Social media has been in a tizzy ever since the first trailer for the film Stonewall was released last week. Based on the two-and-a-half minute preview, many people feel the film doesn’t depict enough trans people or people of color, and have accused filmmakers of “whitewashing” the entire gay rights movement. Some have gone so far as to launch personal attacks at director Roland Emmerich on Twitter.
As a result of the fervor, nearly 20,000 people have signed an online petition vowing to boycott the film when it’s released in September, prompting Emmerich to issue a statement asking them to please wait and see the film before passing judgment. The film’s co-writer Jon Rabin Baitz released a similar statement. As did actor Jeremy Irvine, who plays the film’s fictional lead character.
What do you think? Does boycotting a movie about based on its two-and-a-half minute trailer make sense? Or should people wait and see it before getting upset? Sound off in the comments section below.
Glücklich
From here on out I’m boycotting any more Queerty coverage of this fuckin’ movie.
GIVE IT A REST GODDAMMIT!
Peter McKinney
There’s always a reason to bitch.
Jared MacBride
People should definitely be upset about any movie made by the klutz who directed Independence Day and the 1998 Godzilla, two of the worst movies ever made.
Deiter Kunze
Nope
James R Carter
Not at all.
Brian Sherman
It makes perfect sense. Basically they whitewashed LGBT history, and then say it’s a fictional story based on a real event. I really think this was a dumb move. Movie should have been accurate especially considering the history that was made this year. We should be proud of where we came from not trying to hide how it all really began.
Dan Steele
Ah, Americans don’t act stupid enough and blow things up for no reason. Let’s make a movie about it too. Brilliant (sarcasm implied).
meghanada
It doesn’t – not least because the people upset about the movie are sustaining a utterly fake version of the events. Once you keep out from the Tumblrs and Twitters, and read actual scholarly works on the riots, you’ll see that the film’s version of the events – that it was led by young runaway males who, yes, were mostly white, is a lot closer to the truth than the factoid that Black and Latina trans women did everything while male whites cowered in the corner.
meghanada
@Brian Sherman: You have no idea what you’re talking about. Go study before taking up the misinformed outrage of queer activists with an agenda.
David Carter’s “Stonewall: The Riots That Sparked the Gay Revolution”, p. 262.
“My research for this history demonstrates that if we wish to name the group most responsible for the success of the riots, it is the young, homeless homosexuals, and, contrary to the usual characterizations of those on the rebellion’s front lines, most were Caucasian; few were Latino; almost none were transvestites or transsexuals; most were effeminate; and a fair number came from middle-class families.”
Damon Stephen Howze
It was 1969. Think about it. See the film first.
Tebn
1. Honestly, if I am going to watch a movie (or series) I like to see attractive and masculine guys, like Jeremy Irvine. I don’t like to see ugly men or effeminate men in films o series.
2. Besides, if someone doesn’t like this movie because of its approach he could make his own version on the facts.
3. It’s absolutely reprehensible the comments and actions anti-whites and specifically against masculine and cisgender white guys.
Chuck Stevenson
No.
DC Sheehan
dean3000
This gentleman wants to get richer of a very import historical incident and doesn’t have the decency to be accurate. Make no mistake this movie is about making money and nothing else. No one is going to make a movie about Baynard Rustin or James Baldwin anytime soon. Black LGBT do not exist.
Sam Raether
Because whitewashing history isn’t that big of a deal, amirite?
dean3000
@Tebn: I don’t believe anyone could be so shallow. You must be a troll
Loyd Hawkins
No, it makes no sense at all. People who judge an entire movie by a 2 minute trailer are idiots with an agenda. And the agenda seems to be to tell Hollywood to stop making movies about the LGBT experience because some people will irresponsibly call for a boycott before they even see the film. Such intolerance has no place in the LGBT community.
David Quirk
it looks like a bad Michael Jackson video
animaux
@Jared MacBride: Independence Day is an ironic masterpiece.
animaux
@dean3000: A Bayard Rustin movie: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0337902/
Charles Sherwood Morrill
Yea. I have to agree. Pre screenings and leaks should always exist to keep falsehoods and lies away
Jared MacBride
@animaux: For unintended humor it ranks right up there with Ed Wood’s classics.
