1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

LGBT News Roland Emmerich’s ‘Stonewall’ Finds Controversy

Discussion in 'Current Events, World News, & LGBT News' started by wisefolly, Sep 22, 2015.

  1. wisefolly

    wisefolly Guest

    Roland Emmerich's 'Stonewall' Finds Controversy
    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/20/movies/roland-emmerichs-stonewall-finds-controversy.html

    from the article:

    A Director Defends His 'Stonewall'
    A Director Defends His
    from the article:
    Stonewall Is Terribly Offensive, and Offensively Terrible
    Stonewall Review Roland Emmerich | Vanity Fair

     
  2. kageshiro

    kageshiro Guest

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2012
    Messages:
    655
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    in your soul
    Hmm, the article didnt really do a good job of explaining why the movie was bad, although Roland Emmerich doesnt have a very good track record so I feel inclined to not trust him.
     
  3. GeeLee

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2013
    Messages:
    1,442
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Somewhere
    Gender:
    Male
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Not out at all
    Is anybody really surprised that this film has turned out the way it has? Hollywood has a long and ugly history of taking history and distorting it to make it more palatable to themselves and their audiences and then patting themselves on the back for "bringing the story to a wider audience".

    Hollywood gonna Hollywood.
     
  4. wisefolly

    wisefolly Guest

    Here's another article by someone who was actually in the Stonewall riots, commenting on the film:

    I was at the Stonewall riots. The movie 'Stonewall' gets everything wrong by Mark Segal

     
  5. KyleD

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2013
    Messages:
    1,094
    Likes Received:
    25
    Location:
    Spain
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Family only
    I really don't get the criticism of the film.
     
  6. Helicoprion

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2015
    Messages:
    112
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ft. Lauderdale
    Gender:
    Female (trans*)
    Out Status:
    A few people
    "No studio wanted to finance it"
    I wonder why, Mr. Emmerich. I wonder why.
    [​IMG]
     
  7. kageshiro

    kageshiro Guest

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2012
    Messages:
    655
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    in your soul
    From the articles I gather that it's an unfaithful portrayal of historical figures and events, also, people are angry that white people are in the movie.
     
  8. Aldrick

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2012
    Messages:
    2,175
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Virginia
    This asshole just doesn't know when to keep his mouth shut.

    Quote from Buzzfeed.

    I am not sure who should be more insulted. Gay people being told that unless you are "straight acting" that straight audiences cannot connect or empathize with you. Straight people for being told that they cannot empathize with queer characters. Or queer people of color who were effectively shoved to the back of the bus so that a white director could place his Mary Sue authors character in the movie. I guess all three groups have a reason to hate the movie now.

    I heard Roland Emmerich is already working on a new movie. It's also going to be based in the 1960's, but this time it will revolve around African American domestic workers and the civil rights movement. I hear he's already auditioning Emma Stone as the lead character. Oh wait, they already made that movie, sorry. It was called the Help. When will Hollywood learn it's lesson?
     
  9. Gen

    Gen
    Full Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2012
    Messages:
    4,070
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Nowhere
    The quote that Aldrick highlighted says everything. It is oppression porn.

    "I want to go see that new slavery movie, but I wanted to leave the theater crying happy tears about how far we've come."

    You make the protagonists mirror the members of the majority as closely as possible so that the majority can leave the theater without feeling uncomfortable because the protagonists always change history for the better. You are supposed to feel uncomfortable when you watch a movie about the holocaust. You are support to feel uncomfortable when you watch a movie about slavery. You are supposed to feel uncomfortable when you watch a movie about tragic events in history. They are tragic. They are inhumane. They are cautionary tales for our future. If you want to tell a story where straight people feel that they are being represented and serving as the heroes, write a movie in literally any other genre. Write about any other historical event.

    "I want to tell the story of what happened when the past majority was uncomfortable with diversity, but I don't want the cast to be truly diverse to prevent any members of the present majority to feel uncomfortable with their presence."

