The Future of Stonewall by Milton Appleby

 

We got the first glimpse of Roland Emmerich’s Stonewall, a movie based on the events that took place in 1969 a couple weeks ago.  The movie’s protagonist is a fictional white male character from the Midwest.  It is the character of Danny that has drawn heavy criticism from many in the LGBT community.  Why tell the story of a historic event form the point of view of a fictional white male character.  Arguments have been made from both sides regarding the trailer.  The director and star have come out in defense of the movie stating that it pays tribute to all those that were key figures in the Stonewall riots. 

A boycott of the movie has been organized due to the lack of visible transgender and minority characters.  This has created a divide amongst those in the LGBT community regarding the accurate telling of a very important historic event.  The Stonewall riots thrusted gay rights into the political forum.  It’s been over 40 years and here we are in 2015 still fighting.  Yes we got marriage equality but that isn’t the end of it.  You can still be fired, discriminated against and denied services for being LGBT.  Homophobia has morphed into a battle over “Religious Freedoms”.  

Why is Stonewall an important story to tell?  Why is accuracy needed?  I’ve tried to remain neutral about the movie so far.  I’ve discussed the various articles and blogs about the movie with my husband.  There was a revelation.  We don’t know much about the Stonewall riots.  Could this be why those against the movie feel the need to tell the story as it was in 1969?  I would say yes.  If members of the LGBT community don’t know much about the riots then it would be a disservice to give a fictional account.  But this movie is not the first to deviate from fact.  There already was a Stonewall movie done in 1995 which also was a fictional retelling of the events.  It failed. 

 

Why is Stonewall an important story to tell?  Why is accuracy needed?  I’ve tried to remain neutral about the movie so far.  I’ve discussed the various articles and blogs about the movie with my husband.  There was a revelation.  We don’t know much about the Stonewall riots.  Could this be why those against the movie feel the need to tell the story as it was in 1969?  I would say yes.  If members of the LGBT community don’t know much about the riots then it would be a disservice to give a fictional account.  But this movie is not the first to deviate from fact.  There already was a Stonewall movie done in 1995 which also was a fictional retelling of the events.  It failed.  

The supporters of the movie state that the director has artistic liberty.  There is no need for accuracy when other movies have been made about historical events that deviate from the true story.  Argo was a very successful movie based on true events.  It won the Academy Award for Best Picture yet it had its detractors.  History can be streamlined to move the story along such as the escape sequence in Argo.  It was more action driven than it really was.  There was no a chase of the Swissair plane down the tarmac as it took off.  There were grumblings about the portrayal of the British government’s willingness to assist with housing the Americans.  In the movie it is shown they were turned away from the British Embassy which of course was not accurate.  Again, for dramatic effect.  And of course there was the director casting himself as Tony Mendez the CIA agent that oversaw the operation.  Mr. Mendez’s ethnic background was Mexican and Caucasian.  I watched Argo twice.  I didn’t know much about the events depicted in Argo yet I enjoyed the movie.  But being the inquisitive person I am I did my research.  I found many inaccuracies about the movie but it didn’t take away from me enjoying it.  Instead I chose to dig deeper and educate myself about the true story.  Could the new Stonewall movie be the catalyst for those who don’t know much about the riots like me to seek out the truth?  Perhaps. 

What’s truly startling is the divide Stonewall has created.  The trailer has been demonized for whitewashing the events.  It is the character of Danny that has created the furor.  I waited to watch the trailer.  I wanted the comments and articles I’ve read to not affect my judgment.  It is a powerful and effective trailer.  Yet I couldn’t help feeling concerned.  Why create fictional characters when there are real people that took part of the events?  Yet the true story of Stonewall seems to vary from who was actually there to who threw the first brick.  There were no smartphones, Facebook, Twitter or YouTube readily available to get real time information or footage.  Reporters didn’t arrive until after 3 hours from the beginning of the riots.  Today we are able to obtain information very quickly that sometimes it comes from bystanders before the media reports it.  As for the representation of the LGBT minorities they were present in the trailer.  The character of Ray had a lot of screen time even alluding to a romantic affair with the protagonist.  His character is Latino.

 

There is one fact you can’t deny is that the majority of visible LGBT people are gay white males.  What’s become a fight for diversity has now become a fight against the cis white gay male.  If the majority of the population was white gay males why eradicate their importance?   Wasn’t their participation crucial to the Stonewall riots and the gay rights movement?  You can’t rewrite history to remove their contributions for the sake of being all inclusive.  The attack against white cis males has created some very destructive rhetoric on both sides   from transphobia to blatant racism.  Reading the arguments you would think we were back in the 60’s.