Stonewall- Page 2

[PalJoey]

Posted: 8/6/15 at 10:47am

Marsha, not Martha

[Lavieboheme3090]

Posted: 8/6/15 at 10:53am

It's just a little lame that they had to make up a character to be the films main protagonist. 

[PalJoey]

Posted: 8/6/15 at 10:56am

Actually, that's done often in literature.

[Lavieboheme3090]

Posted: 8/6/15 at 11:01am

"I hope the exchange below is a useful part of the discussion around the marketing, and making of Stonewall, which is being decried by many who have not or will not see it based on a trailer (sigh), which I saw only when others did, online. I have tremendous respect for Roland Emmerich, for producing and directing and paying for a movie which no studio would give a cent to. Including the studios he has made a great deal of money for. I admire his reach and ambition, and his intentions, which are utterly uncynical, totally honorable. His film making skills are realized here to a degree we have not seen before, and his sole goal was to honor the heroes of that time. AND I also have tremendous empathy for those who think they are being erased, removed and made once more invisible. I really do not think that's what this movie is, and as I say below, I could be blind, because when you make a film, the chaos, the uncertainty, the conditions 'on the ground' can lead to a kind of 'snow blindness' to use an ironic phrase. But such an erasure would be heart breaking to me, as a man of principle, who tries to grow wiser and broader in my vision of what the world should be. The movie is about an awakening, one young man's awakening to the reality of what it means to be 'the other'. It is not the definitive story of a revolution; that film has yet to be made - but its a humanist's dramatization of how the disenfranchised are empowered by rage, and it traces a point in an arc towards justice that began with the Mattachine Society, continued through the bravery of a group of psychiatrists who refused to accept the pathologizing of homosexuality, and continues today with the fight for marriage equality and is now starting to focus on trans rights. It's a point on an arc, a moment, a story -- the prejudgements are understandable to me, and there's not much I can do except be honest about my role in making the movie, and our intentions. I don't think the film needs defending, really, but I am reminded of Jesse Jackson's words, when reflecting on some of his mistakes: To quote: -- "My head - so limited in its finitude; my heart, which is boundless in its love for the human family. I am not a perfect servant. I am a public servant doing my best against the odds. As I develop and serve, be patient. God is not finished with me yet..." I stand before people who are angered by a film they have yet to see, and ask that their open hearts allow that the film be judged on its own merits, and not by the demands of a marketing department, because marketing is based entirely in fear, whereas art is based in rage and hope and fire. American film (sigh) somewhere in between - nervously shifting its weight between commerce and something greater, and stumbling all the time."

Jon Robin Baitz posted that on Facebook. 

That puts things into more perceptive, the movie isn't about the history of Stonewall, it is about an outsider coming to NYC. That makes sense I guess, that just means the movie a lot of people are waiting for has yet to be made. 

And sure it's done in literature, and movies all the time, but as we can see from Baitz's commentary on the piece it's a film about ideas as opposed to history. 

[brdway411]

Posted: 8/6/15 at 11:04am

Hubby and I were out last night with a Stonewall vet and some friends... they think the movie looks cheesy at best. They have said and I tend to agree that the first film is a better account of what really happened. And YES her name was Marsha (great person). 

Updated On: 8/6/15 at 11:04 AM

[theatregoer3]

Posted: 8/10/15 at 6:19pm

Larry Kramer wants us to see it:

http://www.out.com/popnography/2015/8/10/larry-kramer-stonewall-filmmaker-dont-listen-crazies

 

[sklabam]

Posted: 8/10/15 at 9:40pm

and when you grow up and make your first movie, you may decide all by yourself where you shoot it.

- Bubby

[NoName3]

Posted: 8/11/15 at 12:48am

"According to Hollywood logic, none of the actual Titanic passengers was interesting enough, so the writer-director had to invent a Romeo and Juliet style couple to heat up the catastrophe. This seems a tiny bit like giving Anne Frank a wacky best friend to perk up that attic."

-- Paul Rudnick, writing as Libby Gelman-Wexner, on James Cameron's Titanic

[Charley Kringas Inc]

Posted: 8/11/15 at 2:24pm

Looks like a nice film to make straight people feel good about themselves.

[Luscious]

Posted: 8/11/15 at 5:08pm

Looks like Marsha P. Johnson will be represented after all. Encouraging.

 

From Jeremy Irvine's Instagram account...

