Stonewall, it’s almost certain that some aspects of it are wrong. Arguments about historical reality should center on evidence, preferably primary sources that are verifiable.

  • Puckfair52

    There was nothing but contempt by so many for Sylvia & Marsha. Sylvia had to fight her way onto the stage in 1973 People were more interested in Bette Midler You Got to Have Friends & Alaina Reed did A Song For You. It was like Vito Russo’s friday Night cabaret’s at the Firehouse and Hot Peaches wasn’t going to be on the menu or the Playbill.

  • CityWOOF

    I’m going to see it at the first screening on the opening day in my town. Can’t wait to support a gay director making a film inspired by some gay history. Why? Because I want movies about gays to get made, and if this one tanks, it will be a lonnnnnnng time before Hollywood offers up another one.

    Brokeback Mountain was nominated for numerous Oscars, but didn’t win, and we’ve had….how many gay movies since then? Indies are great, but they don’t get the attention that something from a director with the name recognition of a Roland Emmerich does.

    I think it’s ridiculous to be complaining about a movie based on what you think you see – or don’t see – in the trailer, a marketing tool.

    You want facts? Watch STONEWALL UPRISING. Or read the book STONEWALL, which I am currently reading. I’m just glad that this film got made and I look forward to supporting it. I will go see it and maybe go again, and then buy the Blu-Ray.

  • The poor bears!

  • bdsmjack

    Ugh. Enough of the pc whining! STFU and make your OWN damn movie that reflects YOUR voice. Sheesh.

  • robirob

    I don’t know if it has been posted, but here is a statement by Robin Baitz.

    “I saw the movie for the first time last week and can assure you all that it represents almost every race and section of society that was so fundamental to one of the most important civil rights movements in living history. Marsha P Johnson is a major part of the movie, and although first hand accounts of who threw the first brick in the riots vary wildly, it is a fictional black transvestite character played by the very talented @vlad_alexis who pulls out the first brick in the riot scenes.”

    http://news.yahoo.com/lgbt-activists-urge-boycott-roland-emmerichs-whitewashed-stonewall-211523710.html;_ylt=A0LEVyiTA8VV9KkAPB9XNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEybW5zZWNxBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDQjA1NzdfMQRzZWMDc2M-

  • ClevelandJim

    Are you fucking KIDDING me? This is A movie about Stonewall, from one viewpoint. Nobody has said this is THE movie about Stonewall. Bitches need to get over themselves.

    • Octavio

      What? Are you saying “It’s only a movie?” 😛

  • A Big Sarcastic Fairy!

    Haters are going to hate no matter what. And there seem to be a whole fucking bunch of haters in our so called “community”.

  • catherinecc

    Is it cynical of me to consider that this was just part of an advertising campaign to get the word out about this movie? If so, it succeeded epically.

  • Octavio

    Anyone remember when in ’79-80 we were all supposed to protest the filming and exhibition of Cruising? I saw it a few months ago on Canal Cinema/Arts and found it to be sort of nostalgic. I think me and Camille Paglia are the only two who never worried about it not being an accurate representation of New York’s pre-AIDS leather scene of the ’70s or misrepresenting the decadence of that subculture. However, that film would probably have benefitted from a smashing musical opening and several catchy Broadway tunes, too. 🙂

  • sword

    Everyone knows that Stonewall was started and conducted by Transgenders. Only Pinko Leftists still believe that white Gays were even involved! Just like, only Whites were involved in the March on Selma.

  • Well, after reading the comments, especially the ones in favor of a boycott, I’ll definitely see this movie.

  • D

    White gay cis men are oppressors of trans women of color. Saga me on all of you with your white and cis privilege

    • And you wonder why we get tired of helping? I’m as much in your corner as anyone, but if you’re gonna piss on us…

      Fuck off.

    • aschops

      I’m Latino. And you’re a homophobe who takes advantage of gay male complacency and support for trans people to denigrate us and steal our history with your hashtag activism and Twitter mobs.

  • David

    I don’t think any studios are gonna think of touching lgbt subjects anytime soon with this kinda backlash. Hilarious. So many people here type like tumblr social justice warriors.

  • K_J_Pall

    It’s a trailer.
    Can’t we wait to judge the movie by the content of the film, instead of the trailer?

  • JDegarson

    I just LOVE how the white gays here are telling others to shut up about Hollywood whitewashing and erasing transgender and POC from the TRUE Stonewall story. These are the same people that complain 24/7 when Hollywood exludes gays, yet tells LGBT POC to shut it.

    This shitty movie is just like making Selma WITHOUT Martin Luther King or relegating Martin (and other black activists) to the background while focusing the movie on whites. This movie is even worse because if Emmerich made Selma, not ONLY will he relegate Martin to the back, he will create a fictional white character and make him the leader of the civil rights movement.