David Mack
Silly hear Sayers….I heard from someone that said, Blah, Blah, Blah about this person….
Andre Duh Pommier
Would people be upset if they got milk wrong ?What If they got a 21 year old twink to play Harvey milk it’s more about getting the TLGB community history being correct and giving those heroes who were at stonewall the respect and props they deserve for what they did it’s not necessarily about white washing all of history but getting it correct for the future generations that are going to watch this movie and see that courage and bravery are more then meets the eye.
Sebastian Holiday
And shouldn’t be released. The wrong director from the wrong country. Learn your own fucking history.
Victor Barry
Tired of the whining. Why not wait until you see the movie before you fucking complain.
Michael Jarboe
But a bunch of Internet memes said so!!
Kieran
No, it doesn’t make any sense. But whoever said these people are sensible?
Kieran
@Loyd Hawkins: Exactly.
Trae Phillips
I am gonna go see it. Sorry but I am
James Evans
YES
Robert Rupp
We as a community criticize the right for passing judgement on things they haven’t seen. Books they haven’t read , people they don’t know…it’s sad some in our group can be just as narrow minded ….SEE THE MOVIE… Then your opinion will be valid
Chris
Of course it doesn’t make sense; but that doesn’t mean it’s not fun to watch others do so.
Richard Hernandez
YES!!!
Amaurys Arias
Do people know what a trailer is supposed to do… It is pretty obvious who the star and focus of the film is.
blackberry finn
It’s a wonder any films get made at all these days, the PC police seem to have a gripe about everything. However, the above assertion that whites were central players in the Stonewall event is a theory I’ve never heard before. I saw the delightful 90s film “Stonewall” which featured a variety of ethnicities in the main cast. That’s how I’ve always thought of Stonewall, i.e., as having been led by “ethnic” drag queens. Queerty needs to post an interview with a top authority on the subject. Let an expert weigh in so we can try to set the record straight.
MJ Silva
No. You’re right. Because movie trailers always focus on the least significant roles and subplots. :-/
David Jarrett
This PC dribble is all over the internet. See the film FIRST before you open your mouth !!! I definitely plan to see the film.
David Comfort
Before making accusations that it is historically inaccurate, you might want to do a little research into the Stonewall Uprising. There were not any particular people “leading” the riots, although it was primarily drag queens, homeless gay youth (who from the few photographs and video footage available of Stonewall, appear to be mostly white), and transgender people- people really at the margins of society.
The main character is a young gay man (who happens to white) who is forced to leave his home in Kansas, ventures to the one place where he thinks he might be accepted (New York), and is taken in by a bunch of other homeless young people. Seems pretty historically accurate to me.
The riots were a broad cross-section of LGBT people – white gay men, lesbians, and people of color, drag queens, and transgender people. To state it was just one group of people is just not historically accurate. From what little one can fathom from a 2 minute trailer, it appears that the cast is pretty diverse. If anything, it appears that white drag queens played a larger role in the riots than the film portrays but one cannot really tell until the movie is released.
I think the boycott is pretty misplaced. There are very few mainstream LGBT movies and to call for the boycott of a movie which portrays the events which led to the modern LGBT movement based upon a two-minute trailer and upon the fact that the main character is a fictionalized white gay male (based upon people who actually played a major role in the Stonewall riots – homeless kids) is just plain wrong.
It seems petty to focus on who threw the first brick. It is unlikely that we will ever know. What is important is that gay bars (one of the few places that LGBT people could be themselves) in New York were being raided by the police constantly and this was one of the first times that people fought back against the harassment and against the police. And, of course, it immediately led to the first Pride March.