    It is oppression porn.
     
  10. 741852963

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2014
    Messages:
    1,522
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Me neither.

    You would think, the way people have gone on, that there were no white people at all at Stonewall, yet when you look at the actual photographs of the riots the vast majority of rioters were white. As such, having the fictionalised lead as a white person really isn't that offensive in my opinion, not when white and black people contributed equally to the riots. Whilst yes, it may have been started by a split second action of a non-cis or non-white person, all in all it was a largely team-effort - I don't think any one individual can take full credit for the riots, without everyone's contributions there would be no riot and it would have gone down in history as just one person kicking off.

    Now it would be very different if it were a majority black riot where white cis people point blank refused to act and then they picked a white cis guy for the lead role. THAT would have been offensive. But back in reality, that clearly wasn't the case.

    Beside, there are plenty of non-white and non-cis characters in the film.

    So on one hand we are criticising the film for not being "historically accurate"...and then on another hand when accuracy shows up we criticise that too for not being "progressive" or politically correct enough.

    Back in those days, hell even today, yes there are gay people who would not love or have sex with genderfluid or non-cis people. Some are tactful about this*, others are not but it is a reality that such people exist.

    It is not up to the film-makers to candy coat this and pretend there has never been in-fighting or dare I say it, "diversity" in the gay community.

    *And that is fine. Would we expect all straight men to be sexually attracted to drag kings, Grace Jones, Ruby Rose, this lady for example? No of course not, because of diversity. Naturally some will be, naturally some won't be. So why on earth do we expect all gay men should automatically have the potential to be attracted to all expressions of men, from Chris Colfer or Bill Kaulitz to Jason Statham, from Ru Paul to Tom Hardy?
     
    #10 741852963, Sep 26, 2015
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2015
  11. Aldrick

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2012
    Messages:
    2,175
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Virginia
    741852963 -

    I think you missed the point. See what the Director said below.

    Quote from Buzzfeed.

    In essence, this means he inserted this fictional character as a representative of himself. He is/was actively portraying this as a historical drama. His fake character was not there at the riots.

    I have no problem if he wants to focus on a story of one real life person in particular from the riots, and that real life person just happens to be a white gay male. Fine, whatever. If it is historically accurate, the person existed, then they have the right to have their story told. Sure, I'd rather hear a story about Sylvia Rivera, as I think she deserves it, but everyone has the right to have their story told. And if the person were still alive and could tell the story themselves, then I could see the advantage of going that route.

    However, that is not what happened. Emmerich has actively gone out of his way to rewrite history, sidelining real life historical figures all in an effort to make his fictional character the star of his movie. His fictional character starts and leads the riots, for example. It is made worse as he has admitted that his character is basically a Mary Sue extension of himself.

    Then it is made even worse by the fact that he actively went out of the way to sideline individuals like Sylvia Rivera and Marsha P. Johnson so that he could insert a "straight-acting" character in their place so that straight audiences could connect with the character. How can you not see this is one of the most offensive things a gay man could ever let leave his lips? "I wrote you out of history because you did not test well with straight people, sorry. Maybe you should have acted more straight." WTF?

    To even utter that statement shows that this director understood NOTHING about Stonewall and what it meant for our people and our movement. It was a revolt, not only against the police, but AGAINST straight oppression. It was our people standing up and telling straight people to go fuck themselves, because we were not going to conform and bend to the narrow gender and sexual boxes in which they wanted to cram us.

    So now he has not only actively written people out of history to insert his Mary Sue character that is really an extension of himself, but he has actively gone out of the way to strip away all of the meaning and relevance of Stonewall--what it meant for our community. I honestly can't even fathom how he thought this was a good idea.
     
  12. HuskyPup

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2013
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    An Igloo in Baltimore, Maryland
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    It sounds like a horrible film, from all accounts. Why must Hollywood continue to churn out such endless mounds of crap?
     
