You have no doubt run across the "controversy" over Roland Emmerich's upcoming film, Stonewall, due for release in September. All the fuss, generated, it seems, by the trans community and queer people of color, is based on this trailer:
There's even a petition calling for a boycott of the film:
Can I just point out that anyone who expects a work of fiction to be historically accurate is an idiot? And as it turns out, the majority of the rioters were -- you guessed -- white boys. There are historical images from PBS here, and here's what you get if you do a Google search for "Stonewall riots photos". A sampler:
(I should add that I've actually seen a comment to the effect that the photos of the riots have excluded people of color and trans folk. Take that for what it's worth.)
Emmerich has responded:
Nobody knows who threw the first brick, although a couple of people have claimed credit. I ran across this comment at Pink News, which seems to support the idea that white, cis-gendered gay men were, indeed, an important part of the event.
And that sort of leads into why I find this whole thing annoying: There is an element in this country who can't seem to make it through the day without being offended at something, whether that something actually exists or not -- and that's not limited to One Million Moms. Part of it's my own history: I lived through the New Left in the '80s, which did more to set the gay movement back than Jerry Falwell could have dreamed of. Their descendants are the ones on the radical left who throw around terms like "cis-gendered" as insults and are quick to take umbrage if every little thing isn't "inclusive" enough. It's the same sort of arrogance and narcissism that you find on the far right, and it really pisses me off, to the extent that my response boils down to "Grow up and get a life." (I should point out that, in my somewhat checkered past, I've known a number of drag queens, trans women, and transvestites -- they're not invisible to me, and never have been.)
As for me, I'm going wait until September and see the movie before I comment on it. I see no point in getting all freaked out by a two-minute trailer. And I doubt very much that I'll be worried about "historical accuracy." I'm much more likely to comment on it's success and failures as a work of art.
There's even a petition calling for a boycott of the film:
"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."
Can I just point out that anyone who expects a work of fiction to be historically accurate is an idiot? And as it turns out, the majority of the rioters were -- you guessed -- white boys. There are historical images from PBS here, and here's what you get if you do a Google search for "Stonewall riots photos". A sampler:
(I should add that I've actually seen a comment to the effect that the photos of the riots have excluded people of color and trans folk. Take that for what it's worth.)
Emmerich has responded:
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.
Nobody knows who threw the first brick, although a couple of people have claimed credit. I ran across this comment at Pink News, which seems to support the idea that white, cis-gendered gay men were, indeed, an important part of the event.
I have/had many friends who were present at the Stonewall riots, and no, the place was not a hotbed of trans and minority activism. White gay men were there, they were arrested, they threw bricks and stones tool.
This film is not any more a case of "whitewashing" a story than it is of trans activists trying to "trans wash" the events.
And that sort of leads into why I find this whole thing annoying: There is an element in this country who can't seem to make it through the day without being offended at something, whether that something actually exists or not -- and that's not limited to One Million Moms. Part of it's my own history: I lived through the New Left in the '80s, which did more to set the gay movement back than Jerry Falwell could have dreamed of. Their descendants are the ones on the radical left who throw around terms like "cis-gendered" as insults and are quick to take umbrage if every little thing isn't "inclusive" enough. It's the same sort of arrogance and narcissism that you find on the far right, and it really pisses me off, to the extent that my response boils down to "Grow up and get a life." (I should point out that, in my somewhat checkered past, I've known a number of drag queens, trans women, and transvestites -- they're not invisible to me, and never have been.)
As for me, I'm going wait until September and see the movie before I comment on it. I see no point in getting all freaked out by a two-minute trailer. And I doubt very much that I'll be worried about "historical accuracy." I'm much more likely to comment on it's success and failures as a work of art.
2 comments:
Aside from any other concerns (and the points you make are absolutely valid and intelligent, as usual), a theatrical trailer is generally designed to get people interested in seeing a movie; the best way to get people interested is to use scene clips that will appeal to the target audience. I doubt the filmmaker was more than 10% involved in the marketing aspect of the film, which includes creating the trailer. Anyone who doesn't recognize the marketing aspect really shouldn't be jumping up and down hysterically objecting, unless they enjoy showing the rest of the world their intelligence level.
To elaborate a little, this is all because of a trailer, which, as you point out, is targeted -- toward the gay community. It's the trailer for a work of fiction: it's not a documentary, nor does it purport to be a documentary.
I've actually seen comments outlining what Emmerich should have done -- can you guess my reaction, as an artist and writer, to the idea that someone should be dictating what I may create in order to satisfy their egos?
Post a Comment