I can see where people are coming from regarding the trailer for "Stonewall." It reeks of everything that's wrong with Hollywood. But remember, "Stonewall" is billed as a fictional account inspired by actual events, not an attempt to document real-life history. If that doesn't appeal to you, skip it and read Martin Duberman's great book. Warning, though: Even his "powerful, first-hand account" remembers it through "intertwined portraits of six people -- two lesbians, one transvestite and three gay men -- whose lives converged at the Stonewall Rebellion." If you're upset about the dearth of women and people of color in Hollywood films, then I'm right there with you. But the reality is Hollywood is a business. And while it appears they opted to focus on a story they thought was most marketable -- the fictional pretty boy "Danny" -- we still don't know what the finished product is like. Moments like this never have just one hero -- and I do see a trans woman and a femme person of color depicted prominently in the trailer, which makes me hopeful for a balanced story. But the truth is the Stonewall Inn was a hangout for counterculture, hippy twinks, many of whom came to New York City to escape rejection at home. Either way, though, let's not allow our anger to negate the contributions of the many real-life gay white men on the frontlines, on whom this composite is clearly based. That doesn't help serve any purpose because it too is rewriting history.
What's more, given the fact that everyone and their brother claims they were "there" those fateful nights (perhaps on their way to Woodstock and the Altamont Speedway), that the details of who did what when have forever been disputed -- we can't even get the "Was it Marsha or was it Sylvia?" debate settled in our own community, so even if someone wanted to make an "accurate" movie they couldn't -- and that actual photos show plenty of cisgender white men involved, I'm going to do something novel and reserve judgement until I actually see the film.
Or:
What did you expect?
UPDATE: Director Roland Emmerich addresses the controversy:
UPDATE 2: Another "white privilege" POV:
Related: Gay Whites Movement
10 comments:
Seriously Kenneth ... If You can see the racist, transphobic problems with making up a white GQ READY BOY as the leader of stonewall ... You know what, I'm just going to added up to white privilege and leave it at that.
@AA: Yes, not reviewing/judging things until you've actually read/seen them is definitely a white thing.
Everyone knows it's Windy!
I wonder if Bill Kohler is related to Bob Kohler. I worked for Bob in the 90's at The Loft. He's the one I got my real Stonewall history lesson from. That's also where I met, and got to know Marsha P Johnson.
"Where the boys are! Got any spare change for a starvin' girl?"
I kind of agree. From what I've read, Stonewall was a heavily trans-led few days of protests, revolts and uprisings, and that should definitely be clear in the movie. But putting a pretty (white) boy at the center of the movie does not mean they are suggesting he's the center of the movement. They want people to see the movie and having the lead ROLE be someone more accessible (pretty, white, young, naive, non-trans), IMO, is fine, as long as the story and the diversity within the movie itself is more or less accurate. To be completely honest, I am not a huge fan of trans-things (have no desire to see Cait, never seen Transparent), because it does not directly address me or my issues (yes, I can be self-centered; I try to be supportive but not a flag-waver). But I know that this movement, and a huge part of where we are today in terms of gay rights, is due to the guts and bravery of drag queens and trans people who stood up for us and themselves when others were too afraid and weak to do it. They had the BALLS to do say NO MORE! So THAT aspect needs to be in the movie or it will be a fraud. It should also be diverse. But I will wait to see it to judge it.
I don't doubt there were white guys in at Stonewall. I just don't like yet another trailer where all the 'controversial' (read, non-'normal') stuff is white washed out. I'm tired, so I'm not going to dig for it, but a recent movie even completely eliminated the gay element of the film from the trailer (maybe even the film, I can't remember) for the american audience. What are they so afraid of? Hollywood acts like there aren't white straight people in this country.
The clientele at Stonewall in the late 60s was primarily young, white, and of course, male. It was a mafia nar, but the vibe was more counter-culture/hippy twink than anything else. If you look at the pictures taken at the scene, that's what you'll see.
(No, I wasn't there the night it all started, but the Stonewall and Julius's were my regular hang-outs. I'm old.)
Re: Hangouts, amended:
Make that Stonewall, Julius's, and Max's Kansas City, where the Warhol crowd hung out.
So how do we know what action precedes the Danny brick toss? Are there heels knocking a cop upside the head?
BTW who the F!@# came up with "cis"? I bristle every time I hear/read it?
what MacGuffin said. 100%.
Post a Comment