Stonewall BOMBED at the Box Office

I knew it. Stonewall bombed this weekend. It grossed $112,414 from 127 theaters. The reviews were so bad and the movie... This film is a mess. I have a lot to say about this messy film because it sends so many messages.
For example, you need a White savior, the White savior has to be pretty, pretty enough for gays to want him and straight folks to support him. Then let's focus on his struggles vs the ones who lived through it in order to make the non-gays happy.

This film is a reflection of Roland Emmerich's sorry self-esteem, because any self-respecting gay director wouldn't have put this mess out. And how dare he use his white privilege to retell history?

Let me explain, in a Buzzfeed article, Roland said: “As a director you have to put yourself in your movies, and I’m white and gay.” And by doing that, he created Danny, which was clearly problematic. He later said: “I kind of found out, in the testing process, that actually, for straight people, [Danny] is a very easy in. Danny’s very straight-acting. He gets mistreated because of that. [Straight audiences] can feel for him.”

So, instead of telling the correct story, he created this White Knight and altered history. I understand that most historical films do this, but to add a White character with no true links to the actually events and give them the hero role (He throws the first brick) is very disrespectful and crass. But Roland thought nothing of it, because he wanted 'his' character, his golden boy to shine.

I know some of you want to see it for yourselves. But I told you then, and I'm telling you now, this movie is a fraud and a sad attempt to address one of the most important times in our history.

Interesting Quote: Roland Emmerich

“Danny is a very straight-acting kid. They can relate more strongly to him and through Danny’s eyes they’ll experience the more extreme situations depicted in the film. We had a lot of discussions about the sexual scenes and how far we should go or not go, and it was always very interesting.”

How Roland describes his White Knight character, Danny from Stonewall

source

Activists Painted the Stonewall Statues over Film's Whitewashing

The trailer for the upcoming Stonewall film has angered many of us.

The main reason is the whitewashing of the tale. The movie has this Danny character as the 'White savior' of the story. Activists from all over were pissed, including the survivors of the original riots.

A couple of activists took note and decided to do more than tweet about it. They painted the statues in front Stonewall to represent the POCs involved in the riots.

Autostraddle talked to the activists who painted the statues. This is what they had to say:

Those sculptures are supposedly there to commemorate the Stonewall riots, but there isn’t a trace of the actual riots in them. They’re a slap across the face to the Black and Latina trans women who got whacked with batons and shoved into police vans, and still had the guts to continue to lead the fight for LGBTQ liberation. I mean, the people who modeled for the sculptures weren’t even at the riots! That’s just a straight-up insult. It’s also important to note that the Mildred Andrews Fund paid a (presumably) straight and cis white man $90,000 to depict gay people. It’s no wonder that the sculptures are so impassive and tone-deaf.

We painted them because Marsha P. Johnson, Sylvia Rivera, Miss Major, Storme DeLarverie and all the other Black and Brown people who led the movement deserve credit for their courage and strength. What we did was rectification, not vandalism. Those statues are bronze (brown) underneath the layer of white paint — the symbolism behind that is infuriating. I know that some people are going to be angry, but I’m not concerned with preserving bullshit art. I’m angry about the whitewashing of LGBTQ history.

YES! Someone Parodied the hell out of the 'Stonewall' Trailer

You knew this was coming. All of we needed was for Danny to part the red sea.

Interesting Quote: Larry Kramer

"Don't listen to the crazies. For some reason there is a group of 'activists' that insists on maintaining their prime importance and participation during this riot. Unfortunately there seems no one left alive to say 'it wasn't that way at all,' or 'who are or where the fuck were you.' As with so much history there is no way to 'prove' a lot of stuff, which allows artists such as yourself (and me I might add) to take essences and attempt to find and convey meaning and truth. I sincerely hope this boycott your film shit peters out. We are not dealing with another 'Cruising' here. Keeping your film from being seen is only hurting ourselves. Good luck and thank you for your passion."

Not the best way to handle this, Larry. Not at all.

source

And A White Boy Shall Lead Them: The Whitewashing of the Stonewall Movie

The other day, we saw the trailer for Roland Emmerich's Stonewall. Most people know the movement was instigated by LGBT people of color living in New York City. So, you would believe the movie would focus on them.

Well, not so much.

In this trailer, we are introduced to Danny, a young white boy with a dream.

He travels to New York City during the time of the revolution. Once he realizes what going on, he steps forward and leads the rebellion, and the rest is history. But here's the thing-- this isn't what happened at all. The people who were truly involved in the Stonewall riots (Marsha P. Johnson, Sylvia Rivera and Storme DeLarverie) are now secondary characters to Danny.

It's almost insulting, but not surprising to see how Hollywood has basically whitewashed our history in this film. From this trailer alone, it seems that this fictional character is the Luke Skywalker/Captain America of LGBT of movement. Again, I am completely judging all of this from the trailer. But the purpose of a trailer is to sell the movie. Did they think by placing this white boy as the lead would make this film more appealing to the audience? Probably so, Hollywood has a deep track record of creating White saviors for films. I guess what makes this film any different, right?

The crapfest doesn't stop there. If you check out the IMDb page for Stonewall, you will find that two of the main people involved in the riots are not there. The person playing Marsha is near the end of the credits, while Sylvia are Storme are not even listed at all. However, the fictional characters are at the very top of the credits. When you stop and think about it you should be angry. Because what we're seeing is a complete and unabashed whitewashing of LGBT history. It seems that everything that went down and the people who were involved were cast aside to tell Danny's story. Was it so hard to tell Marsha P Johnson or Sylvia Rivera's stories? What about researching the other people involved in the movement? And since creating fictional characters is the thing to do, what adding more characters of color to tell the tale?

We may never know what was behind the creation of this movie and the story, but what we do know is this isn't the Stonewall we've appreciated and respected for over 40 years. The people who were truly a part of the movement are gone, and in their place, is a White Knight and the horse he rode on.

New Trailer: STONEWALL