The definitive account of the Stonewall Uprising is “Stonewall: The Riots That Sparked the Gay Revolution” by David Carter http://www.amazon.com/Stonewall-Riots-That-Sparked-Revolution/dp/0312671938/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1439220141&sr=8-1&keywords=stonewall
Also, there is really good documentary called Stone Uprising, which you can stream http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00EDG3GQ2/ref=dv_dp_ep7
P.S. African American drag queen and gay liberation activist Marsha P. Johnson was one of the first people to fight back in the Stonewall Riots and is portrayed in the movie. However, Sylvia Rivera, a Latina drag queen and transgender activist appears to have fabricated her involvement in the Stonewall riots, although she later co-founded (along with Marsha P. Johnson) the Street Transvestite Action Revolutionaries (STAR), a group dedicated to helping homeless young drag queens and trans women of color. (http://gaytoday.com/interview/070104in.asp)
MarionPaige
I did work for a film distribution company and saw that films from major movie companies are sold to other markets and tv/cable before they are released to theaters (some times movies are sold before they are made – as with the first Sex and The City movie’s productioin being financed by the pre-sale of the European rights to the movie).
I don’t know what people get out of declaring movies bombs or hits or with people trying to lead boycotts of movies but, MORE LIKELY THAN NOT, the Stonewall movie has already been sold to foreign markets and tv/cable properties around the world and has already made money.
martinbakman
Being concerned is one thing but passing judgment before the release isn’t fair.
Reminds me of the reaction to I Am Michael, before its release.
On the other hand, sometimes it’s said that bad publicity is be better than no publicity.
Bill Hohn
I think people should just pick away at every attempt by gay artists to put positive gay images, or music, or TV characters before the world until they’ve shredded that project or actor or writer until no one will fund any future projects. But go ahead, in the name of your outrage and self inflated egos bash away. Watch the first Stonewall film, watch the documentaries done on that incident and how it changed the ongoing conversation around gay liberation and civil rights. Perhaps the mistake was trying to make a gay holiday out of it.
Avery Alvarez
What can you say?
We live in an outrage culture.
Didn’t you guys notice? Everything today is either sin, racism, sexism, homophobia, transmisogyny, immoral, problematic etc…
Nobody thinks the world is fair to them. Many people don’t want to work towards fairness. They want to complain, and attack other people, and hope someone else does something.
It’s the new activism. While the diverse crowd that gathered at Stonewall during that important part of history were real activists, the modern day activist sits behind a computer and complains, and considers him/her self an accomplished hero for this.
Being indifferent was once the trend. Now, it’s complaining, and being offended and outraged, at anything, at everything!
Clouds in the sky are white! – that’s racism! I demand black trans representation among clouds!
People say “Happy holidays” instead of “marry christmas” – There’s a war on Christianity!
Whatever…
Avery Alvarez
I also wanted to point out, I was just on Gay star news, and they have an article about how in Russia, a bus stop is being criticized for being too “gay”
So I guess the outrage culture isn’t just a Western phenomenon.
And it’s just as ridiculous no matter where in the world you go.
onthemark
Does It Make Sense To Get Upset Over A Movie Like “Stonewall” That Hasn’t Even Been Released Yet?
No! We should go back to bitching about “Looking”!
onthemark
@Avery Alvarez: We’re all lucky that “social media” wasn’t invented yet in 1969. Everyone at Stonewall would have been too busy with their phones to throw anything.
UltimateSin
There is an easy fix for this solution. When the movie comes out someone should simply pirate it and upload it online for other people to see and then if everyone is wrong about the whitewashing then if you feel I could spend money on film.
patricklee5150
Any of you who are so against this movie even alive back then? No, I bet not. I was and this trailer looks very much like it was back then! I don’t know what the hell is wrong with people. How the hell can anyone consider this (trailer of this) film as “whitewashing” what happened? I remember we stood up and pushed back against police oppression just like the movie portrays.
patricklee5150
@Bill Hohn: well said. Thank you.
Finrod
Obviously trans people and people of color should just stop being so uppity, right?
The trailer is a piece of propaganda in its own right, like every other film trailer. It makes a statement. So even if the film is perfectly fine, it’s completely appropriate to protest the racism and transphobia inherent in a trailer that can’t portray gay history without creating an imaginary white boy to make it more comfortable for bigots.