  • DutchBoy74

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots#Media_representations
    According to this, it is not supposed to be so much historical as it is a “fictionalized drama”.
    The director is known for fictional disaster films.
    http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000386/bio?ref_=nm_ov_bio_sm

    This is not supposed to be a documentary.
    If they want a documentary then I suggest starting a movement or kickstarter to make an historically accurate documentary.

    There were a couple of documentaries around stonewall
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Before_Stonewall
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/After_Stonewall

  • pangelboy

    It just goes to show that gay white men are still white men who will utilize their privilege to erase the contributions of others and demean and discard the stories of oppressed minorities.

    I refuse to see this sham of a movie and signed the petition. Just say no to whitewashing!

    • Jeff Chang

      May I ask what evidence do you have to support your accusations?

      • pangelboy

        I firmly believe most people in the community have their minds made up. The majority of cis GWM feel that queer people of color and non binary people are just complaining, because that’s one of our favorite pastimes and the other side feels differently. Unfortunately, I don’t think any discussion will solve this. So, no I won’t engage you, because I refuse to play a game without a point.

        There’s more than enough evidence out on the internet if you truly cared to hear what people are saying.

    • aschops

      It just goes to show that gay men are still white men and therefore seen as fair targets for whining and demonization by victimism-cultists from the SJW bandwagon.

      The movie is not erasing anyone – if anything, it is giving people who weren’t there more space than they had in reality.

  • Adam

    but, by all photographic evidence, the Stonewell rioters were overwhelmingly white. At the time, New York itself was far whiter than it is today.

    Should we lose the historicity in the name of liberalism?

  • Joseph Miceli

    I just can’t share the outrage. I am white, cis-gendered (how I LOATHE the terminology!) male of course.
    This movie does not pretend to be a documentary, but out of respect it should get the story correct. Seen through the eyes of a gay white boy kicked out of his home and thrust into the gender bending world of New York’s gay bars in 1969, the strangeness and the HUMANITY of the characters is given a chance to reveal itself. Seeing these people from the outside looking in and then from inside their society helps to understand them.
    Do I want Stonewall white washed? Hell no! All the drag queens, Dykes on Bikes, Transexuals and male hustlers NEED to be there. The drive to NOT conform to straight society should be stated forcefully and without distortions. The anger of the marginalized is what this movie is all about.
    Sorry Y’all. I am a white gay man. I am not stealing your culture or your contributions. I have the utmost respect for those who went before me. I just refuse to believe that gay history only belongs to everyone who ISN”T a white, gay, masculine man. That some do says more about their resentment of me than it does mine of them.

    • I intensely dislike “cisgendered” too. . .I don’t know why exactly. I think “cis” just looks like an unpleasant word. Like “pus” or something. Bleccch. And I also feel like the term was foisted upon me. *You* get to tell me what *I* am? That kind of thing.

      • Joseph Miceli

        I think you hit the nail on the head. I am a guy, a gay guy. I like to work on my car, go out to eat and fuck other guys up the butt. No one tells me what I am.

        • I have always known that though I’m an uncoordinated, klutzy gay atheist who doesn’t like sports (and thus quite “different,” often belittled and marginalized), that if I sit very still and don’t talk much, nobody knows those things. I’m just a white guy. There is some privilege inherent in that. But I really don’t think that puts me in a category with a angry, white, evangelical, homophobic, Confederate flag-wavin’, Nazi-analogy-making, tea bagger. Using “cis white male privilege” as a dismissive epithet seems almost as harsh as any original claim of outrage.

          • Joseph Miceli

            Combined with the dripping contempt and resentment that the term “cis” seems to be written and spoken with, I second that. I’m a guy and they are…whatever they want to be. I support them.
            Just don’t call me cis.

  • Ramona Love

    lots of straight white cis male tears in here

    can’t stand being challenged, can you?

    lol.

  • Silver Badger

    I am willing to share the world equally with everyone. It is a shame this is not an attitude shared by everyone. The early fighters in the American gay rights struggle were primarily white. So what? The whole meaning behind the rainbow flag is that we are of all races. By denying white contributions, you are degrading us all.

  • Ireyon

    >”white cis-male fictional protagonist”

    Well, that smells an awful lot like another feminist having a hissy fit.

    *Looks at petitioners youtube profile.*

    And I’m proven right. Of course.

  • Halloween_Jack

    Applying Stonewall‘s standard of historical accuracy to other progressive milestones:

    http://fucknoanarcho-capitalism.tumblr.com/post/126131293482/cis-white-dude-was-actually-everywhere

  • danah gaz

    So at the end of this movie, does our hero get the girl?

    /sarcasm @ formulaic diluted ahistorical hollywood drivel.