 

To anyone with concerns about the diversity of the #StonewallMovie. I saw the movie for the first time last week and can assure you all that it represents almost every race and section of society that was so fundamental to one of the most important civil rights movements in living history. Marsha P Johnson is a major part of the movie, and although first hand accounts of who threw the first brick in the riots vary wildly, it is a fictional black transvestite character played by the very talented @vlad_alexis who pulls out the first brick in the riot scenes. My character is adopted by a group of street kids whilst sleeping rough in New York. In my opinion, the story is driven by the leader of this gang played by @jonnybeauchamp who gives an extraordinary performance as a Puerto Rican transvestite struggling to survive on the streets. Jonathan Rhys Meyers' character represents the Mattachine Society, who were at the time a mostly white and middle class gay rights group who stood against violence and radicalism. I felt incredibly nervous taking on this role knowing how important the subject matter is to so many people but Roland Emmerich is one of the most sensitive and heartfelt directors I've worked with and I hope that, as an ensemble, we have not only done such an important story justice but also made a good movie as well. Jeremy

Updated On: 8/11/15 at 05:08 PM

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 9/22/15 at 2:36pm

Currently at 11% on Rotten Tomatoes. 

[ClydeBarrow]

Posted: 9/22/15 at 2:43pm

Hilarious review by Richard Lawson.

[newintown]

Posted: 9/22/15 at 3:24pm

That is a terrific review, a fun read.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 9/22/15 at 9:13pm

"You have to understand one thing: I didn’t make this movie only for gay people, I made it also for straight people,” he 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.”

 

Director Roland Emmerich Discusses “Stonewall” Controversy

[Wilmingtom]

Posted: 9/22/15 at 10:36pm

Emmerich's film doesn't pretend to be a documentary.  If that's what you're looking for I suggest Kate Davis and David Heilbroner’s valuable 2010 film, "Stonewall Uprising.”  But I find it a little unfair to hold Emmerich to the standards of a genre he isn't working in, especially since virtually no one has seen the picture yet.  

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 9/23/15 at 10:11am

No one suggested they thought he was making a documentary.

Your knee-jerk response was inevitable, though, I suppose.  

[Kad]

Posted: 9/23/15 at 10:26am

So not making a documentary depiction of historical events frees you from the responsibility of accuracy. Great. I'll get right to work on a screenplay about Jimmy Schmidt, the tastefully attractive, All-American white boy who is kicked out of his home by his racist father and goes on to write MLK's "I Have a Dream" speech.

Updated On: 9/23/15 at 10:26 AM

[newintown]

Posted: 9/23/15 at 10:27am

Exactly. Wilmingtom, the point being made is not that anyone expects a documentary from rich/shallow/white Emmerich; it's that, if you want to fictionalize a real event, then fictionalize it so that it's MORE interesting than the reality, not less.

 

Putting a generically pretty, white, "straight-acting," All-American boy at the center of an event that was mostly about the anger of the more disenfranchised (femmes, drag queens, butches, and gay men/lesbians of color) is facile and bourgeois.

 

Of course, the same could be said, I suppose, for the sentimental whitewashing of the stories of such eccentric and troubled people as Daisy & Violet Hilton, Maria von Trapp, Anna Leonowens, etc...

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 9/23/15 at 10:37am

I liked this response:

[haterobics]

Posted: 9/23/15 at 11:02am

The irony is that a Stonewall movie with a white protagonist isn't even new, so this is technically a remake. But no social media then, so they got away with more:

 

[Charley Kringas Inc]

Posted: 9/23/15 at 12:14pm

"It's not a documentary" isn't an excuse that should fly anymore. For over a century, Hollywood has been focusing almost exclusively on the stories of white straight men, and there are other people out there who deserve to have their stories heard too. Stonewall was a real thing, with real people, with real stories to tell, and it's completely unacceptable that their stories couldn't be told without a "socially acceptable" stand-in.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 9/23/15 at 12:22pm

Hashtag: that awkward moment when our prejudices are right

 

Hashtag: that familiar moment when Larry Kramer is wrong but shouts it real loud, headbanned-style

Updated On: 9/23/15 at 12:22 PM

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 9/23/15 at 12:29pm

 

Reg, that picture is terrific.  I'm sharing it on FB.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 9/23/15 at 2:19pm

 

There's another similar meme with Rosa Parks at the front of the bus. 

EDIT: Oh, right! It's YOURS!

 

Updated On: 9/23/15 at 02:19 PM

[Fantod]

Posted: 9/23/15 at 2:26pm

Illegal Meme Dream Team