Cam
@Finrod:
Except for the fact that none of the Trans Activists can say exactly HOW the film has changed history, because they are lying.
They tried to claim that Sylvia Rivera was one of the leaders of Stonewall, then freaked out and backed off when witnesses put her far away from the events. Then they tried to claim Marsha Johnson was the instigator, except, Oooops, actually multiple witnesses said that it wasn’t her but a black lesbian named Storme who actually threw the first punch.
What is going on here is what always goes on, the trans community activists hate LGB’s and will always attack anything that has to do with them, they hate lesbians and therefore couldn’t allow the truth of a lesbian throwing the first punch to not be attacked.
Remember Parker Molloy attacking RuPaul? The trans communmity totally backed her, up, but then, ooops, she went crazy and insulted another Trans activist. THEN they attacked her, and she was fired. But as long as she was attacking somebody gay they were all for it.
Same here, real history and witness accounts back up Storme being the one who threw the first punch, but you won’t see them admitting that. Why are they so rac-ist and anti-lesbian?
SeeingAll
The cast of this film, if we go by the trailer, matches up to the Stonewall rioters 100 percent. Mostly white males, hippie types, some more conservative-looking white male types, some African-Americans, some very effeminate white males, a few Hispanics, and a few drag queens. I defy anyone to look at the photos from 1969 of the actual riots and deny this. So any of you who want to change history and add a bunch of types who weren’t there can take a flying leap.
SeeingAll
@SeeingAll: And a few butchier-type lesbians (sorry for the omission).
MINTCREAM
It’s only not a big deal to white dudes. They benefit from the erasure of others. This film puts transwomen of color, drag queens, butch lesbians who were at the forefront of the movement to the margins of the story instead of at the center. We know this because the protagonist is a white cis dude named Danny from Kansas. And the backlash is because people are smart, we know better and we are sick of this sh*t
MINTCREAM
@Robert Rupp: we don’t need to see the movie to be turned off by the fact that once again the historical movement front lined by the marginalized transwomen of color, drag queens and butch lesbians is being told from the point of view of a fictional white dude who wasn’t even there…AGAIN. Every documentary and eye witness account puts transwomen of color and butch lesbians at the forefront of the movement, they should not be side characters in their own fucking story. A movie about stonewall has no reason to be centered around a white dude from Kansas it should be centered around the incredible people who are at the forefront. Next year a white Hollywood director will do a film about the civil rights movement and Martin Luther King, Malcom X and Rosa Parks will all be extras and the lead will be Zac Efron and somewhere there will be white dudes defending it, mark my words
richard s
@MINTCREAM: ummm…you need to chill out on allof your resentment bullsh*t. And maybe you need to study up on the events of that night and study up on making movies. You really sound out of the loop. I dont think white cis men are the problem.
Avery Alvarez
“Next year a white Hollywood director will do a film about the civil rights movement and Martin Luther King, Malcom X and Rosa Parks will all be extras and the lead will be Zac Efron”
With all due respect, this is a hysterical and histrionic assertion. It’s not even good as sarcasm.
Those movements were specifically about POC. If you’re going to compare two things, they have to be alike a more than one or two points. So your comparison fails. Please go to the Wikipedia article on Comparison, analogy. I wish more people would. Turns out, you can’t just compare any two things you dont’ like.
Stonewall was not about POC. It wasn’t about drag queens. It wasn’t about white gay men, or lesbians. It was about all of them, and others. Many others. The whole LGBT community. The whole community should be the star. I hope the movie focuses on the sense of community between that diverse group of people from very different backgrounds held. That would be inspiring. That sense of community seems to be missing today.
Trying to erase that white gay men (or any other group) were part of STonewall is no way to elevate other groups. Trying to reduce their part to “cheering on the sidelines while others did the real work” isn’t any way to honor Marsha, or anyone else. It’s just downright spiteful.
Can you stand up for your struggle without having to diminish other people’s struggle? Can you get ahead without having to stab others in the back? I’m sure many here and elsewhere would be more likely to listen if you didn’t’ start by putting them down or discounting their experiences.