  13. BryanM

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2013
    Messages:
    2,894
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Columbia, Missouri
    Gender:
    Genderqueer
    Gender Pronoun:
    They
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    Yeah, I don't think I'm going to be watching this film. Just the way Marsha P. Johnson is portrayed and the complete omission of Sylvia Rivera are enough to show me what this movie is going to be like: a whitewashing of history for a cisgender white audience so that they can leave the cinema not feeling as bad about the past oppression of LGBTQ people (and Queer People of Color specifically) because a white protagonist is used and is seen as sparking the social change that led to where we stand now and where we are going in regards to equality.
     
  14. thepandaboss

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2015
    Messages:
    2,436
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Oregon
    Well the reviews are already in. And they're glorious.

    9% on Rotten Tomatoes. Nine-beef-flipping-percent. One of my personal favorite reviews was from the AV Club.

    "The big problem is that Stonewall is fundamentally confused, mixed up to the point where a viewer wouldn’t be able to tell why the Stonewall Riots happened if they didn’t already know."

    I actually might go and see it myself. But part of me doesn't want the film to get any money.
     
  15. GeeLee

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2013
    Messages:
    1,442
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Somewhere
    Gender:
    Male
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Not out at all
    Go to the cinema and ask if they're taking bookings for anything more intellectually and artistically stimulating than Stonewall, like Deadpool or Suicide Squad.

    Better yet, give Ridley Scott your money and go see The Martian instead.
     
  16. Daydreamer1

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2011
    Messages:
    5,680
    Likes Received:
    21
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Gender:
    Male (trans*)
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Other
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    The movie doesn't accurately protray the events of the movie, flat out white-washing our history and not including or even mentioning the transwomen of color that started the movement to begin with. Instead, all the credit is given to a fictional character and other kinds of bullshit. The worst part is that the director supposedly has done activism work for the LGBTQ community for decades, which is the biggest insult about the whole thing.

    The criticism is justifiable, and I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks the movie sucks.
     
  17. 741852963

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2014
    Messages:
    1,522
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    I really don't see the problem of using fictional characters - it is easier for the director to do (as they can mould the story more) and plenty of films based on historical events include elements of fiction.

    We aren't talking about a film about a single historical figure (for example as in Milk or Schindler's List) - we are talking about a riot where no one person can be 100% confirmed to have triggered it, and many (including unnamed individuals forgotten to history who could easily be similar to our protagonist) participated.

    Now I personally would always prefer something historically accurate, but I'm not going to call for directors who choose to go the other route to be hung, drawn and quartered.

    It is debateable whether Sylvia Rivera was even at the riot, and whilst Marsha P Johnson is likely to have played a part in the kickoff, they cannot really be said to be the sole driver.

    Just to flip this on its head, presumably you would be happy for a fictional black or non-cis person to be given the main role. Would you then claim white cis people at the event weren't being properly recognised, or would that be OK because it happens to match a relevant agenda?

    That is the nature of the beast. Do you honestly expect or demand that film studios pump millions into films that are probably not going to have mass appeal to the majority audience?

    They do have to sell tickets and they do that through casting and marketing.

    Of course you can write and produce a film about non-cis gay people or small parts of the gay scene (for example films like Paris is Burning) - but in all likelihood they will be relegated as being niche "gay-interest" films and not mass market. We are talking a $20 million dollar film here, so clearly a lot more was at stake.

    ---------- Post added 27th Sep 2015 at 10:03 AM ----------

    How is it "flat out white-washing" when a. there are non-white actors in the film and b. white people were heavily involved in the event and history?

    They were a part of the movement, it is really a bit much to imply they "started the movement" or that they were the sole contributors.
     
  18. Aldrick

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2012
    Messages:
    2,175
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Virginia
    My problem is not the use of a fictional character in and of itself. My problem is not the fact that he decided to cast a white gay cis-male in the leading role. My problem is not even the fact that he did all of that AND invoked Stonewall at the same time. It is certainly true that white gay cis-males were active in the Stonewall Riots, and you could even tell a story involving the Stonewall Riots using a character like Emmerich created. Historical Fiction is a legitimate genre.

