When We Rise

Posted: 2/28/17 at 12:50pm

Anyone catch it last night?  I'll have to see it On Demand tonight

[Tag]

Posted: 2/28/17 at 2:40pm

Only watched for a second.  It feels like this would have been more relevant/timely to watch 2-5 years ago.  In the midst of Prop 8 and then marriage equality passing.

[bwaylyric]

Posted: 2/28/17 at 4:33pm

It was great to see Emily Skeggs, but I wish she were performing on stage and not in this bore.

[John Adams]

Posted: 3/1/17 at 10:35am

So far, I'm very disappointed. This is like the This is Us version of Gay history, with superficially stereotyped characters that perform a script consisting of strung-together scenes that prey on the viewers' willingness to be emotionally manipulated. This is a CliffsNotes version of Gay history that makes it seem as if most victories were attained as a result of a fictional character's 'stirring' monolog. This show also borrows This is Us' hook of "Surprise! See who these characters turn out to be?"

I'm very disappointed that in the first episode, Harvey Milk's role in Gay history was briefly hinted at by on onscreen shot of a flier at the end of the episode, but by the time the preview for tonight's episode (shown only a few minutes later) was over, he was dead.

I hate that both of the Gay male leading roles are Judases (in one scene, I was literally waiting to hear the****crow...), and that with the exception of the Roma character (who is still coming to terms with her sexuality in the first episode), all Lesbians hate men.

This depiction of our history is far too condensed, superficial, and fictionally/emotionally manipulated for my tastes. (Can you tell I'm not a fan?)

[FrankieSay]

Posted: 3/1/17 at 5:24pm

Loved it. Never thought I'd see the day that Mama Jose was depicted on a major broadcast television network in the United States. Very much looking forward to tonight's chapter (and feeling pretty secure in the knowledge that Harvey Milk will not be glossed over since Cleve Jones is one of the characters that gives us access to the story; I guess I'm more patient than some people when I know there are six more hours to go).

 

I'm sorry Trump interrupted the flow it would have had over four nights with his campaign speech last night.

[ACL2006]

Posted: 3/1/17 at 5:52pm

tried to watch this, but after 45 minutes I just couldn't watch anymore.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 3/1/17 at 8:16pm

Awww...disappointed at the disappointment.  I am dvr-it, but don't know when I'll be able to sit and watch.  It has suddenly slipped further down the waiting list.

[Jane2]

Posted: 3/1/17 at 9:13pm

I've only been watching because of Emily Skeggs but even she's a disappointment.

And ew, couldn't they get anyone better to play Sylvester?

[FrankieSay]

Posted: 3/1/17 at 9:57pm

It's just my opinion but part 2 of this historical television event is remarkable.

 

Seems to me people rushed to judge without seeing 1/4 of the show and I'm unsure why?  To be the first to say something is no good?

 

Skegg's performance in part 2 has been excellent. The strange concerns that Harvey Milk was only touched upon by the end of part 1 have, as expected, been addressed.

 

Nothing like this has ever been on TV.  I realize these are dark times for most thinking people, but maybe that darkness is clouding the hope on display and being transmitted, from our past to our present.

[Wilmingtom]

Posted: 3/1/17 at 10:15pm

John Adams opines, "This depiction of our history is far too condensed, superficial, and fictionally/emotionally manipulated for my tastes."

How would you propose covering 40 years of social history in 8 hours of television if not condensing it?  And fictional, yes.  It doesn't claim to be a documentary, of which there are plenty.  Personally I'm not crazy for it but not for the reasons you cite.  I find it somewhat meandering and unfocused but its heart is in the right place.  That this story is being told on primetime television says something extraordinary about gay awareness in this country.

 

Updated On: 3/1/17 at 10:15 PM

[dramamama611]

Posted: 3/2/17 at 7:32am

FrankieSay said: "It's just my opinion but part 2 of this historical television event is remarkable.

 

Seems to me people rushed to judge without seeing 1/4 of the show and I'm unsure why?  To be the first to say something is no good?

 

Skegg's performance in part 2 has been excellent. The strange concerns that Harvey Milk was only touched upon by the end of part 1 have, as expected, been addressed.

 

Nothing like this has ever been on TV.  I realize these are dark times for most thinking people, but maybe that darkness is clouding the hope on display and being transmitted, from our past to our present.

 

"

Or, you know, they just didn't care for it and chose to not continue to invest their time.  If you watch a pilot and don't care for it, do you watch the entire season "just in case"?

[newintown]

Posted: 3/3/17 at 7:52am

The first 30 minutes was nothing but the usual string of tired clichés, so I'm surprised it isn't more popular. (We gave up after 30 minutes.)

[John Adams]

Posted: 3/3/17 at 8:34am

Wilmingtom said: "How would you propose covering 40 years of social history in 8 hours of television if not condensing it? "

I wonder if Black's screenplay would be different if he'd written it after Jones had completed his book (as opposed to the simultaneous production of each). Black's screenplay is only partially based on Jones' book. Some elements are intact (for example, I liked the scene that lead to the line, "It's like a quilt", but (IMO) the depth of Jones' connections to these historical events and people is missing.