Avery Alvarez
@MINTCREAM: My previous comment was directed at you.
SarcasaticMisanthrope
We are doing to ourselves what the xtians and homophobes want. Attacking from the inside.
PC activism has gone plain loco. People also forget that the death of Judy Garland was one of many catalysts for the uprising. I give up trying to be part of the so called “community”. As I’ve said before there is no community. Just a bunch of disparate groups bitching at each other.
wpewen
I am 57 and the little I know of Stonewall tells me this film is done all wrong. Forget that it’s a white guy in the lead-I just saw a name and he looks like a KID. This photo looks like a musical or something. The reality is the story is gritty. I saw Harvey Milk once in late 70’s SF, the Milk film is very realistic about what the whole scene was. This Stonewall film is scary, regardless of what both sides may be saying. Weird.
Transiteer
You usually wait to see the movie, before trashing it. Trashing it before it opens just looks like a bunch of bitchy queens having a rag fest.
Sluggo2007
Would there me this much whining if it starred Jaden Smith or Tyson Beckford? I think not.
digreene3
I feel like everyone is neglecting the fact that this is the director of 2012 and other disaster films
JPDonahue
I love how about 90% of the comments refuse to address or answer the question the article asks.
No. One should not judge the movie based on a two minute trailer. Nor should they judge it based on what others say when it is released.
Their “opinions” will only be valid when they SEE the movie.
Just like one should not judge the people here, or decide who they are, based on their short, seemingly ignorant comments.
Having known Marsha P Johnson, who IS in the movie, she would be excited to be depicted in the movie and telling everyone to see it. Because that’s how Marsha rolled. She was ALL positive attitude. She would be sad at how nasty and negative her queer world has become.
helio
I’ll watch the film and then make my judgement.
I think though that this reaction to the trailer is understandable. I think there has been, for years an undercurrent of discontentment in the lgbtq community regarding representation and diversity in leadership . It bubbled up previously in the reviews of the series Looking, regarding race representation, it appeared in the Pittsburg pride. We have an issue that we have not discussed and we do not want to face, and the will surface more and more the more liberties we attain: we suffer from the same type of inequalities in representation than society at large.
animaux
@Jared MacBride: It ironically makes fun of American jingoism. Of course, as an American, you can’t detect irony. In the US Independence Day is a sci-fi drama. In the rest of the world it’s a comedy, as the German director intended.
stranded
I can understand the people who are tired of this “scandal.” But i think the larger message to hollywood is stop white washing our movies. I shouldn’t have to see a Spike Lee movie to find a minority actor as the main character. Every major hollywood movie is still predominately centered around white main characters. This movie is getting the brunt of this criticism because of the perceived white washing of history. The trailer highlighted what was presented as the main character, a good looking white male. Everyone involved in the film has been saying how this is an ensemble and though Danny starts the narrative of the story (small town kid moving to New York City) the movie expands beyond his story. If that was true, they should have showed that. Personally speaking, the prices of movies is ridiculous and i though i love watching movies, i don’t go to the theater very often. So I’ve become very critical of what i see. This movie doesn’t make the cut for me, not for controversy, it just seems like a very general predictable movie. That isn’t to say it won’t be good. It might not be a masterpiece, but it might be fun to watch. I like the criticism towards the choice to go with a white male lead, but i would hope this message would go towards more movies. I would hate for producers and directors to be afraid of making gay and lesbian movies.
jimmycurry01
@Brian Sherman: how do you know it has been whitewashed? Because Stu in marketing put together a trailer to sell the film to white boys? I don’t know if you have noticed, but trailers dint often depict much of the final product. They only tease just enough to sell it to a specific audience. Sometimes, multiple trailers are made in order to gain the attention of different audiences. You know absolutely nothing until you see this.
Streamciter
No, it’s not understandable or justifiable. The film features all the different types/groups of people there. That it follows the fictional story of an abused gay teen thrown out of his home and living on the streets should not be offensive. The homeless gay youth of the world deserve inclusion and representation, not hate from people who insist that they are the most oppressed people in the world.