    My problem is that the movie is/was being labeled as historical non-fiction and the fact that Stonewall is center stage. The movie isn't about Danny, the main character, it's about Stonewall (hence the film's name) and Danny is the character through which the audience experiences the event. If you are going to do a historical non-fiction film then it is important to tell a story that closely correlates to real life history.

    You could certainly tell a story about a fictional character named Danny that just happened to be involved in the Stonewall Riots, so long as you respect the history, the riots themselves are not the focus of the story, that the character himself/herself does not displace or usurp actual historical people (because it is offensive and disrespectful), and serve more as a backdrop for the character drama. That's called Historical Fiction or Historical Drama. That is acceptable.

    He could have even chosen to tell a story about a cis-white gay male AND placed the Stonewall Riots at center stage, provided said individual is/was a real person, and he was telling that persons story. That would be a Historical Non-Fiction Film.

    The problem here is that:
    1. Emmerich is/was selling this movie as the 'Story of Stonewall' (i.e. Historical Non-Fiction).

    2. Emmerich actively took extreme liberties and wrote out or diminished the role of important people for his fictional character.

    3. Emmerich has stated that the fictional character is really a stand-in for himself.

    4. Emmerich has stated that the removal and diminishing of non-cis and non-white historical figures was because they were not "straight acting" enough.

    5. In doing the above, Emmerich spits on the legacy, history, and the spirit in which Stonewall happened. He takes a giant shit on our history to tell his fictional story, which he in turn bills as something approximating the truth.


    So, I want to make your argument here clear. You are saying that heterosexuals are so closed minded that they couldn't accept a non-masculine, non-white, non-threatening gay male leading role? (Basically a guy that says, "I'm straight and the only thing that makes me different is that I suck dick.")

    ...well, actually, we aren't that far apart here. I do not trust that mainstream culture could or would accept a legitimate telling of Stonewall, because it would blow their fucking heterosexist minds, and the minds of quite a few members of the community as well.

    That is why, if you cannot re-tell an important historical event authentically, then you shouldn't tell the story at all. Or at least leave it to people willing to take the risk, such as gay friendly film art houses. I'd rather the story be retold as faithfully an as true as possible, than for the story to be told in such a way that betrays everything that the event stood for in our history.

    What Emmerich has done is no different than had he been writing about the Civil Rights Movement for African Americans, and decided to make a heterosexual white male play the central role. He's the one that instructs Martin Luther King Jr. on what to say, gives him advice, and directs events from behind the scenes. All the black characters in the film rely on him for guidance and advice, and would be helplessly dependent upon him. It's not false to say that whites played important roles in the Civil Rights Movement. However, to make the story center around a white character, especially a fictional white character? How could you not imagine that would be insulting? That is the equivalent of what Emmerich has done with the story of Stonewall.

    Honestly, I'm waiting for you to quote his comments that I quoted from Buzzfeed, and defend those comments he made.
     
    #18 Aldrick, Sep 27, 2015
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2015
  19. thepandaboss

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2015
    Messages:
    2,436
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Oregon
    Also... as it turns out, the movie isn't even really about the riots. It's about this kid moving from Indiana, having a sexual reawakening in New York, and Forrest-Gumping it around with people like Marsha P. Johnson and someone implied to be J.Edgar Hoover. The actual riots are basically treated like an after thought. And the main character starts the riots because, I shit you not, he's angry at his boyfriend and he throws a shot glass screaming "GAAAAAY POOOOOWEEEER" like Scrappy Doo.
     
  20. CandyKing

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2014
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Baltimore, Maryland
    Gender:
    Other
    Gender Pronoun:
    They
    Sexual Orientation:
    Questioning
    Out Status:
    A few people
    So the movie just bad in general.