For example, Jones' recollections of Harvey Milk as a mentor, and especially what it was like to be the first to discover his body are vivid and stirring. In Black's version, Milk is mostly represented by a pair of shoes (as opposed to being a physical presence). Black's screenplay gives more focus to Dan White's and Jones' interactions - they have actual screen time and dialog together. In Black's screenplay, Harvey Milk is an intangible character. We are shown his shoes more than the man himself. He is spoken about by Jones, but not with.

Some of the intangibility comes from the choice to not represent Milk with an actor (except for a few shots where we see the back of Milk from a distance), but to use actual footage of him instead. Part of me finds that very respectful, but at the same time, the connection between Milk and Jones gets lost due to the inability to show any interaction between the two.

Did you get to see the 1-hour special that aired before last night's third installment? For me, I got more information about who these people really are, their connections to each other, and their roles in history within that one hour than I am getting from watching these several hours of mini-series.

Updated On: 3/3/17 at 08:34 AM

[brdlwyr]

Posted: 3/3/17 at 11:15am

I am enjoying it! I had only vague historical memory of most events! 

[kdogg36]

Posted: 3/3/17 at 12:01pm

I also am enjoying it. But I missed the first hour or so that seems to have turned off a few people here. :)

[Jane2]

Posted: 3/3/17 at 12:38pm

The AIDS quilt was interesting to me. My friends and I made a giant sized panel, memorializing eight of our dear friends. We had weekly quilting parties and it was so fulfilling, talking about our departed friends, laughing and crying with the memories. Our panel was made from sewing, painting, and photographs.

When the Quilt committee came to our opening reception in NY, to take the quilt back to DC, we were given the quilt books as a memory.

If I can find  a photo of our panel, I'd like to post it.

[Jane2]

Posted: 3/3/17 at 2:28pm

This is our panel. It was quite large, about the size of four regular ones. The painting in the center is the home on Fire Island Pines, owned by one of our friends, where we all hung out.

Updated On: 3/3/17 at 02:28 PM

[Luscious]

Posted: 3/3/17 at 3:08pm

Beautiful quilt panel, Jane2! 

I think many here are being a bit too blase and dismissive of this mini-series. I can remember a time not that long ago when two men sitting upright in a shared bed was considered controversial, with sponsors pulling their ads and local stations refusing to air the episode. The show was Thirtysomething, by the way, in the late 80's/early 90's. Yes, I know that cable television has been giving us shows like Queer As Folk and Angeles in America for quite some time. But the fact that this was produced by ABC and is being shown on prime-time network television is truly a long overdue milestone. It's far from perfect, but I appreciate the effort and am enjoying it, nonetheless.

[Jane2]

Posted: 3/3/17 at 3:19pm

Thanks Luscious. You know, it's a shame that we have to be grateful for something so overdue - something that should never had been an issue to begin with.

[Luscious]

Posted: 3/3/17 at 3:49pm

Jane2 said: "Thanks Luscious. You know, it's a shame that we have to be grateful for something so overdue - something that should never had been an issue to begin with."

I agree completely, Jane. But I'm glad to have lived long enough to see it happen. With names like Dustin Lance Black and Gus Van Sant attached, I'm sure they could have taken it to HBO or SHOWTIME, etc., where they would have had more creative freedom, and it would have been snatched up in a heartbeat. But what makes it important is that it's being shown on network television, where it will reach millions more than had it been shown on pay cable. I also think the message that we're stronger when we stand together, and through protest and civil disobedience CAN effect change, is an important and timely one. With something this ambitious - trying to cover 40 plus years in 8 hours - I suppose the most one can hope for is that it peaks the curiosity and interest of a good number of people, especially youngsters, to delve deeper into our rich gay history.

[FrankieSay]

Posted: 3/3/17 at 4:08pm

I was trying to say what you said but ended up getting skooled by dramamamama.

[SmoothLover]

Posted: 3/4/17 at 3:29am

After reading the posts on here I half way expected to be a little disappointed but I just finished the first night and thought the performances of the main three actors were appealing and earnest. I viewed it more as three intersecting stories during the rise of the gay movement and not so much as a miniseries about the gay movement. I thought the themes were universal and very relevant to the times we are now living in. I am around the same age as Jones so I experienced the decades represented in much the same way and in doing so I found myself engaged in the story lines.  And I also find it thrilling that ABC devoted four nights to the project. I do not think the script is perfect and I think the commercials break the flow but overall I would give it a solid B.

 

PS I do not know how much of it was filmed in SF but it seems like they could have done more location work to enhance authenticity.

 

 

Updated On: 3/4/17 at 03:29 AM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 3/15/17 at 11:16pm

 

I thought it was a monumental achievement. It brought back so much. Those of us who lived through it lived through a war--several wars, actually. I don't wish the deaths on any of you, but I am sorry, as Cleve Jones says, that you are growing up with so little purpose.

So, as Cleve also says, what are you going to do about it?

 

[PalJoey]

Posted: 3/15/17 at 11:17pm

And thank you for posting your quilt, Jane.

And thank you for making it.

 

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 3/15/17 at 11:36pm

Lovely quilt pic Jane, thanks for sharing. 

I enjoyed it, I thought the first 4 episodes were much better than the last 4, but all in all it was a nice watch and a pretty risky (for Network) move. It wasn't perfect but it wasn't bad at all.